Can a Band Live on with Only the Lead Singer?

Its a question I am posing because Chinese Democracy is finally coming out. Guns N Roses today is really just Axl Rose with session band members. So the question is, can the name "Guns N Roses" live on with just the lead singer?

This causes you to ponder the importance of each person in a band. Is the lead singer the most important and only member needed to ensure the survival of the entire band's image? Does it matter who plays the drums or the guitars? Before you answer, consider these questions...

What would Guns N Roses be with only Axl Rose? Answer: What we have today. But is this Guns N Roses?

What would the original/semi-original Guns N Roses band members be without Axl Rose? Answer: Velvet Revolver. But are they Guns N Roses? Most, I believe, would say no. This begs the question, what is Velvet Revolver without Scott Weiland?

What if Metallica disbanded yet Hetfield kept playing under the name "Metallica" with new band members? Would his voice still be identified as Metallica?

What if a Guitarist is replaced but the rest of the band remains intact? This already happend with Metallica very early on. Is this still the same band? Could they go by the same name? Metallica has.

Obviously, a band is not the same when it loses all of the members of it original lineup. But when the lead singer carries on under the band's moniker, what do you have? Some would argue that the most identifiable characteristic of a band is its lead singer's vocals. So does this make the lead singer more valuable than the rest of the band? What then would you say about Van Halen?

Let the comments begin!