Different singers
Recently Theo over at metal-mixtape was writing about the new Skidrow and some of the comments left and my own opinion had me thinking about vocalist changes. As far as this band goes, I am in the camp of those that have no real interest in a Skidrow album without Sebastian Bach. Yet looking back I was one of the few who supported Motley Crue's one album without Vince Neil. So why do we accept some bands who change vocalists and not others? I have always seen Van Halen with Sammy as a different band than they were with Dave. I accept AC/DC with Brian Johnson a little more although I much prefer the Bon Scott material. I like Iron Maiden with Bruce and with Dianno yet I try hard to forget the Blaze Bayley era. Sometimes it's just whether an album is good or not. Then other times like with Van Halen or Skidrow, I think it's very hard to replace a frontman who was so good because you identify that band with that person.
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
posted by Metal Mark at
9:05 AM
9 Comments:
Anytime a band changes singers, it's a risky move. I agree with you on the AC/DC and VH thing. Sometimes I think it may be better for a band to change it's name then to try to replace the original lead singer after so many years, as with Skid Row. The fands wouls still go se them, but not expext to see someone trying to be Sebastian Bach.
Mike-I agree about the name change.If these guys had a different name then I would be more likely to give them a chance. Instead by using the Skidrow name it just makes people think "Well, this band just isn't the same without Sebastian." Changing the name lowers the expectations and makes comparisons to the albums of Skidrow's prime less likely to happen.
Ratt without Stephen Pearcey?
No Way.
Skid Row without Seb?
ditto
Maiden without Bruce?
ditto
Van Halen without Dave?
They should have called it a day and finished in 1985/86!
I think it depends on when the bands' real success happens AND if a lead singer change continues or enhances that success.
1. AC/DC changed because they had no choice, Bon died. They debuted Brian with BACK IN BLACK and have had multi-platinum albums ever since.
2. Does anyone remember Rod Evans was the original singer for Deep Purple? Except for 'Hush'? The major success came when they got Ian Gillan.
3. I'm a Diamond Dave guy but there is no doubt that Van Hagar is accepted more as Van Halen because they had equal success, if not more (album sales!). The legend is with DLR though.
4. Maiden changed to Dickinson after D'ianno and became a world power. The D'ianno era is pure NWOBHM but the Dickinson era is where the major success came from.
5. Black Sabbath purists believe "in Ozzy we trust" but they were successful with Dio. I'd say they are borderline.
I wasn't as accepting of the Crue changing to Corabi, Priest changing to Ripper Owens (they had no choice), Pearcy replaced in Ratt, Bayley to Maiden, or David Reece to Accept.
The lack of success compared to the previous successes with the former vocalist kill these bands. The Corabi album tanked, the Ripper-led Priest tanked, as did Maiden post-Bruce and the Udo-less Accept. Ratt hasn't even recorded an album with a new singer and Pearcy churns out solo release after solo release.
As for Skid Row, I don't see all the fuss. They had a major debut and a decent follow-up but they haven't been relevant since 1992, with AND without Sebastian Bach. I would be more interested if Bach returned but I've moved on from the Skid Row bandwagon. Tell me Pearcy is back in Ratt or Udo will record a new album with Wolf Hoffman as Accept (although U.D.O. is basically Accept) and I'm interested. Tell me Diamond Dave, Mike and the brothers VH are reuniting and I'll do backflips.
I find my preference leans towards when I discovered a band. AC/DC to me was always Brian, but I never heard Bon till much later. Exodus will always be Steve Souza for me. However, Falconer switched singers and I didn't notice till the second release with him, when the bands style changed. A good album is a good album and sometimes changes are necessary. In my opinion the new Skid Row album is simply sub par to what the band is capable of new singer or not.
George-I agree about Ratt for sure.
Steve-I think you have to remember that Skidrow were very popular in their day even if their prime was short. Slave to the grind hit number one on the charts and even though that was 15 years ago I think a number of people our age still like those two albums.
dpth-I agree with Steve Souza.
There are bands with multiple singers where I like both a lot. Helloween with Andi Deris and Micahel Kiske is an example. I thought Kai Hansen was just okay. Metal Church with David Wayne and Mike Howe as I liked both singers. I prefer Joey Belladonna in Anthrax, but I like John Bush a lot as well.
Some good points made there folks.
On the subject of Anthrax, I was always a Belladonna fan, my friend rated original singer Neil Turbin-each to his own eh!
I agree with AC/DC but VH was never the same without Roth. It just lost it's edge for me. Sometimes the singer defines the band. Such is the case with Skidrow.
Actually, the new Skid Row album is a lot of fun and I don't miss Sebastian at all. Yeah, the albums he was on were good, especially the underrated Subhuman Race, but I think the current singer has made SR his band now. I hate to always sound like a loudmouth braggart, but I interviewed Rachel Bolan last week and they all believe he's the soul of the band now, particularly with all of the shenanigans Sebastian flushed them down the toilet with---not to mention grunge helping that flush along
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home