MR

This is not intended to be a slam on Journey or any other bands out there specifically. We all know that most times... a replacement singer just doesn't capture that same "magic" with the band. There are some examples out there though of successful replacements, and in some cases I think they're better than the originals. 3 bands come to my mind when I think of this...

1. Sammy Hagar- LOVED Van Halen when they got Sammy. I loved them with Dave too, but Sammy opened up new possibilities with his guitar-playing skills. He freed up Eddie to do what I love best... Play some bad-ass keyboards! I think the songwriting matured with Hagar too.

2. Brian Johnson- HUGE AC/DC fan, and talk about some shoes to fill! They really didn't have a choice... It was find someone incredible to replace Scott, or call it a day. When "Back In Black" came out, I was 14 or 15 years old. I heard my neighbor playing it (Loud of course!) and though "Damn... that's the coolest album I've ever HEARD!!!" Brian did an amazing job, and I also think it's cool that he became friends with Scott's mother.

3. Phil Collins- Who the hell would have even heard about Genisis (other than a few of you wackos ) if he hadn't replaced Peter? His vocals, drumming and songwriting definitely made Genisis the household name it is today!

Any other bands you'd add to this list? Sorry for rambling today... I'm bored!

I mean, one thing that's crucial to notice about all of those replacements is this:

They all occurred in an era where the band and its style of music were relevant to the public at large. All three bands forged ahead and carved their own legacy with each "replacement" singer, creating hits of their own and largely relying on that material at live shows and what not. Yes I know all three used some of the old stuff as well, but for the most part, this was the bands growing and going their own path with their new singers.

Today, bands like Journey and Yes are out there playing the hell out of their classic hits and that's about it. Journey has released new material, but let's face it, in this day and age they aren't going to be able to carve a legacy like they once did. This is not a knock on any of the respective replacements, it's just the way it is. The musical climate has changed. The original members are well into their 50s (60s even) and don't have the creative spark they once had. They've already written their best songs... you get the picture.

Simply put, there is a world of difference between replacement singers for a band that forged its entire legacy on another guy decades ago versus bands that replaced singers in the midst of success (that then continued on and got even bigger in bands like Genesis's case, for instance).

Another to add to the list:

Jimi Jamison stepping in for Dave Bickler in Survivor. I don't think anyone would argue that didn't work incredibly well. The situation was much the same as I've described above though.

Ehwmatt wrote:I mean, one thing that's crucial to notice about all of those replacements is this:

They all occurred in an era where the band and its style of music were relevant to the public at large. All three bands forged ahead and carved their own legacy with each "replacement" singer, creating hits of their own and largely relying on that material at live shows and what not. Yes I know all three used some of the old stuff as well, but for the most part, this was the bands growing and going their own path with their new singers.

Today, bands like Journey and Yes are out there playing the hell out of their classic hits and that's about it. Journey has released new material, but let's face it, in this day and age they aren't going to be able to carve a legacy like they once did. This is not a knock on any of the respective replacements, it's just the way it is. The musical climate has changed. The original members are well into their 50s (60s even) and don't have the creative spark they once had. They've already written their best songs... you get the picture.

Simply put, there is a world of difference between replacement singers for a band that forged its entire legacy on another guy decades ago versus bands that replaced singers in the midst of success (that then continued on and got even bigger in bands like Genesis's case, for instance).

Another to add to the list:

Jimi Jamison stepping in for Dave Bickler in Survivor. I don't think anyone would argue that didn't work incredibly well. The situation was much the same as I've described above though.

+1. totally different animal comparing the two. Great post.

Not necessarily in the same vein but Pink Floyd didn't really miss a beat having David Gilmour take over the majority of singing duties once Roger Waters left the group. Granted, Gilmour was already an established singer in the band.

I definitely agree with you guys. And Jamison and Gilmore are two other great examples! I love the early Bickler songs, but I also LOVED songs like "Man Against The World", and "Oceans Between Us"! Awesome, awesome band.

G.I.Jim wrote:I definitely agree with you guys. And Jamison and Gilmore are two other great examples! I love the early Bickler songs, but I also LOVED songs like "Man Against The World", and "Oceans Between Us"! Awesome, awesome band.

I was having this convo in another thread, but I think Survivor's catalog is through and through stronger than Journey's. They just don't have the HUGE songs Journey did. But album-wise, I think Survivor is far stronger than Journey. As much as I love Journey, their albums are all marred by some serious throwaways.

