Does a lead singer make a band?

[Vicious Robbie]

I couldn't help myself and had to open up this thread after this was brought up elsewhere. The question is: if your lead singer leaves and is replaced, is it still the same band? There are some that believe that once the lead singer is replaced, it's not the same band anymore while others stand by the fact that there have been changes in that position with many bands and yet they are able to move on and continue to put out quality material. Let's see where this takes us

 

[Wyvern]

Depend on the band. I was telling Matt exactly my viewpoint about some bands in another thread http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/old-school/531356-black-gives-way-blue.html#post8588441.

I can agree with him and others than Judas Priest without Halford is not the same. But consider this:

a) Owens is a great vocalist but he suffered from bad composition from Tipton, what would have be if the composition had been like in "Painkiller"?
b) Halford is back and look at his performance live, not to mention "Nostradamus"

Iron Maiden is linked ultimatately to Dickinson but:

a) I can't imagine the first two albums without DiAnno
b) The band was already loosing force by NPFTD
c) Blaze was indeed a bad choice (sorry JD), but Dickinson returns didn't improve much IMO.

Queen or Thin Lizzy are a good examples of bands that can't work without the lifetime lead singer. Tank is another, I think that upon Ward retirement they should have been disbanded. And of course who will think that Motorhead can be Motorhead without Lemmy? (no Rob, you are not allowed to comment on this ).

Candlemass on the other hand is a band that has benefited from changing from Marcolin to Lowe. And the band was just coming from a reunion with Marcolin with a damn good album and their popularity was rising. Even so, they let Marcolin go, call Lowe and the last two albums has been brilliant.

A lot of VH fans accepted Hagar instead of Roth, except for the sincgle case you mentioned in another thread Arch Enemy fans like the same or more Gossow era than Liiva. Marillion have more albums with Hogarth than with Fish and I think that means a lot of fans accepted the change.
I prefer both Sentenced and Amorphis with the clean vocalist, so the change for me was for the best (regardless of what happened afterward with the band). And let's not forget AC/DC, they survived damn well the demise of Scott and the coming of Johnson.

I think the band that changes or lost the lead singer suffers the most if:

a) the vocalist is one or the main composer
b) the charisma on stage is such that the replacement can't compete
c) the vocalist owns the band

And the final thought...the eternal hate/love discussion in the forums: James LaBrie. Will Dream Theater be the same if he's gone?

 

[mdmatt4ever]

I agree with some of what was stated in this thread. When a band changes singers after they’ve reached a commercial peak fans slag off on the band no matter how good the singer or albums are. I like self titled crue, jugulator and x factor but most of the complaints I see are about the change of singers.

Some bands get away with a singer change because they weren’t very popular at the time. Whe ac/dc replaced bon scott and maiden replaced dianno their fame was starting to rise and therefore fans were more forgiving because these bands weren’t as well known at the time the singer changed.


There are bands like queen and the grateful dead who lost a singer and changed names. Queen is now queen+paul Rodgers and the grateful dead became the other ones and then the dead. This is a sign that these bands agree the singer isn’t replaceable.

van halen is a band that did something smart. They replaced a singer with an already popular singer

This brings us to AIC and lynyrd skynryd. No matter how good the new music is it seems like a cash in on the name. In skynyrds case the reunited after a decade following the crash and have gone on with less and less members from the original band. In AIC’s case once layne died they reformed. They should have given layne an ultimatum (sp?). Either clean up or you will be replaced. At least skynyrd still has the look of skynyrd. The new guy from AIC does not fit the music and look of the band. Looks like he stole the wardrobe of daughtry (sp?) and jon bon jovis stage moves. I want to remember AIC as a dark and depressing band not a guy with a from smiling and pointing and clapping

No matter what 99.9% of the time the singer is the focal point even if they don’t write the songs or if they aren’t an original member

 

[SickBoy]

And the final thought...the eternal hate/love discussion in the forums: James LaBrie. Will Dream Theater be the same if he's gone?

I think that band could only benefit from him quitting, not to mention his negligible contributions to bands songwriting...
Maybe they would continue to make horrible music (haven't made a decent album since 6DOIT) more and more influenced by everything an average American kid likes nowadays, but at least they would have a chance getting a decent vocalist for a change... As time goes by James is only getting more and more irritating. Those who now write me a 'nay' reply consider this : imagine DT with someone as powerful as Jorn or Allen! Now, THAT would be something...

