If you've ever spent five minutes on Metal Sludge, you understand the title of this article. If not, then "scab" basically means "not authentic" or "replacement."
I swear, every thread over there these days mentions "scab" members. Look, I'd rather see an original lineup of a band too, but sometimes that isn't an option. I'm not sure it's fair to brand replacement members as "scabs."
If you think about it, very few bands that we love have the original members. Sure, Motley Crue is made up of the original guys, but they had different members in the past. Same for Aerosmith. Look at Van Halen. Is Wolfgang Van Halen a "scab?" I'm not sure. He's got the right surname, so he won the job. That also means he's probably not going anywhere and the chances of Michael Anthony coming back are pretty slim.
So, Crashdiet is on singer number three. Pretty Boy Floyd has had more members than I can even list. Same with Guns n' Roses. The list goes on and on.
Does it matter?
Put it this way: if a member leaves and is replaced, it's a little sad but we still get to hear the songs we love performed live. Sure, there are times the entire dichotomy of the band is ruined. Poison is a great example of this...and yet, that band kept on until C.C. DeVille came back. Of course, the time he was gone from the band has been basically "erased," which is also unfortunate.
The hardest member to replace is the lead singer, just because a person's voice becomes signature to a song. I happen to quite enjoy the 1994 self-titled Motley Crue release with John Corabi, but a lot of people do not share my view. Still, I don't think it's very fair to call Corabi a "scab."
So, to bring all this full circle, Bonham is going to play a few gigs. That's right: Bonham. As in, The Disregard of Timekeeping - Bonham. The original singer is dead, but the short run is billed as a tribute to Daniel MacMaster. So, is this considered a "scab" situation?
What do you think? Is it fair to deem replacement band members as scabs?