Sammy Hagar is a leader and was able to to take control of Van Halen when he came on board and let his songwriting dictate the new direction of the band.

Brian Johnson's hire was all about timing as hard rock was just starting to hit top 40 radio here and there, bringing a whole new audience to the band.
The next thing you know Back in Black becomes one of the biggest selling albums in history, and Brian is instantly entrenched in the band's legacy.


Nothing needs to be said about Collins. He developed into one of the great pop writers of the 80s, totally taking the band from one genre into a more lucrative one.


The problem with today's replacement singers is they come in with no qualifications beyond sounding like the previous singer and thus become trapped into an image already laid out by the previous vocalists. Without the extra tools of leadership and the ability to write a hit song without some sort of collaboration, they just become another singer for hire, and down the road, nothing more than a trivia question in the band's history when you look at the big picture concerning a band's legacy.

Ehwmatt wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:I definitely agree with you guys. And Jamison and Gilmore are two other great examples! I love the early Bickler songs, but I also LOVED songs like "Man Against The World", and "Oceans Between Us"! Awesome, awesome band.

I was having this convo in another thread, but I think Survivor's catalog is through and through stronger than Journey's. They just don't have the HUGE songs Journey did. But album-wise, I think Survivor is far stronger than Journey. As much as I love Journey, their albums are all marred by some serious throwaways.

Ehh... I have to disagree with you here Matt. Of course each person is going to have their favorites, but to me... The ONLY Survivor album I loved every song on was "Eye Of The Tiger". Every album that followed had some throw-aways in my mind. I feel the same way with Foreigner. I honestly think I like Foreigner just a TAD more than Journey, but they've had some fillers in their albums too. Journey has too, but I like more of their songs per album than any other band.

My favorite song of all time is probably "That Was Yesterday". THAT is some kick-ass music right there! They have so many kick-ass songs, but I personally think Journey has the best albums to my ears. Escape, Frontiers, and even Raised On Radio had me loving nearly every song. We all like different stuff though...

Gunbot wrote:Sammy Hagar is a leader and was able to to take control of Van Halen when he came on board and let his songwriting dictate the new direction of the band.

Brian Johnson's hire was all about timing as hard rock was just starting to hit top 40 radio here and there, bringing a whole new audience to the band.
The next thing you know Back in Black becomes one of the biggest selling albums in history, and Brian is instantly entrenched in the band's legacy.


Nothing needs to be said about Collins. He developed into one of the great pop writers of the 80s, totally taking the band from one genre into a more lucrative one.


The problem with today's replacement singers is they come in with no qualifications beyond sounding like the previous singer and thus become trapped into an image already laid out by the previous vocalists. Without the extra tools of leadership and the ability to write a hit song without some sort of collaboration, they just become another singer for hire, and down the road, nothing more than a trivia question in the band's history when you look at the big picture concerning a band's legacy.

GREAT post! You almost sound edumicated! Just messing with you, but it was a great post and observation.

G.I.Jim wrote:

Gunbot wrote:Sammy Hagar is a leader and was able to to take control of Van Halen when he came on board and let his songwriting dictate the new direction of the band.

Brian Johnson's hire was all about timing as hard rock was just starting to hit top 40 radio here and there, bringing a whole new audience to the band.
The next thing you know Back in Black becomes one of the biggest selling albums in history, and Brian is instantly entrenched in the band's legacy.


Nothing needs to be said about Collins. He developed into one of the great pop writers of the 80s, totally taking the band from one genre into a more lucrative one.


The problem with today's replacement singers is they come in with no qualifications beyond sounding like the previous singer and thus become trapped into an image already laid out by the previous vocalists. Without the extra tools of leadership and the ability to write a hit song without some sort of collaboration, they just become another singer for hire, and down the road, nothing more than a trivia question in the band's history when you look at the big picture concerning a band's legacy.

GREAT post! You almost sound edumicated! Just messing with you, but it was a great post and observation.

Agreed good post that makes sense.....am on on MR????

G.I.Jim wrote:

Ehwmatt wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:I definitely agree with you guys. And Jamison and Gilmore are two other great examples! I love the early Bickler songs, but I also LOVED songs like "Man Against The World", and "Oceans Between Us"! Awesome, awesome band.