 

[Wyvern]

As time goes by James is only getting more and more irritating. Those who now write me a 'nay' reply consider this : imagine DT with someone as powerful as Jorn or Allen! Now, THAT would be something...

OK, you're on that side of the fence and I respect it. If this would have been the IAW to FII era I would have say never!, but at the stage the band is now and considering the growlings of Portnoy, it doesn't matter if they change probably, at least not for me. I think most die hard DT fans still will say never.

 

[Vicious Robbie]

Good analysis, Wyvy!

I find myself thinking that it depends on the band and the importance of the vocalist in the band's songwriting effort. I like your examples and the explanations that accompany them (too bad I can't comment on the Motorhead one, damn! ) so allow me to add two examples to that:

Metal Church: As much as David Wayne was part of the original lineup, for me, the arrival of Mike Howe marked the Golden Years for the band. His tone and range was much better than Wayne's and I can't imagine the Blessing, Factor and Hanging albums being sung by someone else. The departure of Howe signalled the demise for this outfit.

Omen: I'm not a big fan of this band but listening to their first three records and then continuing with the next, there's no doubt that the band lost big time on songwriting input and personal touch from JD Kimball.

Black Sabbbath is an interesting case. They replace their original singer with a shorty named Ronnie and they release Heaven and Hell and Mob Rules. What gives?

It's interesting that you mention LaBrie. He is a good vocalist but nothing that blows me away really. I don't think the band would suffer that much if he was in or out since I believe there are many good vocalists out there that could do the job and he is not one of the main songwriters. Then again, it's just my opinion

 

[Wyvern]

Metal Church: As much as David Wayne was part of the original lineup, for me, the arrival of Mike Howe marked the Golden Years for the band. His tone and range was much better than Wayne's and I can't imagine the Blessing, Factor and Hanging albums being sung by someone else. The departure of Howe signalled the demise for this outfit.

I forgot that one and I support you 100%

No matter what 99.9% of the time the singer is the focal point even if they don’t write the songs or if they aren’t an original member

I disagree but, everyone is entitled to its own opinion.

 

[wdiv]

Purple never actually had a trouble: Gillan was better than Evans, and Coverdale did great two albums (actually CTTB suffered because Blackmore left IMO), even the album with Turner wasn't that bad. As for Sabbath I prefer Dio era anytime, and Martin era was a great one too (except for the dreadful "Forbidden"). Priest and Maiden indeed made bad choices but their career wasn't shining exactly at the time: Priest was coming after a long hiatus and Tipton composition affected Owens performance IMO, as for Maiden they already had lost steam by the time of NPOTD and Dickinson was still in it so Blaze just jumped in an already weakened wagon, and even after Dickinson return the band has been weak compared to the 80's.

I think we should take this conversation into the thread opened by Vicious Robbie.

http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/old-school/531776-does-lead-singer-make-band.html

With Maiden, the transition from Dianno to Dickinson was the more notable event then Dickinson to Blaze.

 

[Wyvern]

With Maiden, the transition from Dianno to Dickinson was the more notable event then Dickinson to Blaze.

Of course, but we were discussing changes when the band was already succesfull. When Bruce joint IM they had only two albums, chances would have been at the time that:

a) the band benefit from it (and did it)
b) the band sunk like many NWOBHM bands did after one or two albums

But again I'm not blaming Blaze for the dissapointment of the fans, yes I do believe he wasn't the right frontperson for the band but I also believe the composition was already declining since NPFTD.

 

[Caveman Ninja]

I actually think that after No Prayer and Fear of the Dark, the X-Factor song-writing-wise was a vast improvement. I think Blaze's voice fits the music too, and Bruce's singing is not great on the two albums before X remember... What lets it down (along with VXI) is the production, reach is really tame and horrible. The rhythm guitars are criminally quiet on X and the drums and mastering of VXI are utterly amateurish. What I'm saying is that it wasn't all Blaze that brought Maiden down at the end of the 90s...

