Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I'm not saying other musicians can't be, but I'm sorry - a band is an equal thing, or at least should be. Otherwise it's fronting an artist and the players are sidemen. But call it that, not a band.

Austin, I agree with you, but only on a purely ideal, theoretical level. It would be wonderful to have all things equal, but that would only happen in a perfect world. I actually have to agree more with Freypower’s views that in the real world, equal democracy is not only impractical, but virtually non-existent. I could go on and on as to why this is, but I don’t want to get too philosophical or deep here. However, can anyone here think of a single social, economic, religious, or political philosophy or entity that is based on pure equality and has no hierarchical structure? I can’t - even our most basic socio-economic unit, the family, is not purely democratic. Heck, we even have line-leaders in kindergarten. No matter what the entity or what the original intentions may be, inevitably, a hierarchy forms in any organized unit with some members emerging as leaders. Sometimes, it’s peaceful and other times it’s a struggle – but, fair or not, it happens. It seems to be the natural order, so I guess Darwinism is alive and well in our imperfect world.

But then again, I also think all members should have equal say and song input and it should be more about music, less about business. I think there can be 5 leaders in a band.

Again I admire your idealistic views, but the reality is that the moment a band begins to earn money, it becomes a business. Or at least, it better be - if not, then members could likely go to jail for income tax evasion among many other things.

Just like I believe music is just as important as lyrics, if not more so.

I happen to believe they are equally important in most cases – it’s that darn democracy thing creeping back in me again, I guess. However, it obviously depends on the song and whether the vocals or instrumental are more prominent. But, again, while the music may move you more than lyrics or vocals, that is not the case for everyone. So, speaking in generalities, it seems more fair and objective to give them equal credit.

So, bottom line for me, given that fact that you specified the lead singer as the frontman in your opening post, I voted for the lead singer in your poll. Although I understand what you are saying about the instrumentals, I honestly believe most people identify more with the “voice” in a band. I know I do and that’s why I have so much appreciation for bands that have multiple lead vocalists. But, the truth is, even though I would miss any prominent band member in a band, I would miss Steven more than Joe in Aerosmith or Jon more than Richie in Bon Jovi. I’m not saying that’s right, I saying that’s just the way it is.

[Prettymaid]

Wow, no way can I post with the knowledge WF and TBF have! But I will say that even though I voted for lead singer, there are other criteria to be considered, which FP touched on.

Most bands have one, sometimes two members that stand out more than the others. This is nobody's fault - just the way it happens, usually due to talent, sometimes to performance gimmicks. I think it's normal for people to gravitate toward one member of a band, but I think it's often the one with the most overall talent. Look at Genesis - wasn't Phil Collins the drummer and happened to be the lead singer? I'm not a big Genesis fan, but to me, Phil Collins was Genesis.

The second thing I think it depends on is where your interests lie. WF, you admitted maybe you're biased because you're a guitarist. I think that makes a lot of sense. I am a singer - not a great one, but that's what I love to do. I grew up singing in school choruses, church choirs, and eventually doing karaoke just because I love to sing. When I listen to a song, especially the first time, it's all about the singing, because that's what I've grown up being interested in. For that reason, I voted for lead singer, but honestly, I think it depends on who the most talented person is in the band.

[WalshFan88]

I believe a guitarist is just as hard to replicate as a singer, and I also believe a guitarist is as easily recognizable as a singer. I can hear a few notes of a famous guitarist and have a pretty good guess as to who it is. Not just hearing a signature riff, but just their calling card and signature sound on a record even if it's a song I haven't heard before. That is missing in today's music but that's for another topic, another day.

As far as equality, a band should be equal.... That's just my thoughts. Of course it's a business, but they should be in it for the music first, and the other stuff second. More about music, less about money. I don't necessarily think frontmen are always the most talented, I think it depends. I know when I go to a show I spend more time watching the rest of the band as a whole than the frontman probably. I just find the musicians playing the instruments as being underrated.

[UndertheWire]

Look at Genesis - wasn't Phil Collins the drummer and happened to be the lead singer? I'm not a big Genesis fan, but to me, Phil Collins was Genesis.

I was going to use Genesis as an example of where replacing the singer (Phil Collins for Peter Gabriel) worked because the band was evolving. Another example would be Rod Stewart replacing Steve Marriott in The (Small) Faces.

[WalshFan88]

Thanks everyone for their input. I just get tired of the lead singer getting all the credit.