I was having this convo in another thread, but I think Survivor's catalog is through and through stronger than Journey's. They just don't have the HUGE songs Journey did. But album-wise, I think Survivor is far stronger than Journey. As much as I love Journey, their albums are all marred by some serious throwaways.

Ehh... I have to disagree with you here Matt. Of course each person is going to have their favorites, but to me... The ONLY Survivor album I loved every song on was "Eye Of The Tiger". Every album that followed had some throw-aways in my mind. I feel the same way with Foreigner. I honestly think I like Foreigner just a TAD more than Journey, but they've had some fillers in their albums too. Journey has too, but I like more of their songs per album than any other band.

My favorite song of all time is probably "That Was Yesterday". THAT is some kick-ass music right there! They have so many kick-ass songs, but I personally think Journey has the best albums to my ears. Escape, Frontiers, and even Raised On Radio had me loving nearly every song. We all like different stuff though...

I own no Survivor music. Don't like the sound. The song Eye of the Tiger, cringeworthy.

Jana wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:

Ehwmatt wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:I definitely agree with you guys. And Jamison and Gilmore are two other great examples! I love the early Bickler songs, but I also LOVED songs like "Man Against The World", and "Oceans Between Us"! Awesome, awesome band.

I was having this convo in another thread, but I think Survivor's catalog is through and through stronger than Journey's. They just don't have the HUGE songs Journey did. But album-wise, I think Survivor is far stronger than Journey. As much as I love Journey, their albums are all marred by some serious throwaways.

Ehh... I have to disagree with you here Matt. Of course each person is going to have their favorites, but to me... The ONLY Survivor album I loved every song on was "Eye Of The Tiger". Every album that followed had some throw-aways in my mind. I feel the same way with Foreigner. I honestly think I like Foreigner just a TAD more than Journey, but they've had some fillers in their albums too. Journey has too, but I like more of their songs per album than any other band.

My favorite song of all time is probably "That Was Yesterday". THAT is some kick-ass music right there! They have so many kick-ass songs, but I personally think Journey has the best albums to my ears. Escape, Frontiers, and even Raised On Radio had me loving nearly every song. We all like different stuff though...

I own no Survior music. Don't like the sound. The song Eye of the Tiger, cringeworthy.

WHAT??? Jana... feel free to do something bad to yourself RIGHT NOW!!!??? How can ANYONE not like at least SOME Survivor songs? For the record... you are now dead to me!

Sammy Hagar is a leader and was able to to take control of Van Halen when he came on board and let his songwriting dictate the new direction of the band.

From what I've read w/ Sammy, he didn't so much write (aside from lyrics/vocals) as arrange what Ed/Al wrote...he hammered it into shape & put lyrics/melodies on it...

Gunbot wrote:The problem with today's replacement singers is they come in with no qualifications beyond sounding like the previous singer and thus become trapped into an image already laid out by the previous vocalists. Without the extra tools of leadership and the ability to write a hit song without some sort of collaboration, they just become another singer for hire, and down the road, nothing more than a trivia question in the band's history when you look at the big picture concerning a band's legacy.

Perfectly stated!!!

Ehwmatt wrote:Simply put, there is a world of difference between replacement singers for a band that forged its entire legacy on another guy decades ago versus bands that replaced singers in the midst of success (that then continued on and got even bigger in bands like Genesis's case, for instance).

I agree!!

Michigan Girl wrote:

Gunbot wrote:The problem with today's replacement singers is they come in with no qualifications beyond sounding like the previous singer and thus become trapped into an image already laid out by the previous vocalists. Without the extra tools of leadership and the ability to write a hit song without some sort of collaboration, they just become another singer for hire, and down the road, nothing more than a trivia question in the band's history when you look at the big picture concerning a band's legacy.

Perfectly stated!!!

I don't know what the new album will be like but I hope it's one of their best of all time and goes a gazillion times platinum, then, just maybe, some people will STFU. BUT>>>>GB is probably right, as sad as it is to admit. (and yeah, I know which band he's referring to)

steveo777 wrote:

Michigan Girl wrote:

Gunbot wrote:The problem with today's replacement singers is they come in with no qualifications beyond sounding like the previous singer and thus become trapped into an image already laid out by the previous vocalists. Without the extra tools of leadership and the ability to write a hit song without some sort of collaboration, they just become another singer for hire, and down the road, nothing more than a trivia question in the band's history when you look at the big picture concerning a band's legacy.

