I think a band having to replace their lead singer has to be one of the most daunting tasks, especially if that band is well established and had a certain level of success. It seems that more bands that are faced with having to do this end up merely getting a clone of their previous singer. Is this something you approve of? For example if you go and see the band with their new vocalist are you expecting the songs to sound exactly like the original or do you mind that this person might be trying to put their stamp on it so it reflects their character somewhat, all the while still remaining faithfull.
For example as much as I like a band like Journey and Arnel Pineda as a vocalist, let's be honest he got the gig because he's Steve Perry replica. Same can be said for Steve Augeri, although it turned out he didnt have the pipes. Ironically someone like Jeff Scott Soto might have proved to be the most interesting but was probably let go because he didn't fit the Perry mold.
Yes: When Jon Anderson couldn't tour, the band hired themselves a soundalike who was fronting a Yes tribute band.
I'm sure there are others but these are just two that I can think of right now. As for bands that didn't necessarily go the clone route...
AC/DC: From Bon Scott to Brian Johnson, two different vocalists in my opinion
Black Sabbath: Ozzy to Dio to Gillan to Hughes etc..... well you get the picture.
Van Halen: I thought the move from Roth to Hagar was an interesting one
Motley Crue: Giving Vince Neil the axe and replacing him with someone who could actually sing with John Corabi was one of their best moves ever. Unfortunately I think the knock on Corabi was that he couldn't sing the more commercial stuff from the bands back catalogue.
Rainbow: Dio to Bonnet to Joe Lynn Turner.
Deep Purple : The screams of Gillan to the bluesy David Coverdale and over the top and highly unnecessary caterwauling of Glen Hughes.
Iron Maiden : From Paul Dianno to Bruce Dickinson to Blaze Bayley and back to Bruce.
Tags:
Share
-
▶ Reply to This