A message about criticizing new members in your favorite band

Cafe Society
1

So … I’ve just written another rant, and I’m happy to say that I left out the profanity. I wrote this in response to a comment on a video on YouTube. The commenter wondered why so many AC/DC fans, to this day, still criticize singer Brian Johnson, who replaced the band’s original singer, Bon Scott, in 1980. Yeah, almost 40 years ago. Bon Scott was in the band for 6 years before he drank himself to death. Brian Johnson, Bon’s replacement, has been in the band for almost 40 years, and is largely responsible for the fact that the band even still exists. Here is what I wrote:

Those are probably old Bon Scott fans. There are some people who will never let go of the original singer in a band, even when the replacements are better. Sammy Hagar was so much better than David Lee Roth in Van Halen. Floor Jansen is head and shoulders better than Tarja Turunen in Nightwish. Yet every video with the “new” singers gets slammed with comments about how much better the original singer was.
These people think that the band should have just hung it up and retired when the original singer died/quit/was fired. They completely ignore the fact that PLAYING IN THIS BAND IS THESE PEOPLE’S JOB. It is their livelihood. It is how they pay their bills and support their families. And … they’re just supposed to “retire” because one beloved band member is gone? I’m a professional cook. I’ve been making my living by cooking for almost 34 years, but I’ve only been the “head chef” once. I mostly work in the background behind another, better, chef. Should I hang it up and retire because the executive chef at my job leaves? I would only do that if he (or she) wanted me to come with him to his new job, because he valued my work and support. Otherwise, no, I’m staying right where I am, because I have bills to pay.

Yeah, a lot of these artists probably could retire, because by the rest of us working stiff’s standards, they’re freaking loaded and have enough money that they don’t really need to ever work again.

The thing is, it’s not just about the guys in the band. Do you know how many people it takes, behind the scenes, to pull off a world tour? Go pull out some concert DVD in your collection. Watch the whole show. And then, let it keep running after the last encore. READ THE CREDITS. A lot of these artists, especially the long-lived acts, use the same road crew on every tour. They have been working with these same behind-the-scenes people for a very long time. I’m talking 100 people or more. And every one of those people DEPENDS on the band continuing to play, record, and tour. Because these people aren’t filthy rich. They’re working stiffs like you and me. Their jobs might be cooler than ours, but they’re still working stiffs, who have families and bills. And they NEED the band to keep going.

I will NEVER criticize a band for continuing on after the loss of a beloved member, even when that member was the lead singer.

And, on another topic, it’s not even about money. These people are ARTISTS. They’re creative people who express their creativity through music. Or they are PERFORMERS who love to express themselves by PERFORMING. And they should hang it up and quit? While they are still perfectly capable of creating or performing? In God’s name, WHY? Asking them to quit is nothing short of censorship in the name of “being a fan”. And it’s out of line.

2

Absolutely! Bravo! I’ve been around bands all my life, first as a “band wife” and now as a performer. ( I play open mics and act in an Alice Cooper tribute). Everything you say is spot on.
In our tribute, we’ve replaced everyone but the frontman and me at least once. One other actress has done most of the shows but not all. Heck, we’ve even gone through three snakes! My ex’s band was much the same. People came and went, sometimes depending on availability, sometimes depending on who was on speaking terms. Band fights! Oh boy, ask me about band fights!
Musicians can be emotional. They get jealous or envious, they get conceited and they move on. They figure the next band will be the one that makes them famous. Then there’s the personal issues. Big bands like Fleetwood Mac and The Mamas and Papas were infamous for trading partners among their members.
Then you have the burnouts and actual deaths. To take ACDC as an example, obviously if your frontman keels over and you have commitments, you scramble and hire a Brian Johnson. I was listening to other music at the time and only really got exposed to ACDC on the oldies station. By then, they were playing both singers and you were as likely to get one as the other. I never really had a preference, it was just “them”.
I suppose there are some bands that really couldn’t replace their singer. The Stones come to mind. Then there are bands the probably shouldn’t. Queen’s attempts don’t seem to get too far. For the most part though, the show can and should go on.

