Should Bands Who Lose Their Singer Break Up?

[Richard]

Usually with bands, they are easily identifiable by their lead singers voice and their distinct sound that they bring to the band and people grow attatched to the lead singer and the sound and when problems arrise in bands, sometimes band members leave and join other bands, but when the lead singer decides to leave or gets kicked out the sound of the band and their songs are going to change, wether it's a good change or a bad change is really up to the inidividual, but the question is...

Should bands who lose their lead singer break up and also, if your faveourite band lost their singer, would you support them breaking up or getting a new singer and why?

I'm fairly torn on this issue and I can see reasons for and against. Bands who get a new singer are often critisised as not being the same because usually with a new singer, comes a new distinct sound and sometimes it's for the worse (See Escape the Fate, not that their new stuff is bad, it's just not the same) but then again as fans of the bands that I like, I wouldn't want any of them, with the exception of one or two, to break up because it would mean that they wouldn't tour anymore.

As for my faveourite band however, MCR, if they lost their singer then I would support them if they decided to break up because I would imagine for anyone, listening to someone else sing their faveourite band's songs that were sung by someone else wouldn't feel right.

 

[The Dewbliners]

This is a very good ponderance, indeed!

Well, in a few cases, I can totally advocate a band breaking up after losing the vocalist. For example, if Morgan left Kittie, I'd say the rest of the girls need to find other bands to join.They just wouldn't be Kittie in that case.


However, and believe me when I say it pains me to say this, if Eddie Vedder were to quit Pearl Jam, they'd be able to replace him (vocally at least) within a matter of weeks, though they probably would go ahead and disband. I say this because Ed's voice is a very familiar one, having been jacked by Scott Stapp, and the guy from The Calling, and Jason Wade from Lifehouse. I'd actually look past their blatant thievery, and accept the new (hypothetical) PJ. And I'd still support Eddie in his solo works, as I do right now with his last cd.


So, as you can see, it's all dependant on the band for me. I'd say I'm about 50/50 on the whole issue, sorry I couldn't help.

 

[Tim]

If the band can help it, they shouldn't break up if they lose their vocalist. One example where getting a new vocalist in has worked is AC/DC. When Bon Scott died, AC/DC brought Brian Johnson in, and they still worked together, and still made great music. But in some bands it doesn't work out. Take for example Queen. They haven't exactly disbanded, they still work on some "Queen +" projects, but when they lost Freddie Mercury, they were basically lost, and couldn't go anywhere. Freddie is one of, if not the greatest singer of all time, and there was no way that he could be replaced. But a band should look at their options first and try new singers out before completely disbanding.

 

[Mrs Sexy]

Should bands who lose their lead singer break up and also, if your favorite band lost their singer, would you support them breaking up or getting a new singer and why?

I don't necessarily believe all bands who lose their lead singer should break up, because you never know if the replacement lead singer can be just as good(granted that is IF the band decides to find a replacement). A great example of this would be Drowning Pool. They lost their lead singer, albeit due to him passing away, but they gave someone else a chance to be the lead singer and they sounded just as good. Granted I don't know if they are still around, but they made an effort in replacing the lead singer.

The Red Hot Chili Peppers are one of my favorite bands. Now if they lost Anthony Keidis as their lead singer, then yeah I would support them if they decided to split up. I don't think anyone could replace Anthony Keidis. He has a unique voice and I doubt anyone could match his as a lead singer for the Chili Peppers.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Well it really depends. With some bands and some very charismatic lead singers it's quite difficult - see Queen as example. I mean, I sure like seeing them these days even with Paul Rodgers on vocals, because he is a good singer in his own right, but Freddy Mercury was just so defining to the sound of that band, it really doesn't work, no matter who the "new guy" is.

In other examples, it worked quite well - my favorite would be Iron Maiden. They recorded their first two albums with Paul Di'Anno on Vocals, but it wasn't until Bruce Dickinson joined the band that they really skyrocketed... and Dickinson went on to become THE definite singer for Iron Maiden, despite him not being the "original" singer. A similar example would be Deep Purple... With Purple, it was also the "MK II"-Lineup that really made them big, with Ian Gillan on vocals; and though they had really great singers over the course of the years, for me - and I guess for many others as well - Ian Gillan is THE singer for Purple.

And in other cases again, it just doesn't matter. In the current melodic metal scene, changeovers are quite common, also on the vocal department... sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't - it really always depends on how defining and how characteristic a singer's voice is for the overall sound of the band.