[WalshFan88]

It's funny you should bring up AC/DC because after I posted last night, they came to mind also as one I was ok with the lead singer being replaced even tho I still think Bon Scott was the best. BUT my next thought was, even tho, I go to see AC/DC for Angus. Great minds.

As for the Pearcy/Ratt thing, I don't know how familiar you are with the whole lawsuit over the right to use the Ratt name several years ago but maybe his whole attitude might have had something to do with that also. Since they've reunited, I've wondered about how much tension there might be still, because of it. And since reading Steven's book, I wonder how his account compares to, let's say, Warren's, who was always the quiet one. Do wish we had Robbin's account of it all but that's, sadly, never to be.

Yeah I love Bon but Back In Black is still my fav AC/DC record. Sometimes I imagine what BiB would sound like with him, as Angus and Malcolm wrote most of those tunes.

As far as Pearcy, he's a great singer... But he is a prime example of someone who thinks too highly of himself and is a frontman.

I saw Ratt several years ago with my parents, and I just did some research when you said they toured without him and it was in fact another singer I saw with them, not Pearcy. TBH I don't remember much of that show and also, I honestly didn't know much about band lineups and such, it was before I even played guitar. I'd love to see them now since they have the original lineup back, except Robbin. They got Crucier back on bass this year. Carlos Cavazo from Quiet Riot is playing Robbin's parts.

[sodascouts]

Lead singers have an advantage because when you hear a song, it's their voice that you hear and thus associate with a band. The first time you hear a song on the radio, you don't know what band is behind the song until the lead vocalist kicks in. They define the identity of the band in many ways.

However, they're not irreplaceable; it's just that when the lead vocalist leaves, the band has to find a new lead vocalist that the audience can appreciate and identify with if they are to succeed. They can't be successful without one. By contrast, a popular lead singer can leave his band behind, use session musicians, and still have great success as long as the material is still good.

[EagleLady]

a Lead Singer Definitely is irreplaceable!

[sad-cafe]

I loved Steve Perry with Journey. I hear the new guy is pretty good but nothing like SP. We had the chance to see them this summer and passed because it wasn't Perry.

With Eagles, although I could not imagine them without DH, he is not the only lead.

I think it is different with each band and the duration of the singers. I loved Van Halen with DLR but I didn't like much of SH.

Styx is good and while I miss DDY, I saw them with his replacement and they were pretty good. I have to say I was pretty young when DDY left.

[Freypower]

I believe a guitarist is just as hard to replicate as a singer, and I also believe a guitarist is as easily recognizable as a singer. I can hear a few notes of a famous guitarist and have a pretty good guess as to who it is. Not just hearing a signature riff, but just their calling card and signature sound on a record even if it's a song I haven't heard before. That is missing in today's music but that's for another topic, another day.

As far as equality, a band should be equal.... That's just my thoughts. Of course it's a business, but they should be in it for the music first, and the other stuff second. More about music, less about money. I don't necessarily think frontmen are always the most talented, I think it depends. I know when I go to a show I spend more time watching the rest of the band as a whole than the frontman probably. I just find the musicians playing the instruments as being underrated.

I am with Dreamer here. I applaud your idealism but it can't be about music first once money comes into it. It just can't. There is too much at stake; too much has to be considered.

Regarding the importance of lead singers; the Rolling Stones would be nothing without Mick Jagger & Led Zeppelin would be nothing without Robert Plant. In the case of Zeppelin, I concede that Jimmy Page was the most important member, but when I am listening to them, though I love Page's guitar work, I listen to Robert's lyrics first.

Then there are bands like the Who & Pink Floyd. Pete Townshend was the most important member of the Who. All Daltrey did was sing his lyrics. This is one reason why they never really won me over. Floyd had Roger Waters as the songwriter but David Gilmour as the guitarist & frontman, and give me Gilmour any day, thanks.

When Queen lost Freddie Mercury they made an ill advised attempt to tour with Paul Rodgers. Great singer; but he is not Freddie Mercury. If they had replaced Brian May instead, would it have mattered so much? I suggest not.

I have to say that while there are some guitar solos & parts which I love passionately, none of them, apart from perhaps the opening of Romeo & Juliet & Stairway To Heaven, mean quite as much to me as my favourite lyrics do. I'm a lyrics person. That is why I can't get into virtuoso guitarists my husband loves, such as Joe Satriani & Steve Vai. I don't have the technical knowledge. I need to have lyrics to set the scene for me. After you have given me the lyrics, then let loose with the guitar work. Classic examples are the end of Hotel California & also Brothers In Arms.