I don't think the singer "makes the band" or is "irreplacable" unless it's HIS band... Maiden is Steve Harris's band so is still Iron Maiden for me without Dickinson... just not quite in the same league. But Metallica without Het's voice wouldn't be Metallica... ir really depends which band member writes the most material and sets the sound of the band...

Priest with Ripper were still Priest to me even without Halford, even though I hate both the albums he was on... poor songwriting, which he wasn't even allowed to be part of...

And plenty thrash bands changed singers easily enough... Anthrax for example...

As for James Labrie, it would be weird to see DT without him... but perhaps more enjoyable!

 

[Caveman Ninja]

Having said all that, Thin Lizzy will never really be Thin Lizzy to me nowadays...

 

[Wyvern]

I don't think the singer "makes the band" or is "irreplacable" unless it's HIS band...

Or her band (Doro, Crystal Viper). But you are on my line on thought

Having said all that, Thin Lizzy will never really be Thin Lizzy to me nowadays...

I said it before above

 

[muzmaze]

Some good points and examples previously mentioned and there are many ways to look at this.

I think looking at the original question of "does a lead singer make a band"? My answer would be in most cases- no. It is usually a guitarist (or duo) that "makes the band", write and construct the music and in some cases provide the lyrics as well. Sure, there have been some singers that have been the most important part of a band...though this seems to be the rarer occasion as far as "making the band". The great bands or the ones we all like or prefer, tend to fortunately have equal parts. I always prefer to listen and look at the voice as if its an instrument. The same way we all love a guitar tone, snare sound etc. If one or the other doesn't fit or appeal to me then I can't get into it.

I think too many people these days settle for a style of music with a crappy singer...or a great vocalist with shitty players around him or her.

 

[Vicious Robbie]

Some good points and examples previously mentioned and there are many ways to look at this.

I think looking at the original question of "does a lead singer make a band"? My answer would be in most cases- no. It is usually a guitarist (or duo) that "makes the band", write and construct the music and in some cases provide the lyrics as well. Sure, there have been some singers that have been the most important part of a band...though this seems to be the rarer occasion as far as "making the band". The great bands or the ones I or we all like or prefer tend to fortunately have equal parts. I always prefer to listen and look at the voice as if its an instrument. The same way we all love a guitar tone, snare sound etc. If one or the other doesn't fit or appeal to me then I can't get into it.

I think too many people these days settle for a style of music with a crappy singer...or a great vocalist with shitty players around him or her.

+1

 

[mdmatt4ever]

I forgot that one and I support you 100%



I disagree but, everyone is entitled to its own opinion.

some examples to prove the singer is normally the focal point:
the grateful dead originally considered pigpen the leader of the band. he played organ and sang lead on a few tunes but garcia was the main vocalist and because of the ended up being thought of as the leader.

j.j. french is in fact the leader of twisted sister but every associates dee snider as being the leader.

the rolling stones were originally lead by brian jones on guitr in the 60's. by the end of the 60's mick jagger was seen as being the band leader even though as first he was just the guy brian picked to be the singer of the band he was forming

 

[Steve15]

Well...

For me Helloween without Michael Kiske didnt seem like Helloween anymore. But thats just in my oppinion... There are lots of people who think that Andi Deris is better...

 

[SickBoy]

[/B]
some examples to prove the singer is normally the focal point:

Yeah, that's why a singer is usually called a frontman... People tend to associate themselves with the one who communicates with them and they think "if this guys leads the show he must lead the band as well". But I don't think anyone thought that singers in, say, Iced Earth ran the show...

 

[No-Mercy]

in short, a lead singer doesnt necessarily make a band...but it surely can break it.

 

[poundingmetal74]

The question is: if your lead singer leaves and is replaced, is it still the same band?

The short answer is no. The longer answer is: it depends on a case by case basis.

In some cases it prolongs the life span of the band and in others it makes the band WAY better (Sabbath with Dio for example).

There are other bands where the singer is simply irreplaceable. Edguy and Queensryche are prime examples.

 

[apeofgod666]

i think it all depends on the lead singer. for example, when mayhems lead singer blew his brain out, they found a new one and stayed the same old band. On the flip side, when freddie mercury of queen died, queen would never be the same again. freddie mercury was queen. the band died with him.