Who makes the band what it is?

[Flock of Moosen]

You know how when some bands lose a certain member, sometimes it completely throws off the chemistry and the band is never the same? It got me to thinking which part of a group is really the most valuable and hurts them the most if he/she leaves.
Personally I think it has to be the lead singer. So many times have I seen a singer leave and then the band just isn't the same, while on the other hand if say the lead guitarist or the drummer goes it's not as big a deal.

When David Lee Roth was booted from Van Halen it took me a while to get used to and accept Sammy Hager. After a while he grew on me, but if he tried to sing a song from the Roth era it just wasn't the same. I won't even go into Gary Cherone. While he was good in Extreme, he just didn't seem to fit in VH at all.

Here's another example. Guns 'n Roses was clearly all about Slash and more importantly Axl Rose. If Axl left and the rest carried on, it wouldn't be the same because he had a distinctive voice. Now they kicked out drummer Steven Adler and brought in Matt Sorum. I saw and heard absolutely no difference in the music. Well, not immediately anyway, but that could be contributed to Axl destroying everything.
Now granted this new lineup of GnR is a joke even though Axl is still there, but I attribute that to the fact the music completely sounds different as well. Most times if you replace a guitarist or drummer the sound stays the same, but it's the vocalist's distinct sound that just doesn't sound right when it's missing.

Here are some others:
AC/DC - Drummer Phil Rudd left because of problems. Never noticed a difference with the new guy, but if Brian Johnson were to go (even though his voice is garbage now) it would never be the same.
Rush - While Neil Peart and Alex Lifeson are good musicians, do you think Rush would be anything without Geddy Lee?
Judas Priest - Rob Halford, nuff said.
The Beatles - How many would miss Ringo or George, but if John or Paul went it probably would have been the end.
Iron Maiden - Bruce Dickinson, nuff said.
Metallica - I know, most don't care for them anymore, but I had to add them. You could get rid of Lars, Kirk and the new guy Robert Trujillo, but if you didn't have James Hetfield singing it wouldn't be Metallica. (I just know 420319208197 will rebut this one )
Journey - Neal Schon is a great guitar player and all, but Journey wasn't shit until Steve Perry came aboard. Then they became superstars. Because of who? Because of the singer and his unique voice.
Red Hot Chili Peppers - All I have to say is if Anthony Kiedis left, you could say goodbye to the band as well. Who would carry them with Kiedis gone, Flea?

Those were just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure I could think of others, but you get the point.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's always about the singer. In some instances a guitarist or drummer leaving is a huge impact, but overall I feel the lead singer brings the most to a group and hurts them most when he/she is replaced.

What do you think? Who makes the band what it is?

[mrcrowley1206]

Their drug dealer!:grin2:
J/K Its probably the singer but it also may be whoever writes most of their material. When Vince Neil was no longer in Motley Crue they totally tanked.Record stores were giving that cd with John Corabi away. On the other hand,when Ozzy left Sabbath and was replaced by Dio,
Sabbath put out 2 of their most amazing records ever.

[Flock of Moosen]

Originally posted by mrcrowley1206
When Vince Neil was no longer in Motley Crue they totally tanked.Record stores were giving that cd with John Corabi away.

I actually have that tape (yes, tape) entitled Motley Crue. I swear if it weren't for the fact that I bought it, I could easily listen to the whole thing and never guess it was the Crue.

On the other hand,when Ozzy left Sabbath and was replaced by Dio,
Sabbath put out 2 of their most amazing records ever.

This is a good point. There are some exceptions that a new singer is as good if not better than the original. This was one of them, but more times than not I feel it's a step backwards.

[JimmyBlueEyes]

I would say the singer as well cause it sometimes changes the complexion of the band. I think VH went down a totally different road with Sammy. And you can tell the difference. Some bands actually do better with a new lead singer. Case in point Anthrax. I happen to like them just as much with John Bush as I did with Joey Belladonna. I think the stuff they have done with John is better than some of the classic stuff. Maiden without Bruce is shit. Metallica, you can tell who the bass player is. You can see differences in styles and even how they play. Cliff Burtons playing is a lot more pronounced than Newsted, and Robert Trujillo is fuckin awesome.

