Patman

Seems to me that Lead singers are THAT important to a band's success (moreso for established bands). Agree or disagree? Please cite examples if you can.

tsohg

I agree. Their own personal personality tends be how people view the band as a whole. What would Areosmith be without Steven Tyler? The carisma, the attitude do you think it would be the same if say Phil Collins was lead? Besides not many backup guys or "other" members go solo or do very well if they do.

palebluedot

It depends on the band and how they present themselves. In pop music it is usually always about the lead vocalist. You could take that vocalist and use any other band that sounds the same and it wouldn't make a difference. Like tsohg said the audience perceives the band through the lead singer. For example you could switch singers from lets say...Bush and Creed and you wouldn't even know the difference.

If you look at a group like the Beatles though it's different. You don't say that the Beatles were the band for Paul Mcartney because they presenented themselves as a group. You couldn't replace any of the members of that band and still have it be the same.(Well maybe Ringo).

Applejack

Seems to me like songwriters are the most important members of the band. It just so happens that most lead singers are also the lead songwriters.

Burnt Alive

Yup.
That was the defining comment for this thread. End of discussion!

Spike Jonze

With that said, Jim Morrison automatically comes to mind.

Patman

Did Neil Peart (drummer) of Rush write most of the lyrics for Rush in the 1980's?

benedict

I, too, would have cited Rush: they would sound so different with a different singer yet the "mainstay" of the band seems to be Peart who wasn't even the drummer on the first album.

Look how they went on hiatus over the past few years when he suffered a double family tragedy.... neither Lifeson, nor Lee did a great deal in their own names during that period: Lee got is first solo album out but Lifeson didn't follow up his earlier solo debut. I know that proves nothing in particular.

I guess it is down to perceptions. Sometimes there will be a critical figure: at least as often, IMO, the band will be a gestalt entity: the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts.

Black Sabbath produced two or three (depending on opinion) great studio albums with Ronnie James Dio who was the vocalist for some of Rainbow's best work. Yet Rainbow continued successfully (in Europe at least, don't really know about North America) with a succession of vocalists. In that case most would say that Blackmore was the crux of the band.

Dio, vocalist and songwriter, did some good stuff on his own initially but does not now seem to be the draw in his self-named band as he was with Sabbath or Rainbow: of course that might just be down to the decline of the dinosaurs in favour of the nu-metal upstarts! And then there is the enigma of Ozzy: hardly the world's greatest vocalist, he remains a draw. AFAIK he doesn't originate a great deal of his own material: he needs other performers to bounce ideas off and was a minor part of the creative process in Sabbath. No disrespect to his melodies: I love those first six Sabbath albums (as well as some of the later material)!

Deep Purple had various vocalists and seemed to do well with each change until Blackmore left. In their latest incarnation, with Gillan back as vocalist and Steve Morse as the guitarist they are doing "OK": we'll have to wait until next year's album to see if they recapture past glories. But, remember, Gillan wan't on the first couple of albums.... different band then, perhaps, different sound?

Iron Maiden were on an upward path before Dickenson joined and I love the first two albums with Di'anno. But Bruce became the voice and they dipped when he left according to most. Di'anno more or less crashed and burned on his own.

Not to mention Fleetwood Mac or Pink Floyd!

The answer, it seems, is a lemon!!

Jason

When an established lead singer departs a band, it is often at a point of overall fatigue, as was the case with both Bruce Dickinson and Rob Halford. When either the band or the audience feels a band has gone as far as it can, the feeling that change is necessary can be pretty strong. Another factor can be the ego trip of being "in charge" of a successful band. Too often, they are proven right as successful bands deteriorate or die in their absense.

But sometimes a break can be the best thing for them. Dickinson's return to Iron Maiden yielded one of their best albums since Somewhere in Time. Hopefully, Rob Halford will come to the same conclusion one of these days and rejoin Judas Priest.

In the case of Dio, it was purely a clash of egos. RJD is a powerful person, and he did work well being a "hired gun" for either Ritchie Blackmore or Tony Iommi.

