all of these bands are finding new singers and touring at some point under the same name....but can it ever be the same? why not use a new name like Audioslave did? what do you think?
Alice In Chains- Original Layne Staley; new singer William Duvall
Blind Melon- Original- Shannon Hoon; new singer Travis Warren
The Doors: Original- Jim Morrison; new singer Ian Astbury (not sure if they are still touring)
The Germs- Original- Darby Crash; new singer Shane West
Sublime- Original Bradley Nowell; new singer Rome
Replaced? The answer is a no. Period. Accepted, now that's another story and would depend on who you are or even when you started listening to a band Ex. (for me anyway)
Van Halen. I was listening from the beginning so when Roth left I was pissed and initially I did not like sammy. Roll the clock twenty years (damn) and now I like both and think Sammy had more vocal range while Dave was more of a showman.
AC/DC was another for me. This time when Brian Johnson did back and black I thought it was one of the best albums. Two albums later and I really am not found of him anymore. Other thank Back and Black and For those about to rock. To (me), anyway brian singing reminds me of someone that's constipated and trying to sing. Sorry, it sounds like he's in the bathroom on the toilet when he is trying to sing.
Alice in chains - I saw them twice in 92? With this new guy, I like him a lot. To me he sounds very similar.
One more right off the top of my head. Journey. Sorry, there is NO ONE that can take Steve Perry's place. Love him or hate him, he is very articulate and sings precise and smooth and (to me) it's another band period.
Nice topic - I'm sure we are going to hear a lot from everyone on this one.
You know it's usually not a good idea to try and carry on the origanal spirit of a band with a new singer or frontman or woman....Like a few years ago I was at a concert and one of the opening acts was THIN LIZZY...Well we all know that PHIL LYNOTT passed away,It wasn't and could never be the same with out him belting out all those great songs. SO IN THIS CASE NO THE ORIGINAL COULD NOT BE TRULY REPLACED.
The only thing that can't be compared is the Brian Jones "if he had lived" years with the stones. He was friends with Hendrix and if he and (Hendrix) have lived, I think we would have seen some very different stones albums. Of course this is speculation b/c we will never know. But can you imagine some of the stuff we would have seen?
After Brian Jones had died Mick and Keith had developed considerably as writers and were able to incorporate the lead / rhythm - harmony guitar approach which was different when Wood joined. It worked well in concert - e.g. Get yer ya Yas Out as well as the studio (Beggars to Exile and then those middle period albums).
Jones had a more multi-instrumental approach - unfortunately for him he was phased out of the writing partnership that had developed in the band he initiated. His songmanship was not really evident either. There is only some records and little or no concert recordings after 1965. It may be a few numbers with the Stones that reveal his best contributions e.g. We Love You and the more unusual features of Satanic majesties where he and John Paul Jones could apply modern classical ideas to songs that were actually so poor Bill Wyman's tune was the lead single.
This writing partnership was also a problem for Mick Taylor as many some of the ideas he contributed yet were not acknowledged over decades. In fact Wood was credited on some later numbers just for the purpose of either Mick or Keith to annoy the other. Had they been a tad more generous with credit then who knows what may have happened.
Well, yes it can! Best example is Rainbow....well Blackmore changed his band all the time. And with every new singer he had another success! I like Dio as Bonnet and Turner! :-)
It depends on the act. The Who replaced their rhythm section but it's the Rog and Pete show really. Moon and Entwistle had the most identifiably unique role in rock. There was no other band that ever arranged their music where the drums were more or less in a type of harmony with the vocals (I think Moon followed the singer more than anyone else) and Townshend did the bass spot while the bass role went into the harmony alot more. Since the changes The Who sound like The Who had they been er, normal. If you see what I mean.
Deep Purple changed identities a few times and are still at it. Some people accept this some people don't. Jazz bands don't have anywhere near the same identity / audience perception crises rock bands give.
Now for a laugh. Remember John Fogerty - a record company sued him for sounding like himself. Damn, they replaced the original - scarecely give that one any credence. (Sorry). Oh and Neil Young in the 80s? So busy putting out music that had such variety (rock and roll, electronica, c and w, heavy rock, folk - who the hell knew what was coming next?) Well, he didn't sound like himself - so he was sued. Well done music companies for showing the way...
AC/DC kind of worked/
Sublime with Rome is blasphemous. But I get it, they want to make $$$
When you hear how soon Bon Scott was replaced (he died in Feb 1980 and Back in Black was released in July 1980), the Young brothers were more interested in putting out music than mourning their fellow scottsman. Still, even though my fav ACDC is what's next to the moon, I prefer the body of work Brian Johnson was a part of.
I do not purposely play any Van Halen other than with Diamond Dave at the front.
I'm good with Ozzy as much as I am with Dio.
I cannot listen to Queen, and think of it as queen with anyone other than Freddy at the front.
I would have to say, that I am more partial to bands with the original SINGER than with replacement singers.