Perfectly stated!!!

I don't know what the new album will be like but I hope it's one of their best of all time and goes a gazillion times platinum, then, just maybe, some people will STFU. BUT>>>>GB is probably right, as sad as it is to admit. (and yeah, I know which band he's referring to)

You talking to ME?

G.I.Jim wrote:

steveo777 wrote:

Michigan Girl wrote:

Gunbot wrote:The problem with today's replacement singers is they come in with no qualifications beyond sounding like the previous singer and thus become trapped into an image already laid out by the previous vocalists. Without the extra tools of leadership and the ability to write a hit song without some sort of collaboration, they just become another singer for hire, and down the road, nothing more than a trivia question in the band's history when you look at the big picture concerning a band's legacy.

Perfectly stated!!!

I don't know what the new album will be like but I hope it's one of their best of all time and goes a gazillion times platinum, then, just maybe, some people will STFU. BUT>>>>GB is probably right, as sad as it is to admit. (and yeah, I know which band he's referring to)

You talking to ME?

Shut the fuck up, Jim!

Kevin Cronin comes to mind as well. In fact, he was lead singer, then out on his ass, then petitioned back in again. Get that shit? The fans petitioned his homo ass right back in that band and they re-did Ridin the Storm Out or at least did it live and stuck that version on a newer album. Some shit like that.

Rockindeano wrote:Kevin Cronin comes to mind as well. In fact, he was lead singer, then out on his ass, then petitioned back in again. Get that shit? The fans petitioned his homo ass right back in that band and they re-did Ridin the Storm Out or at least did it live and stuck that version on a newer album. Some shit like that.

Well look who the fucking cat dragged in? Nice to see you stranger! I agree about Cronin. I've always like his music, but that's one aggravating asshole! I love paying to see them live and getting to hear his politcal opinions all at the same time. Shut your mouth and SING damn you!!!

steveo777 wrote:

Michigan Girl wrote:

Gunbot wrote:The problem with today's replacement singers is they come in with no qualifications beyond sounding like the previous singer and thus become trapped into an image already laid out by the previous vocalists. Without the extra tools of leadership and the ability to write a hit song without some sort of collaboration, they just become another singer for hire, and down the road, nothing more than a trivia question in the band's history when you look at the big picture concerning a band's legacy.

Perfectly stated!!!

I don't know what the new album will be like but I hope it's one of their best of all time and goes a gazillion times platinum, then, just maybe, some people will STFU. BUT>>>>GB is probably right, as sad as it is to admit. (and yeah, I know which band he's referring to)

Sammy Hagar was pretty well known before he came to Van Halen.. Brian Johnson had actually had some top ten hits in the UK while a member of Geordie, before joining AC/DC. Kelly Hansen had a top 40 hit with Hurricane back in the 80s. What I'm getting at is these guys had experience and were veterans of the music scene.

Arnel is what he is. It's unfair to think he is going to reinvent the band when his claim to fame was memorizing lyrics and the audio idiosyncracies of other artists.
Creating a hit record from scratch is totally a different endeavour than what he has been doing over the last 20+ years, not his fault but just the way it is.

Bad Company had success with Brian Howe I do believe.

Bruce Dickinson replacing Paul Di'Anno in Iron Maiden worked out pretty well also.

Jana wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:

Ehwmatt wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:I definitely agree with you guys. And Jamison and Gilmore are two other great examples! I love the early Bickler songs, but I also LOVED songs like "Man Against The World", and "Oceans Between Us"! Awesome, awesome band.

I was having this convo in another thread, but I think Survivor's catalog is through and through stronger than Journey's. They just don't have the HUGE songs Journey did. But album-wise, I think Survivor is far stronger than Journey. As much as I love Journey, their albums are all marred by some serious throwaways.

Ehh... I have to disagree with you here Matt. Of course each person is going to have their favorites, but to me... The ONLY Survivor album I loved every song on was "Eye Of The Tiger". Every album that followed had some throw-aways in my mind. I feel the same way with Foreigner. I honestly think I like Foreigner just a TAD more than Journey, but they've had some fillers in their albums too. Journey has too, but I like more of their songs per album than any other band.

My favorite song of all time is probably "That Was Yesterday". THAT is some kick-ass music right there! They have so many kick-ass songs, but I personally think Journey has the best albums to my ears. Escape, Frontiers, and even Raised On Radio had me loving nearly every song. We all like different stuff though...

