The New Frontman
 

Is it ever a good idea for an established band to change frontmen? Whether it is Rundgren and the cars, Paul Rodgers and Queen, or some nobody and Kansas are you always disappointed? Genesis?

Varies from band to band. No way you can replace Freddy Mercury, but Sammy Hagar in Van Halen did a decent job. Very different feel than Dave, but pretty good, if you like that kind of music. Even had a hit or two, if I recall correctly.

I think the most successful frontman replacement, and one that shows the complexity of the issue, is AC/DC. Although I feel that the only real AC/DC featured Bon Scott, they have enjoyed many years of success with...the other guy.

@glatt: I still remember the first time I heard "Van Hagar" on the classic rock station.

its all a case-by-case thing.

Whether or not it is a good idea, some bands just don't want to stop making music. Fan acceptance is another matter entirely, and often is based on the success or charisma of the replacement.

Genesis is perhaps the best example of extreme success, as they had by far their biggest popularity and sales after Phil Collins took the fore. And make no mistake, Peter Gabriel was a tough damn act to follow. However, Phil had sung even when Pete was the guy, and their voices were not terribly dissimilar in those days. This allowed the band to keep giving the fans the old, extremely cool numbers in a fine fashion, while moving on and making new stuff that was equally cool, if much different.

On the other end of the scale, you have Van Halen, who obviously did not appreciate what David Lee Roth brought to their act. Now, DLR is a moron and a marginal solo performer at best, but...VH was never the same without him.

I agree that some people are irreplaceable...Freddie Mercury, Ronnie Van Zant, Lowell George, Jerry Garcia. I'm sure there are more.

I still respect the fact that musicians want to continue making their music. Hell, I'm pissed that what's left of The Who isn't coming to my town.

No different than changing drummers, what works, works, what does not, doesn't.

Case by case for me too. I just have a hard time imagining Paul Rodgers with Queen. Queen does have a theatrical aire about them. Why Paul? He's always been one of my favs. I guess we all get old. Long live the Queen. I would have approached Alice Cooper, had it been me. Yeah....

Worked for Manfred Mann too - Mike D'Abo replaced the irreplaceable Paul Jones

Thanks, Jay. I had nearly forgotten those guys.

***goes to dig up the old "Roaring Silence" LP..***

I always feel a bit anxious when bands announce (or, on purchasing a new album, discover) they have swapped frontmen. In a number of cases, it has been because the band has wanted to go in a "new direction" or some such. Which is fine; I'm all for bands evolving. I just hate it when they evolve backwards.

Look at INXS. They did an entire TV season "replacing" Michael Hutchence. YOU CAN'T REPLACE MICHAEL. If this band, and other bands, are so freaking good, then why don't they just name their band something else? No, they need to ride on the name, because in most cases that's all they have going. They need the hype in many cases because, though they may have some talent, there is nothing to set them apart from all the thousands of other bands with a modicum of talent.

Personally, I find it boring and stupid.

@ Swawnee, About the INXS rock star show. Did you see Jordis Unga sing? oh man she was bigger than the band! There was that other guy they didn't chose he was good too. I think they chose someone that wouldn't stand out too much.

I don't watch those shows. I have enough "reality" in my life. Reality shows are neither "real" or "ity."

Having said that, I don't doubt that the singers were good. My point is if they're so great why do they need to use the old name? INXS was Michael Hutchence. They could rename it INRECESS or something.

;)