View Poll Results: Who is the least replaceable band member

Voters
29. You may not vote on this poll
  • Lead Singer

    20 68.97%
  • Lead Guitarist

    4 13.79%
  • Rhythm Guitarist

    1 3.45%
  • Bassist

    1 3.45%
  • Drummer

    0 0%
  • None (all are replaceable)

    3 10.34%
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 65

Thread: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

  1. #21
    Stuck on the Border TimothyBFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Waiting in the weeds of Northern Indiana
    Posts
    11,565

    Default Re: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

    Well crap- you guys are blowing my irreplaceable frontman theory all to pieces- I forgot about Genesis. I agree with UnderTheWire, Phil replacing Peter worked wonderfully.

    Another point I was thinking of are the groups like our Eagles who have more than one lead singer, I can't imagine without either Don or Glenn. Same with Styx (DeYoung/Shaw or Gowan/Shaw).

    TK made a great point that there are certain groups that FOR ME if ANY of the members left, I couldn't imagine them staying together. Examples- Eagles, Stones (tho it did happen & they're still going strong), Aerosmith, Zeppelin (Jason replacing his Dad a few times has worked).

    There's so many aspects to consider in this. My mind is going nuts thinking about it.
    He sings it high, he plays it low

  2. #22
    Out on the Border Sebastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    47

    Default Re: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

    In a band that's just starting or hasn't peaked yet: whoever the principal songwriter is. Otherwise, yeah, the singer. It's not 'impossible' to replace them, but it certainly affects the product more IMO. Someone mentioned Brian May earlier, and that reminded me of a comment he made on Absolute Radio two years ago: the lead vocal is the core of a song; everything else is important, of course, but without a strong lead vocal you're just wasting your time... and that's coming from a lead guitarist.

    Aerosmith without Perry: it happened, albeit briefly; Aerosmith without Tyler: IDK if it's ever happened, but it'd be much weirder IMO.

    Iron Maiden replaced their singer while they were still 'active' (in the sense of bringing new material regularly, etc.) but nowadays Bruce is pretty much the face of the band at least in terms of public perception. Without Steve, they'd lose their main creative force, but they can always just refrain from releasing new albums and play a 'greatest hits' setlist (well, that's pretty much what they're doing now).

    Same for, say, The Who: as much as Pete's a key piece of their performance and his guitar playing and vocals are so distinctive, Roger's 'more' irreplaceable IMO. As most of their best-known work was written over three decades ago, they can always become their own cover band (well, that ship has sailed).

    Eagles themselves sort of confirm that: other than Don and Glenn, everybody's either been replaced or wasn't there in the beginning, and it's still worked.

    An exception is Van Halen / Van Hagar / Van Cainer, where Alex and especially Eddie are basically running the show, and most fans go to see them (especially Eddie) and don't care too much about the singer.

    Pink Floyd are another interesting case: they could go on without Syd because they'd just began and were yet to achieve international superstardom; they carried on without Roger even though they'd lost their main lyricist/force, but then again, most of what they did on stage was playing Roger-era classics, plus a few Reason and Bell tracks which, let's face it, weren't as overwhelmingly popular as The Wall or Dark Side. I think a Water-less PF is still more credible than a Gilmour-less would be, but why? Because of Dave's guitar playing or because of his singing?

  3. #23
    Moderator Ive always been a dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cruising down the center of a two-way street in VA
    Posts
    20,198

    Default Re: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

    Quote Originally Posted by Springbo View Post
    Maybe I am being idealistic, but I definitely agree it should be more about the music and less about the money. Just because a drumbeat or a bassline isn't as recognizable as a lead guitar or lead singer, doesn't make it less important or less valuable IMHO.
    Sb - Speaking for myself, I've never said that a band shouldn't be about the music. But, I also don't think the business side of the industry can be ignored. I've read numerous comments in other threads on the board where people have claimed that a band isn't a business at all, and that is the thing that I disagree about the most. Anytime an entity is raking in millions of dollars, it's a business - plain and simple. But to me, just because they are a business doesn't mean that bands aren't still primarily about the music because I believe that most of them are. Many artists are wealthy enough to walk off into the sunset and never work another day in their life. They don't have to write and record music or tour, yet they choose do so because the bottom line is they love what they do.