With Ripper and Priest I could tell the difference but you have to admit the guy has an incredible voice. GnR is nothing now. Axl needs to be commited. As for the Crue, anyone else other than Vince is no good.

[SO]

AC/DC - Drummer Phil Rudd left because of problems. Never noticed a difference with the new guy, but if Brian Johnson were to go (even though his voice is garbage now) it would never be the same.

Don't forget their first 7 albums were done with Bon Scott, but after his death they recorded their most successful album, <i>Back In Black</i> with new singer Johnson.

Rush - While Neil Peart and Alex Lifeson are good musicians, do you think Rush would be anything without Geddy Lee?

Rush is one of those bands where every member is an equal. If Neil or Alex were to leave, the band would be no more. Really Neil is the heart and soul of Rush, so hypothetically he'd be the least replaceable if it were possible to replace any of them.

The Beatles - How many would miss Ringo or George, but if John or Paul went it probably would have been the end.

Well it WAS the end when John left. Had it been Harrison, I think they would've broken up as well. They could've replaced Ringo though, he was the weak link.

Iron Maiden - Bruce Dickinson, nuff said.

Their first two albums had Paul Di'Anno as the vocalist, and they were very good. They did come into their own with Bruce at the front though. Then there was the Blaze Bayley period, which did suck, but the band survived and Bruce did return for <i>Brave New World</i> (and if you haven't heard Dickinson's solo stuff, I can't recommend it enough).

Metallica - I know, most don't care for them anymore, but I had to add them. You could get rid of Lars, Kirk and the new guy Robert Trujillo, but if you didn't have James Hetfield singing it wouldn't be Metallica. (I just know 420319208197 will rebut this one )

It's been said a million times, they were never the same band after Cliff died.

Red Hot Chili Peppers - All I have to say is if Anthony Kiedis left, you could say goodbye to the band as well. Who would carry them with Kiedis gone, Flea?

It was all downhill after Mother's Milk...but I can't imagine the band continuing if Flea were to leave.

And good call on the Dio-era Sabbath. I really think they improved as a band after Ozzy left.

[BITENY]

You all my laugh at me for this one, but we are talking about something that involves every band & the changes they've gone thru.
Now I'm going to mention Poison because they've had their changes as well.
Starting out with CC DeVille, until 90 when they kicked him out. Bret Michaels & CC had a power struggle, they beat the shit out of each other & CC was gone. They bring in Richie Kotzen. Oy vey. I liked it only because I was an avid fan. But he totally changed the way that Poison sounded. They became more bluesy and added choirs to songs. Then I saw them in 1991. With Kotzen. Woah.....I was only 12 but I did NOT like what I was hearing. Richie doing "Talk Dirty to Me??" Wtf was that?! He's a soul-kinda guitarist. He started playing the guitar w/his teeth. Jimi, you are NOT.
They did 1 album with him & then they kicked him the fuck outta the band. Why? He stole Rikki Rockett's fiancee right under his nose & none of them wanted to ever see Richie again.
Blues Saraceno- never heard anything by him & never heard the material they wrote with him.
Now CC's back - they tour every summer and I'm glad to see him back. CC has his own solo stuff (which I have yet to see or hear...) and that's it.
In this case- the guitarist definitley makes the band. Poison is getting old, so they can't do half the things they did 20 years ago....sadly. But it's good that they're back together after all the shit they've gone thru.

[Flock of Moosen]

Originally posted by SO

AC/DC - Drummer Phil Rudd left because of problems. Never noticed a difference with the new guy, but if Brian Johnson were to go (even though his voice is garbage now) it would never be the same.

Don't forget their first 7 albums were done with Bon Scott, but after his death they recorded their most successful album, <i>Back In Black</i> with new singer Johnson.

