Well, not always the death, but often. Every now and again it happens. A popular band loses its front man for whatever reason. Invariably, the quality of that band's music drops off considerably after the change. However, in many cases, fans of the band just go right on, blissfully buying the records and scarcely acknowledging anything has changed. I understand this. They're fans, and fans are usually loyal to a fault.

 

For the record, I'm not talking about situations where bands from the old days reform and try to cash in on the summer reunion tour circuit, often with only one or two original members. That's a whole 'nuther awful trend all its own. I'm talking about bands making the switch at the height of their career/popularity.

 

Let's examine some notable examples of this phenomenon:

 

AC/DC: The poster child of this problem. Take Bon Scott -- incredibly distinctive, with a delivery chock full of personality. He dies, and Malcolm and Angus go get some dude who can go along with the signature AC/DC sound to a degree, but is a very poor imitation of Scott. To me, I always come back to the funny line from Beavis & Butthead, where they suggest Johnson looks like he's in the middle of a bowel movement when he sings. Well, he sounds like it too, and the results smell like it as well. And while AC/DC may still be a fun band to see in concert, anyone who would dare argue the quality of the band's work in the post-Scott era is even remotely close to the music they did when he was alive is just flat-out insane.

 

Van Halen: Poster Child No. 2. With David Lee Roth, Van Halen was fun and exciting, and musically glorious. Without him, they became cheesy and pretentious, totally losing touch with what made them great to begin with. I blame a lot of this on Sammy Hagar, whom I've always thought sucked. But it's not all on him; I don't blame him for jumping at a great opportunity when he did. No, the bulk of the blame falls on the shoulders of the band's namesake, two brothers who apparently woke up one morning and decided they were going to take themselves far more seriously than they should, and apparently thought Van Halen's real destiny was to be deep and ponderous, as though they were embarrassed about their DLR-era work.

 

Lynyrd Skynyrd: Band makes great music, and becomes rock'n'roll icons and the face of the southern rock genre. Band has plane crash, killing lead singer, among other members. After a few years of a hiatus, some of the remaining members have the brilliant idea of "Hey, let's just go get the former lead singer's little brother to take his place -- it'll be like nothing ever happened," ignoring the fact that not only was Ronnie Van Zant the face of the band, he also defined their sound with his songwriting, and little brother can't hold his jock. The results are, predictably, awful. When Gary Rossington and Billy Powell finally leave this mortal coil, Ronnie's going to be waiting for them in one of Heaven's back alleys with a tire iron for what they did to his band.

 

Occasionally it works. Think Journey, Black Sabbath. I'm not sure what to think about this new Alice In Chains album. What I've heard of it sounds good, but I'm a Layne Staley loyalist. Plus, AIC hasn't really done anything prominent for a decade, so it really doesn't fit with what I'm talking about anyway.

 

But anyway: What's missing? What goes wrong when the lead singer is changed out? Should we, as fans, feel like we're being sold a bill of goods when we go to see Aerosmith without Stephen Tyler? (Not that I would anyway, but it's a contemporary example that looks possible.)

 

What are some other bands who've made this leap, and why did/didn't it work?

What else would you suggest bands like ACDC do after their lead singer dies? Give up? They still made good music and still made a lot of money.

What else would you suggest bands like ACDC do after their lead singer dies? Give up? They still made good music and still made a lot of money.

 

Well, changing the name of the band immediately comes to mind.

I don't know why, and this might be blasphemy, but I've always preferred Brian Johnson's vocals over Bon Scott's.

I don't know why, and this might be blasphemy, but I've always preferred Brian Johnson's vocals over Bon Scott's.

 

There's no "might" to it.

There's no "might" to it.

 

It may be because I grew up hearing Johnson's vocals and didn't learn until later that AC/DC had a previous lead singer. Heard Bon Scott and it just wasn't the AC/DC that I grew up with. Not a bad thing, but just not what I was used to. I listen to AC/DC more for Angus anyways.

Band member passes away, what do the other guys do?

 

Queen the bass player will not ever, and has never played with the band.

 

Pink Floyd did pretty good when thier leader got sick.

 

Allman Bros also.

 

Mamas/Papas never returned.

 

Doors, but who cared?

 

AC/DC has done really well and I like Brian better than Bon and I have almost every thing they have done.

I have almost everything AC/DC has also, Scott is better than Johnson, but Johnson isn't bad.

You obviously have a better ear for music than I do. I could never tell the difference between Bon Scott, and Brian Johnson.

So, does it make me a bad person if I liked Phil Collins more than Peter Gabriel as the lead of Genesis? Or is this not the same situation, as they "promoted" within?

People always talk about AC/DC being better with Scott rather than Johnson, but haven't they made most of their most memorable/recognizable music with Johnson out front? I'm not a huge fan so I can't say for sure, but it always seemed odd when people discussed Scott as the best.

People always talk about AC/DC being better with Scott rather than Johnson, but haven't they made most of their most memorable/recognizable music with Johnson out front? I'm not a huge fan so I can't say for sure, but it always seemed odd when people discussed Scott as the best.

 

By my ear, Scott is more a naturally high pitched singer. He didn't have to scream or screech to get those highs, Johnson on the other hand is a shreeker. It seems to me he has to shout to hit those notes.

 

Agreed? Or am I off base with that?

People always talk about AC/DC being better with Scott rather than Johnson, but haven't they made most of their most memorable/recognizable music with Johnson out front? I'm not a huge fan so I can't say for sure, but it always seemed odd when people discussed Scott as the best.

 

The only memorable original stuff made with Johnson up front was "Back In Black," which I think was largely conceived before Johnson was on board. The songs "Who Made Who" and "Thunderstruck" were hits and catchy tunes (but IMO awful and grossly overplayed). Brian Johnson's been getting rich all these years singing Bon Scott's songs in concert, and adding little to the overall AC/DC legacy from a creativity standpoint.

So, does it make me a bad person if I liked Phil Collins more than Peter Gabriel as the lead of Genesis? Or is this not the same situation, as they "promoted" within?

 

They crossed my mind, actually, but I ruled them out because they were largely unknown in the US until Phil Collins claimed frontman status.

By my ear, Scott is more a naturally high pitched singer. He didn't have to scream or screech to get those highs, Johnson on the other hand is a shreeker. It seems to me he has to shout to hit those notes.

 

Agreed? Or am I off base with that?

 

Good call. I find Johnson to be shrill and grating, whereas Scott had much more elasticity with his voice.