    "People don't run out of dreams: People just run out of time ..."
    Glenn Frey 11/06/1948 - 01/18/2016

  4. #24
    Stuck on the Border
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    24,191

    Default Re: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

    [quote=Sebastian;245762
    Pink Floyd are another interesting case: they could go on without Syd because they'd just began and were yet to achieve international superstardom; they carried on without Roger even though they'd lost their main lyricist/force, but then again, most of what they did on stage was playing Roger-era classics, plus a few Reason and Bell tracks which, let's face it, weren't as overwhelmingly popular as The Wall or Dark Side. I think a Water-less PF is still more credible than a Gilmour-less would be, but why? Because of Dave's guitar playing or because of his singing?[/quote]

    Both Gilmour's guitar work & singing are equally important for me; but perhaps if you asked real hard core Floyd fans they might say his guitar work.

    How about Deep Purple & Black Sabbath who have also had multiple lineups? I am not their greatest fan but my husband is. He liked the Coverdale/Hughes lineup but for me their 'real' singer is Ian Gillan. It's ironic that their most famous guitarist, Richie Blackmore, left them a very long time ago & Steve Morse now plays lead. Unlike Jimmy Page, Blackmore was replaceable.

    It can work both ways. I was a fan of Oasis. Although Liam Gallagher sang their big hits, Noel Gallagher was the guitarist & songwriter, and some of their later, more thoughtful songs are sung by him (only one Champagne Supernova though - Liam all the way)!

    All the bands I talk about are British. It's ironic but apart from the Eagles I don't follow American bands at all. I could go back to the past & say the only irreplaceable member of the Byrds was Roger McGuinn, I suppose if I had to give another American example.

  5. #25
    Stuck on the Border WalshFan88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    11,238

    Default Re: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

    Quote Originally Posted by Springbo View Post
    Maybe I am being idealistic, but I definitely agree it should be more about the music and less about the money. Just because a drumbeat or a bassline isn't as recognizable as a lead guitar or lead singer, doesn't make it less important or less valuable IMHO.
    I agree.
    -Austin-
    Resident Guitar Slinger
    Fan of the Eagles from 1972-2016 #NOGLENNNOEAGLES

    RIP Glenn Frey and Randy Meisner

    "So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains and we never even know we have the key..."


  6. #26
    Stuck on the Border WalshFan88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    11,238

    Default Re: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sebastian View Post
    In a band that's just starting or hasn't peaked yet: whoever the principal songwriter is. Otherwise, yeah, the singer. It's not 'impossible' to replace them, but it certainly affects the product more IMO. Someone mentioned Brian May earlier, and that reminded me of a comment he made on Absolute Radio two years ago: the lead vocal is the core of a song; everything else is important, of course, but without a strong lead vocal you're just wasting your time... and that's coming from a lead guitarist.

    A good lead vocal is important but the music behind it is just as important. I've never liked a song that had great singing/lyrics and "just ok" melody/music. In fact, I've liked the opposite. So for me the music wins out. A good vocal is the the stitch that closes it all together. You have to have it, but you can't rely on it for everything.

    Aerosmith without Perry: it happened, albeit briefly; Aerosmith without Tyler: IDK if it's ever happened, but it'd be much weirder IMO.

    I'd never imagine Aerosmith without Perry again.... Just listen to Rock In A Hard Place (the album). The soul and the heart of the band was totally lost with the Perry-less Aerosmith. It was horrible. However, the Joe Perry Project was great. Let The Music Do The Talking (Quite funny in this case! ) was an awesome song. I don't like 1 song on Rock In A Hard Place. So in this case, I'm throwing the bone to Joe. That said, I love Whitford, Hamilton, and Kramer and think they are underrated. But an Aerosmith without Joe is just not for me.
    ....
    -Austin-
    Resident Guitar Slinger
    Fan of the Eagles from 1972-2016 #NOGLENNNOEAGLES

    RIP Glenn Frey and Randy Meisner

    "So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains and we never even know we have the key..."


  7. #27
    Out on the Border Sebastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    47

    Default Re: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

    I agree to disagree. For me, the guitar, bass, etc., are important, very important, incredibly important... but the lead vocal is more important. It comes with being a lyric-oriented listener (and performer). The story that the song tells, the poem, etc., are key to the song, as are the chords, licks, solos, counterpoints, beats, crescendi, etc.

    For me, the musical side accounts for 50% of the product, and the lyrical side accounts for the other 50%. A guitar-oriented listener or performer would obviously give more importance to the solos and licks, etc., (there's that maxim: 'lyrics are the fillers that go between guitar solos', or something like that).

    The printed lyrics have the words, but not the music; the backing track has the music, but not the words. Lead vocals have both: they're musical, and they're lyrical. That's, IMO, the heart of the matter

  8. #28
    Moderator Brooke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Down some endless road just south of nowhere (Missouri)
    Posts
    21,495

    Default Re: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

    I voted for the lead singer. I just think they are the heart and soul of the band. The voice is what I hear first.