Fielding Mellish

Two words:

Van Halen

Well, I guess that about wraps up this thread, huh?

KnightLerxst

Yup. Peart wrote and still writes most of the lyrics, and Lifeson and Lee provide the music.

benedict

<small></small>How so?

A band named for (one or both of the) two brothers who founded it lost its original singer yet continued to release multi-platinum albums with that singer's replacement.

They later contrived to lose said replacement and found that the album using the vocal talents of a third singer - who, like his predecessor had been relatively successful on his own account - did not seem to find anywhere near so much favour with their fans as had all previous efforts.

Yup.... proof positive that I just don't get it!

Jason

I think it proves that the singer is important. While very different than Roth, Sammy Hagar was a true frontman. He had a reasonable successful solo career. Cherone was hired help from a one-hit wonder.

sebastianv50

They are important in the sense that if a band doesnt have a really good lead singer they arent going anywhere.

POWERBOMB

Journey still tours w/out Steve Perry.

Styx still tours w/out Dennis DeYoung.

Motley Crue exchanged a lead singer and drummer and still tours.

I think the answer is how strong of a following does the band have and how strong are the songs. I have seen each of these "new" bands and it's still the songs that do it for me.

Giantrobo

I know one thing...

A$$munch, Loudmouth, Drug addicted, Superstar LEAD SINGERS can pretty much KILL a band if he's outa control and stupid.




i.e.
Scott Weiland(sp?) (drugs)
Eddie Veder (atittude)
Axl Rose (atittude)
Kevin Dubro (atittude)
Jim Morrison (drugs and lifestyle)

Illinois Enema Bandit

Care to enlighten the forum as to how Vedder's alleged bad attitude has "pretty much killed" Pearl Jam?

POWERBOMB

I think what Giantrobo meant was that Veder's push to use the band's influence to change Ticketmaster's monopoly hurt the band cause for a few years after that PJ had a hard time finding places to perform.

And lest we forget, it was Veder's idea to cease using videos for the band's songs. These two things [and there are prolly others] hurt the band in terms of position with fans.

Illinois Enema Bandit

Was this really such a bad thing? Even though it may have had an impact on their touring, had they been successful, I'm of the opinion that their efforts would have benefitted all music fans

I also congratulate them for thumbing their noses at the video scene, as I find far too many music videos to be useless, pretentious pieces of dreck that serve only the interests of music industry marketing. As far as I'm concerned, great bands build their reputation by word of mouth, not by how flashy or artsy their videos are

sebastianv50

I guess it could depend on the lead singer, some are irreplaceable and the band cant go on without them. Most of the time its because they had a such a great or distinguishable voice. Kurt Cobain, Shannon Hoon, and Brad Nowell are all good examples.

raithen

I'm not so sure that you can blame G'N'R's demise to Axl alone. Seems to me that the entire band had ego and drug problems. Slash and Axl also haven't spoken since the breakup - I'm not sure what pushed them over the edge with eachother, but I imagine it was probably female related.

Vive la decadence.

-matt

kilcher

Journey still tours w/out Steve Perry.

Styx still tours w/out Dennis DeYoung.

Yeah, but they play at the fair.

POWERBOMB

Illinois Enema Bandit , it wasn't a bad thing to challenge Ticketmaster's monopoly, but it hurt the capabilities for the band to reach it's audience via tours. Add to that no video's and the fans were even more isolated from the group.

POWERBOMB

Not really, they play amphathether[?]'s.

Giantrobo

I shouldn't have said "pretty much killed"...perhaps "tainted" is better.


I was NOT talking about the TICKETMASTER thing...I actually agreed with that move.

Vedder was\is starting to act like AXL ROSE in terms of holding up shows....pulling out of shows at the last minute(MTV talked about one inciden just this past weekend) and the whole "My s#it don't stink attitude".

I think this stuff is well documented and many -NOT all- people lost respect for PERAL JAM and Vedder.