3

Wait, Floor Jansen is in Nightwish? I’m going to have to check it out, I liked her singing a lot on Ayreon’s cd’s.

I liked Tarja Turunen in Nightwish a lot more than Anette Olzon. Nightwish changed their style when Tarja left the band, and I wasn’t a big fan of the new style or the new singer. I haven’t hear Floor Jansen singing for them, so I can’t give an opinion on her compared to Tarja.
I feel the same way about Bon Scott/Brian Johnson. I thought AC/DC was a more interesting band when Scott was singing. It seemed like after he died, they basically made the same album with the same songs over and over again.

[QUOTE=Mister Rik]
There are some people who will never let go of the original singer in a band, even when the replacements are better. Sammy Hagar was so much better than David Lee Roth in Van Halen. Floor Jansen is head and shoulders better than Tarja Turunen in Nightwish.
[/QUOTE]

Which singers are better here is entirely Your Opinion. Just like the Bon Scott over Brian Johnson is my opinion. I don’t listen to music according to others opinion of it, I listen to what I like. And I hate it when people tell me which singers/bands I should like. Because that’s not respectful to tell me what my opinions should be. That’s why it’s an opinion, not a fact. And even if you could make an argument that one singer is technically better than another does not mean that everyone is going to like the “better” singer more. Music is highly subjective, and many people have different views on the same music.

Do I think Van Halen, Nightwish, AC/DC, etc, should have disbanded after the original singer left? No. There are, as you’ve said, a lot more people involved than the band itself, and I don’t think the music and touring should come to a halt because one person (even a singer) has left. But most bands change over the years, even more so with a new singer. Sometimes people don’t like the new singer or the way the music has changed. Sometimes people’s tastes change, and they no longer like the same things.

4

Dave Evans was AC/DC’s original singer and sang on their first release.

5

Bands making it work, and the musicians who work in that band (and the pros on their team), should always be respected. If they can tour profitably, release new music, etc and their fan base is there, more power to them.

To me, that is completely different vs. “I prefer this lineup.” E.g., for AC/DC, the bottom line is that Bon Scott was NOT just the singer - he was the lyricist. Brian could execute Bon’s songs, but can’t write any that hold a candle to Bon’s.

Now, I fully acknowledge that Brian’s approach and lyrics were perfect for AC/DC to achieve the next level of success. And he’s been a great member of the band up until the last tour. But I don’t listen to anything but Bon tracks when I listen to AC/DC.

6

Uh . . . what?

If I comment that I think David Lee Roth was much better – which is true – then that doesn’t mean I think Van Halen “should have just hung it up and retired”. Going from one to the other there seems like some fallacy-of-the-excluded-middle stuff.

7

Nope.

I don’t have a problem of “don’t criticise the change of singer” but sometimes it is for the worst. Van Halen, the band Eddie wanted to be in, was in effect a clone of Montrose, with its lead singer Sammy Hagar joining, it became more like the Montrose clone it was originally.

However, with the loss of Roth, it stopped becoming the Van Halen we knew and loved. No humour. All soft rock and far too solo based. It became “Montrose 2” and the band I loved went with Dave Lee Roths solo career. So sometimes with a split a band isn’t a band anymore… That was the case with Van Halen.

And god knows where you got the idea that Sammy Hagar was better, not even as a singer…

Fair play on the likes of Bon Scott, he died.

8

I support changes just fine if the change doesn’t make the band worse. Blaze Bayley in Iron Maiden was just not a good idea. Floor Jansen in Nightwish is an outstanding idea. Steve Augeri was a pale imitation of Steve Perry in Journey. Arnel Pineda by contrast is probably better than Perry is now and at least close enough to Perry in his prime to be acceptable. John Corabi was a major upgrade over Vince Neil in Motley Crue, but one has to admit that Vince represented their classic sound, whatever his vocal limitations.

The only time I really criticize band changes is when members are fired for no good reason and replaced with people who are just not as good. Fortunately, that doesn’t happen to often. Think Steve Perry firing Ross Valory and Steve Smith.