    I just know that I've never cared to see Journey without Steve Perry. It just doesn't interest me. I'm sure the new ones were good, but they would never be Steve no matter how much they sounded like him.

    But with that said, I also know that I'm not sure that I want to see Bon Jovi without Richie Sambora either. I've never seen them live, but I would have liked to if Richie were still with them, but it seems he's been fired. Or so I've heard. Hope it's not true!

    I'd never go see the Eagles without Glenn or Don H. No way!

    Pink Floyd-never seen them live, but David Gilmore rules there!

    Rolling Stones without Mick or Keith-never! Aerosmith without Steven Tyler or Joe Perry-never! Both are irreplaceable here.

    For me I guess it just depends on the particular band.
    https://i.imgur.com/CuSdAQM.jpg
    "They will never forget you 'till somebody new comes along"
    1948-2016 Gone but not forgotten

  9. #29
    Stuck on the Border WalshFan88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    11,238

    Default Re: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

    I agree on that they are the first you usually hear.

    For me when I hear a song, if the guitar comes on before the voice I can generally pick out the guitarist because everyone in the 70s had a signature sound and was very easy to listen to a part on a song you hadn't heard and say, "That's Mike Campbell playing that part". But if the vocals come in first, you're right - that's the thing you recognize first. And not everyone can pick out guitar players by their sound but you listen to a player long enough his sound and style is ingrained in your brain. For instance, when I first heard Boys Of Summer, it sounded like Mike Campbell's style to me. And he has that first lick in the song. So I Google'd it and sure enough it was Mike. Mike has a very lyrical approach to guitar playing though, he never overplays and is much like George Harrison - he plays for the song and not for himself.

    Today, for the most part all guitarist sound like - their sound is covered in distortion to the point where it all starts sounding the same - and they all play in the same or mostly the same style.
    -Austin-
    Resident Guitar Slinger
    Fan of the Eagles from 1972-2016 #NOGLENNNOEAGLES

    RIP Glenn Frey and Randy Meisner

    "So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains and we never even know we have the key..."


  10. #30
    Border Troubadour
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,462

    Default Re: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

    Quite simply it will vary case by case - for example in Rush you could never replace Neil Peart on drums, whereas I dare say you could easily replace Roger Taylor in Queen without their it being the end of the world. It all depends on a lot of factors within the band and the individual's characteristics - for example the Eagles are very vocal / harmony-driven and so this means whilst there are about 5,250,268 better drummers out there than Don Henley you can't get rid of him because his songwriting skills and partnership with Glenn, and relative all-round ability on vocals means there would be a huge void, almost the soul removed from the band.

    I believe very broadly there are two types of musician - experts and specialists: for guitars think of Don Felder as an expert - he knows the guitar inside out and can play comfortably any piece of guitar music put in front of him - the same applies to Brian May and Jimmy Page (both very overrated IMO). However this ability also makes them very replaceable - the lack of style that tends to arise from this sort of far-reaching ability means that they all sound the same - how different do Felder and Steuart Smitjh sound? Not very much at all to me. On the other side of this you have Joe Walsh - a specialist. Whilst he may not be 100% perfectly accurate like Felder is, he plays with feel and can pull riffs and rhythms out of thin air (like Tony Iommi in Black Sabbath and Steve Howe in Yes), and this gives them a style and leaves a trademark, their stamp, on songs - you can tell a Joe Walsh riff a mile away and he brought a noticeable rockier edge to the Eagles. Of course depending on what you have in the band and the musical direction of it will affect how replaceable the members are.

    You also have to think of external factors - whilst for example someone may just play rhythm guitar on stage and be seemingly almost like the weakest aspect of the band they may be a huge part of the band off it - an example I'll use is from my other absolutely favorite greatest band ever - Judas Priest. Their bassist, Ian Hill, hasn't written a song in 35+ years, doesn't do any vocals and always stays in the shadows of the stage, but it's that unsung steadiness, the firmly-grounded manner, the shyness that makes him so special to the band - he's an unbelievably nice guy and his constant determined, down to earth nature I really think helps keep things all together - a bit like Randy Meisner in the Eagles. You need that quiet, calm, island of sanity in any band, especially when you're as big as the Eagles were 1974-1978.

    If you had to discard them factors and do it purely on sort of toughness then you'd probably have to say bassist, rhythm guitarist, drummer, lead guitarist then lead vocalist in order from most->least replaceable: an example is Ozzy Osbourne in Black Sabbath - a very, very average vocalist - especially nowadays, he wasn't as bad the first time around when Sabbath rose to fame
    - but he remains more popular than Ronnie James Dio and Ian Gillan (both much better vocalists) purely because he was the original singer, though TBF image probably helped him a lot.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •