Is a Band Without Its Original Members Still the Same Band?

I concur on all the Perry stuff!

Is it the same band if the singers voice leaves?

I concur on all the Perry stuff!

Is it the same band if the singers voice leaves?

Oh, definitely still Pink Floyd - even after Rog walks. Same with New Order and Hooky. But, I do feel like Hooky is guardian of the JD sound and remembers it in a way that Barney doesn't.

I was thinking of bands like Jane's, The Who etc. where the singer is still in the band but can't hit any of the notes and is forcing the band to tune down so far the songs can't sound the same..

It sort of depends on whether that particular voice is the band's "signature" I think.
The Sisters' "signature" is without a doubt Von (although some would argue it's the Doktor).
The Cure's is Bob.
The Banshees' was Sioux
The Furs. Butler

If you remove the "signature" component I think it ceases to be the same band.
Quite a good example is Joy Division.
Could Barney & co have continued under what, by then, was an established name?

Depends on how many & which members change. Just as an example, the Stones touring with no Charlie Watts are getting close to the edge. Closer than if Ron Wood left. They survived Bill Wyman leaving fine but if Mick or Keith packed it in it wouldn't be the Stones to me. I'm told that their contracts with promoters reflect that. Same with the Who. While it sucks John Entwistle & Keith Moon are no longer with us, it's still the Who with Pete Townshend & Roger Daltrey. If either one of them were to go, that would be the end. Some of this stuff gets ridiculous such as the current touring lineup of Foreigner has no original members. They're a cover band in my eyes. With the Cure, the only key member is Robert to me. While I'm a huge Reeves Gabrels fan it wouldn't be the end if he left. A little detour: I want the damn new record with Reeves on it!!!!!!!