mightyhunter
Sergeant
- 582
- 0
- 0
you could say that about marillion when fish left in '88 and was replaced by steve hogarth.but hasnt ritchie blackmore the lead singer?
i think once you lose the lead singer, it becomes a different band
you could say that about marillion when fish left in '88 and was replaced by steve hogarth.but hasnt ritchie blackmore the lead singer?
i think once you lose the lead singer, it becomes a different band
you could say that about marillion when fish left in '88 and was replaced by steve hogarth.
theres a bit of a difference bonehead, a peripheral figure in a band leaving to bruce dickinson, the focal point of the band leaving, dont you think?
and besides, didnt iron maiden 'cheat' the singles chart one year just so they could have a number one single? hardly the work of briatains best band i would say!DT_Xtremez_42:
ming mong, i hope you were being deliberately obtuse there, lol. bonehead was the geezer in oasis(damn! you hooked me)OK, so you disagree with him, but no need to start insulting people.
Why does losing a singer make it a different band? Most people like a band for their overall sound, which is generally the work of the guys behind the singer.
Try telling Genesis that they are not the same band any more because Peter Gabriel left them, or maybe Pink Floyd. The list goes on and on for bands who have replaced singers and are still going strong.
Dave Murray I think as well, as he and SH were good mates when they were young. Adrian Smith left and was replaced by Janick Gers, but came back as a 3rd guitarist. Clive Burr was replaced by Nicko McBrain on drums. There were several other changes really early on, but if you count from when the band were first taken seriously as artists (ie their first recorded album) I think that's about it mate
dont iron maiden have a different lead singer than the original line up?
then i would argue that it is almost like 2 bands
You could say that about almost everyband mention on the thread. Oasis have scaked/lost at least four members since they formed, Robert Smith is ther only origiinal Cure member left, The Who have obviously lost 2 members, Pink Floyd have lost Roger Waters and Syd Barrett. Even my 2 choices (The Mission & New Order) don't have all of the original members. A band is a band regardless of who the current members are. They are often more succesful when they change the line-up. Steps for example, are a much better band now they have split up!
New Order are the same band when recording, Gillian Gilbert has chosen not to play live on tour, prefering to spend time with her and Steven's children. The keyboardist/guitarist that has replaced her live is an awesome musician though! Saw them live in Newcastle last year and it was easily the best gig I have seen them play. Musically an assault on the ears! Couldn't hear for 2 days, that's a gig!
To be honest - some bands survive line-up changes - others do not.
For instance - the Jam are back on tour - minus Paul Weller.
I, for one, do not consider it the Jam without him, even though Bruce & Rick are playing with a new vocalist. It would not be right.
also, (and i do hate to use this as an example), there are 3 bucks fizz's on the go at the moment, one without ANY of the original members, or any members from when they vaguely successfulDT_Xtremez_14:
MUSE
travelled from ISL to watch them play to a packed wembley stadium last week and they were awesome. Supported by Biffy Clyro who are a band to watch out for in the future . . . . . . and to all those My Chemical Romance fans - they were sh1te.
I didnt think anyone over 15 listened to MCR?DT_Xtremez_15: