Original or New

[Shadowmancer]

Over the course of Music History there has been a string of Bands that have changed lead singer. creating the inevitable debate what version of a band is better. There are many examples of this and I will list a few now.

• Van Halen=David Lee Roth Vs. Sammy Hagar
• Genesis=Peter Gabriel Vs. Phil Collins
• Iron Maiden=Paul D'Anno Vs. Bruce Dickenson Vs. Blaze Bayley
• Pink Floyd=Syd Barrett Vs. David Gilmour
• AC/DC=Bon Scott Vs. Brian Johnson
• Black Sabbath=Ozzy Osbourne Vs. Ronnie James Dio

I Know there are more like, Black Flag, Faith No More, Nightwish and Kamelot. But the question I put to you is, who do you prefer. The Original Front man/Vocalist. or the newer guy?

 

[HellBoundPower]

Most of the time the original is the best. In most of the bands you listed there the original is the best. The only one that isn't the original I like is Iron Maiden. I think Bruce Dickenson is one of the best frontmen of all time, and I'd take him over the others. Other than that, I enjoy the originals more.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

well when it comes to genesis, i rather loved gabriels work as a solo artist, and phil collins stint as the lead singer gave himself and genesis a well needed boost IMO, in regards to the other bands you stated there careers usually catched on fire when the former lead was replaced so i would say the second

 

[Shadowmancer]

This is in general not in specifics. I gave specifics as examples of what I am meaning. I know this is a very heated debate in fans. Especially in the case of Genesis with Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins. People usually have a preference. Not so much with Iron Maiden since we all know Blaze comes in at 3, but people still argue that D'Anno is a better guy for being in charge of Maiden's vocals despite the fact that Bruce Dickinson is a better singer and stage performer than D'Anno.