9

I don’t know - wishing a band stopped calling itself by a particular name (in my case, that’d be Stranglers and 10,000 Maniacs) isn’t the same thing as wishing the new version wasn’t still a band. Just change your goddamn name, and if you still have the chops, you’ll do fine (see: New Order, Love & Rockets)

I realise there’s such a thing as brand recognition. I just don’t care.

10

Egg-zactly.

I mean, then you must never complain about Jefferson Airplane/Starship? We Built the City is just as “good” a song as White Rabbit, and no one should ever complain? Pish tush. Bands change, styles change. Not always for the better.

Shit, I was just noted this yesterday when some Eagles from The Long Run came on, and I remembered how I hated it even when it was new, and how it just wasn’t as good as Hotel California. Was that because of the band losing Meisner? Or just because it sucked on its own? Am I allowed to complain either way?

AC/DC under Johnson became the AC/DC that everyone knows - juvenile double-entendre songs. Sure they did that before (Big Balls, anyone? Anyone?) But they took it to the next level. I don’t think there’s a song on Back in Black that isn’t just an excuse for bad sex puns. But we liked it! They did a good job, but it’s no Highway to Hell.

11

Then you’ll love this:

Ghost Love Score in Buenos Aires

She joined Nightwish in the middle of their 2012 world tour, after Annette’s departure. At the time of the linked performance, I think she had only been in the band for a couple months. After the tour, they made her a full member of the band (along with Troy Donockley, the pipes player).
Anyway, the things I said about Roth/Hagar, etc., were of course my subjective opinion. I was primarily attempting to analyze the mindset of people who apparently load up videos of singers they don’t like purely to announce how much better the previous singer was.

Nothing against Bon Scott. I thought he was great, and admit that he wrote more clever lyrics than Johnson does. Bon is also my go-to guy when I get going about “hardcore fans” of this genre or that genre who have this crazy idea that musicians in a particular genre are 100% “this genre only”. I like to show them Bon Scott singing bubblegum pop in The Valentines, and playing the recorder and singing in the progressive rock band Fraternity, before joining AC/DC and hitting it big. He did what artists still do today - they try out a lot of different things until they find the one that “hits”.

Though I stand by my Roth/Hagar opinion. I liked early Van Halen, but I never saw Dave as anything but a buffoon who would rather sing covers than write his own material. A few years ago, before he rejoined VH, I found a clip of him on some talk show promoting his new bluegrass album. “Oh cool,” I thought, Dave’s trying something different!" Sigh. He proceeded to sing a “bluegrass” cover of “Jump”. Except not really. Oh, he was backed up by some kickass bluegrass players who played an interesting arrangement of the song’s music. But he sang it exactly the same way he sang the original. It sounded as if he’d taken the original recording, deleted everything but the vocals, and then replaced it all with bluegrass instruments.

12

Wait, so you’re criticizing a new guy for working with those kickass players?

:wink:

13

Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t. AC/DC is a good example. Alice in Chains were able to move on without Layne Staley.
On the other hand, Journey just wasn’t the same without Steve Perry, and Stone Temple Pilots replacing Scott Weiland with Chester Bennington was an absolute joke. (I realize why Weiland was fired. Bennington still couldn’t replace him)

14

Sometimes the lead singer is the entire band. Somehow The Doors just weren’t the same without Jim. Go figure. :wink:

15

Brian Johnson sings like he’s getting a catheter removed.

16

“Back in Black” was a fabulous album though. I was just the right age when it was released and EVERYONE had a copy of it. You could not go to a party without “Back in Black” being blasted loud.

(I do prefer Bon though.)

17

Yeah, excluded middles like umm, changing the band name, as mentioned below. Plus, just because you have a job you feel you’re entitled to do doesn’t mean that I have to like it or keep my mouth shut about it if i don’t. They’ve got every right to keep playing, and I’ve got every right to keep being a critic.

And if you want to keep capitalizing on that brand recognition, you might want to be honest when you’ve appreciably changed the product.

AC/DC gets a pass from me even though I liked Bonn Scott better, because they went and got someone who’s as close to a sound-alike as you’re going to find. That said, Back In Black was a great record, the others with Johnson singing, not so much. A pass on keeping the band name without me badmouthing you doesn’t keep me from noticing that your later output was a noticeable slide.