You're talking to a big AC/DC fan here. I'd never forget that. As a matter of fact I think Bon Scott was a far better singer than Brian Johnson ever was. Thing is I only became a fan at Back In Black so I didn't know about Bon yet. I can probably say if I did listen during the Bon years and then Brian came along, I wouldn't have liked them as much.

Rush - While Neil Peart and Alex Lifeson are good musicians, do you think Rush would be anything without Geddy Lee?

Rush is one of those bands where every member is an equal. If Neil or Alex were to leave, the band would be no more. Really Neil is the heart and soul of Rush, so hypothetically he'd be the least replaceable if it were possible to replace any of them. [/quote]
Equal I'll give you, but do you honestly think it would be the same if they brought in another singer that sounded absolutely nothing like Geddy? I don't.

The Beatles - How many would miss Ringo or George, but if John or Paul went it probably would have been the end.

Well it WAS the end when John left. Had it been Harrison, I think they would've broken up as well. They could've replaced Ringo though, he was the weak link. [/quote]
Well actually I was hypothetically speaking as if what would happen in their hey-day. Yes I know once Yoko showed up and John left that was the end of The Beatles.

Iron Maiden - Bruce Dickinson, nuff said.

Their first two albums had Paul Di'Anno as the vocalist, and they were very good. They did come into their own with Bruce at the front though. Then there was the Blaze Bayley period, which did suck, but the band survived and Bruce did return for <i>Brave New World</i> (and if you haven't heard Dickinson's solo stuff, I can't recommend it enough). [/quote]
Yes, Paul was good, but I prefered Bruce. Here is one of those examples where a new singer made them better.

Metallica - I know, most don't care for them anymore, but I had to add them. You could get rid of Lars, Kirk and the new guy Robert Trujillo, but if you didn't have James Hetfield singing it wouldn't be Metallica. (I just know 420319208197 will rebut this one )

It's been said a million times, they were never the same band after Cliff died. [/quote]
Wasn't a fan back then so I can't comment.

Red Hot Chili Peppers - All I have to say is if Anthony Kiedis left, you could say goodbye to the band as well. Who would carry them with Kiedis gone, Flea?

It was all downhill after Mother's Milk...but I can't imagine the band continuing if Flea were to leave. [/quote]
I tend to disagree, but that's cool. Everyone has their own opinions and that's why I made this thread, to see what you all thought.

[SO]

I do agree with you for the most part, I just thought a couple of the examples you gave were a bit shaky.

I always thought of AC/DC more as Angus Young's band than Bon Scott's or Brian Johnson's.

Rush - and trust me I'm one of the biggest Rush geeks in the world - would not be the same without any of the 3 members. You're absolutely right, Rush wouldn't be Rush without Geddy, but they wouldn't be Rush without Alex or Neil either. Can you imagine a Rush show without a 5 minute Peart drum solo?

Maiden - I think Dickinson completes the band, and elevates them from "just really good" to "legendary", but at the same time they've had some success without him.

And the Chili Peppers, I'd still say that Flea is just as important, if not more so, than Kiedis.

Overall though, yeah it is the singer, probably 90% of the time. Imagine: Queensryche without Geoff Tate, Queen without Freddie, Megadeth without Mustaine, Aerosmith without Tyler, Type O without Pete Steel, Motorhead without Lemmy, etc etc...

I think I had a point somewhere in there, but it's late as hell so I apologize if this was all incorehent.

[Flock of Moosen]

Originally posted by SO
Imagine: Queensryche without Geoff Tate, Queen without Freddie

Damn, I knew there was something I forgot. Those were two main examples I was thinking of when I started this thread, but I forgot to use them. Thanks.

[JimmyBlueEyes]

One thing I found kinda funny. It's a KISS thing. If anyone owns the album Creatures of the Night. You can listen to that album, Ace Frehley is on the cover and I think is credited as still being in the band, but you can tell it isn't him playing any guitars on that album. He's got more of a bluesy style to his playing and by listening to the first solo, or riff you'll know it's not him. It's also one of their most underrated albums. A nice comeback after the debacle called the Elder.