Is a band really the same band with a different front man?

RhineDHP

So I didn't realize until about 2 months ago that Adam Gontier had left the band Three Days Grace last year, and was replaced by the lead singer from My Darkest Days. Similar front man replacements that I remember -- the band Adema a long time ago, and with the band Drowning Pool due to the original lead vocalist passing away.

So the question came to mind; If the lead singer is replaced, but the same band members and music style remains, to what extent can this be called the same band?

I figure it's the front man who kind of sets the stage. You grow to identify him or herself with the band name. They're essentially the soul.

What are your thoughts?

aqualeo1

Hmm... I say different singer = different band

chimptron

Van Halen was similar with Hagar, but not the same. ACDC was pretty close but the vocals were off. Queen without Freddie? NOT the same. And Joy Division actually changed their name to New Order when their front man passed.

belimawr

I think it depends on if the band changes its sound with the change in frontman. Stone Temple Pilots sounds pretty much the same with Chester in front, so I'd say yes in this case.

However I couldn't imagine Soundgarden without Chris, PJ without Eddie as they ARE the band.

It's dependent too on who does the majority of the writing. Some bands it's a band effort, others the frontman does it alone, and that affects the band's direction.

I'm going to say in the end, if you can close your eyes, forget what you know about who's who and not be able to tell the difference when listening, it is the same band.

SubZeroDude

depends on band. I think 3 days grace stayed as 3 days grace, but sammy hagar killed van halen. F*** that guy, seriously.

cuckoo_jenibeth

I have forever loved Journey, but without Steve Perry, it is NOT Journey. Period.

salembambi

three days grace still exists? lololololol

and i think they can remain similar but no not the exact same band

kxbrown27

Iron Maiden was still Iron Maiden when Bruce replaced Paul, but not when Blaze replaced Bruce. Judas Priest was not the same when Tim replaced Rob. Some people prefer Anthrax with John Bush over Joey Belladonna, even though most of their success was with Joey. Hell, even the guy singing for Foreigner now sounds a lot like Lou Gramm.

In most cases it depends on the band and the singer. In some cases it just doesn't work. Like someone said, Queen without Freddie? Never. Motley Crue with John Corabi? Nope. And God forbid anyone try to play me a Motorhead song without Lemmy. That's blasphemy.

exwilson

chimptron wrote: »

Queen without Freddie? NOT the same.

Yes and no. I recently saw Queen perform with Adam Lambert. While, no it was not Freddie, it was most definitely Queen. Brian May performed a fantastic 20 (?) minute solo and Roger Taylor's drums were fantastic to watch (another memorable and extended solo). So Lambert helped provide the needed vocals and showmanship, but the show was very much Queen.

justinegibbons

No. To me, whoever was part of the band when I decided I like them, IS the band.. Especially when it comes to the front man.

callsitlikeiseeit

depends.

the singer from journey that replaced steve perry is pretty darn close - in look and sound (okay, well a billion years ago when we saw them in concert he was, anyways LOL)

paulaviki

It's never quite the same, I've seen Alice in Chains a couple of times since William Duvall has been their singer and while he's pretty good it's just not quite the same sound as Layne Staley.

I also saw Blind Melon with a new singer who desperately wanted to be Shannon Hoon but it was just odd.

I love STP but can't really bring myself to listen to them with Chester as I'm not a fan of his from Linkin Park.

But I agree with other people who have said it does depend on the band and how much of a frontman the lead singer is. Obviously I'd always prefer the original band, but if that's not possible sometimes it's nice just to hear those songs live and know it's at least the majority of the original lineup!

MsTiff1981

For the most part I don't not like bands when the front man changes. They just can never seem to achieve the same sound/presence.

Mr_Knight

Lots and lots of bands were *much* better after a change of singer.

Someone upstream mentioned Journey - there's a great example - Steve Perry was NOT the original singer, the band was already several years into its career when he joined.

chimptron

That is correct. The majority of Journey was Carlos Santana's band. And Greg Rollie sings That's the same way you love me (yes, Steve Perry sings harmony on that one but he is not the lead) You recognize Greg Rollie - he sang Santana's Black Magic Woman that EVERYONE knows. (I was a dj in the 80s, it can be a blessing and sometimes a curse.)

TheRoadDog

I've seen AC/DC with Bon Scot and with Brian Johnson. Both Great.

Seen Journey with Steve Perry and without. Not as good without Perry.

Van Halen? Seen them with Hagar and Roth. Different bands, but both great. Don't like Roth now, but he was a helluva front man for VH.

Saw Queen a few years back and Paul Rodgers was fronting the band. That was a great concert. Paul Rodgers and Freddy Mercury both have unbelievable voices.

TheRoadDog

ZooksBrah wrote: »

depends on band. I think 3 days grace stayed as 3 days grace, but sammy hagar killed van halen. F*** that guy, seriously.

Hagar didn't kill Van Halen. Eddie killed Van Halen.

Spnneil06

never the same, but better than being gone for good I think. Especially since three days grace is one of my favorite bands ever!

cwolfman13

It depends...

jgnatca

Paul Revere's Raiders are continuing after his death. His wishes.

http://paulreveresraiders.com/

Bucky83

INXS without Michael Hutchence? Hell to the no.

Queen without Freddie? No way.
AC/DC without Bon Scott? No way.