And it’s their job? Well, then they should fucking act like it and get along with others like a professional would. When they can’t, and the product changes, they should have the honesty to say it’s not the same thing.

18

Rage Against The Machine? Awesome sauce. Rage Against The Machine without Zach de la Rocha but with Chris Cornell? Audioslave.

The Stooges? Amazeballs. Iggy and the Stooges? Tons of fun. Iggy and the Stooge? Not even a thing.

Minutemen? One of the greatest bands that ever existed. Minutemen without D. Boon but with some new guy from Ohio? fIREHOSE.

Black Sabbath? Fucking A right. Black Sabbath without Ozzy? Hey, Ronnie James Dio doesn’t suck; they’re still Black Sabbath!

Sometimes a replacement works, sometimes it doesn’t. And sometimes it does but the chemistry of the band is altered so that a name change seems apropos.

And that’s the crux of the biscuit right there, is that many times we imbue the interactions of people working in a collective as something so unique, so perfectly complimentary to each other, that there’s no way in hell any one of them can be replaced without fucking it all up.

In the case of bands who’s primary purpose is to make art for art’s sake, I think it’s often the case that members are not interchangeable. Unique skill sets, sociability, influences and interests can all affect a person’s artistic output, and often these things cannot be replaced or replicated.

In the case of a band who’s primary purpose is to provide a living, well, frankly it’s easier to find replacements because the goal is NOT that unique stew. Arch Enemy is still Arch Enemy even tho Angela Gossow left years ago and was replaced by a younger version of herself (Allisa White-Gluz), for instance. Nightwish is still Nightwish. Red Hot Chili Peppers have remained RHCP despite numerous guitarists. Etc., etc.

So sometimes it can work out and sometimes it won’t. <shrug>

But there’s no way in hell that I’ll ever get on board with Van Hagar. Fuck that.

19

Okay, here’s one worth a discussion: Queen.

I love and deeply respect Queen. Their place in the pantheon will remain huge. I think Brian May is an incredible guitarist and character, with his homemade Red Special and astrophysics PhD.

But most folks think of Queen as requiring Freddie Mercury. John Dean, the brilliant bassist, songwriter (and guy who finally got their finances in order IIRC) retired and no one notices, but Freddie?

They’ve done well - Paul Rodgers was his own thing, but an amazing singer in his own right, and Adam Lambert fits the Freddie mold more clearly. But…they aren’t Queen - they’re a Freddie Mercury tribute.

What spun my brain was hearing Sacha Baron Cohen discuss the Queen movie he was involved with, that has been taken over Rami Malek (?!). SBC said that Brian and Roger had a script which had Freddie die halfway through the film, and how the band picked up and persevered. SBC was like “no - the arc leading to Freddie’s death and the tribute concert IS the story.”

I think most folks agree with Cohen, while also respecting the guys still alive.

To me, this is a situation that illustrates the OP. I respect the players and support their continued success. But the Freddie-shaped hole is there in the middle of things.

20

WordMan, I think that illustrates what I wrote about too.

Queen was a formidable musical force. The unique combination of skills and personalities gave rise to some fantastic songs. Their performances were likewise unique. They made some great art. True, they made a very good living from what they created, but they were artists and creators and performers.

But once Freddie Mercury was gone, the focus was not so much creating great art and more making a living. So for their purposes (being able to continue performing and making money), any decent singer would do and in fact they’ve used a couple of different people. Heck, they don’t even list the bass player who has performed with them since John Deacon retired; presumably they just find someone who can play well and is available.

And yeah, that’s more like seeing a Queen tribute band.

A few years back I used to see The Who performing at corporate shows, except the only original member was Roger Daltry. Simon Townshend (Pete’s brother) was playing guitar. Well, that was a tribute band as well IMO, and the difference again is that the purpose of this band was to make money, not to make art.

And that’s fine. Don’t misunderstand me: making money is a perfectly valid reason to perform, to write songs, etc. But it doesn’t at all require the same unique combination of skills and personalities to make money as it does to make art. And most people become fans of the art, which is why there are such strong feelings about a band member being replaced.