I own no Survivor music. Don't like the sound. The song Eye of the Tiger, cringeworthy.

Eye Of The Tiger is one of Survivor's worst songs.
May i suggest you go and buy the 'Vital Signs' album. Absolute freakin classic release. You will NOT regret it.

WykkedSensation wrote:

Jana wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:

Ehwmatt wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:I definitely agree with you guys. And Jamison and Gilmore are two other great examples! I love the early Bickler songs, but I also LOVED songs like "Man Against The World", and "Oceans Between Us"! Awesome, awesome band.

I was having this convo in another thread, but I think Survivor's catalog is through and through stronger than Journey's. They just don't have the HUGE songs Journey did. But album-wise, I think Survivor is far stronger than Journey. As much as I love Journey, their albums are all marred by some serious throwaways.

Ehh... I have to disagree with you here Matt. Of course each person is going to have their favorites, but to me... The ONLY Survivor album I loved every song on was "Eye Of The Tiger". Every album that followed had some throw-aways in my mind. I feel the same way with Foreigner. I honestly think I like Foreigner just a TAD more than Journey, but they've had some fillers in their albums too. Journey has too, but I like more of their songs per album than any other band.

My favorite song of all time is probably "That Was Yesterday". THAT is some kick-ass music right there! They have so many kick-ass songs, but I personally think Journey has the best albums to my ears. Escape, Frontiers, and even Raised On Radio had me loving nearly every song. We all like different stuff though...

I own no Survivor music. Don't like the sound. The song Eye of the Tiger, cringeworthy.

Eye Of The Tiger is one of Survivor's worst songs.
May i suggest you go and buy the 'Vital Signs' album. Absolute freakin classic release. You will NOT regret it.

"Eye Of The Tiger" may be one of their weakest songs, but that album kicks ASS! Disagree with me and we're gonna have some problems.

There is apparently some sort of invisible line in a band's timeline whereby the band is either allowed to choose a new singer and move on with an altered sound or choose a new singer and never be forgiven for it.

To this flecking DAY people whine about Sammy Hagar in VH (not here, just in general at other boards I frequent)...get the fook over it already...

Then there's the "No (insert singer name), no (insert band name)" thing...that is a huge pet peeve of mine and I always get irritated when people say it. I don't know why...it just bugs the piss out of me...

Pelata wrote:There is apparently some sort of invisible line in a band's timeline whereby the band is either allowed to choose a new singer and move on with an altered sound or choose a new singer and never be forgiven for it.

To this flecking DAY people whine about Sammy Hagar in VH (not here, just in general at other boards I frequent)...get the fook over it already...

Then there's the "No (insert singer name), no (insert band name)" thing...that is a huge pet peeve of mine and I always get irritated when people say it. I don't know why...it just bugs the piss out of me...

Quit beating around the bush and come out with it man!

Sorry for being vague...

steveo777 wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:

steveo777 wrote:

Michigan Girl wrote:

Gunbot wrote:The problem with today's replacement singers is they come in with no qualifications beyond sounding like the previous singer and thus become trapped into an image already laid out by the previous vocalists. Without the extra tools of leadership and the ability to write a hit song without some sort of collaboration, they just become another singer for hire, and down the road, nothing more than a trivia question in the band's history when you look at the big picture concerning a band's legacy.

Perfectly stated!!!

I don't know what the new album will be like but I hope it's one of their best of all time and goes a gazillion times platinum, then, just maybe, some people will STFU. BUT>>>>GB is probably right, as sad as it is to admit. (and yeah, I know which band he's referring to)

You talking to ME?

Shut the fuck up, Jim!

Steve... you can go straight to the ding-dong! I know you'll know what to do with it from there!!!

Pelata wrote:There is apparently some sort of invisible line in a band's timeline whereby the band is either allowed to choose a new singer and move on with an altered sound or choose a new singer and never be forgiven for it.

To this flecking DAY people whine about Sammy Hagar in VH (not here, just in general at other boards I frequent)...get the fook over it already...

Then there's the "No (insert singer name), no (insert band name)" thing...that is a huge pet peeve of mine and I always get irritated when people say it. I don't know why...it just bugs the piss out of me...

You mean like no Bruce Springsteen no E Street Band?????