MR

I got to thinking about well-known bands changing their lead vocalist. Sure...it's happened many times in history, but, how many times has the change been met with success. For the record, my definition of success is selling the same number of albums/cd's, charting on the US charts, and actually still being recognized by the music industry as the band they once were. Here are the only bands I can think of who went on to have the same or more success than they had with the previous lead singer:

Van Halen - 5150 was their first cd with Hagar, and was their most successful album ever (for the record, it's still my favorite VH cd)

Genesis - I believe Phil Collins actually brought them more success than they had with Peter Gabriel at the helm

Survivor - This is a tricky one. Sure, they had a monster hit with "Eye of the Tiger", thanks to Rocky III. That said, they were a completely unknown band prior to "Eye of the Tiger", and therefore weren't established so when the change was made from Bickler to Jimi Jamison, I'm not sure anyone really noticed. That said, they were still far more successful with Jamison at the helm.

Chicago - They had only one hit, after Peter Cetera left the band, with "Look Away" and then faded into obscurity, so I would have to say that they were FAR more successful with Cetera at the helm.

Journey - Not sure we even need to discuss this one. There was the Perry era, and then everyone stopped noticing!

Does anyone know of any other bands who changed their lead singer with the same or more success, commercially speaking???

John from Boston

Enigma869 wrote:I got to thinking about well-known bands changing their lead vocalist. Sure...it's happened many times in history, but, how many times has the change been met with success. For the record, my definition of success is selling the same number of albums/cd's, charting on the US charts, and actually still being recognized by the music industry as the band they once were. Here are the only bands I can think of who went on to have the same or more success than they had with the previous lead singer:

Van Halen - 5150 was their first cd with Hagar, and was their most successful album ever (for the record, it's still my favorite VH cd)

Genesis - I believe Phil Collins actually brought them more success than they had with Peter Gabriel at the helm

Survivor - This is a tricky one. Sure, they had a monster hit with "Eye of the Tiger", thanks to Rocky III. That said, they were a completely unknown band prior to "Eye of the Tiger", and therefore weren't established so when the change was made from Bickler to Jimi Jamison, I'm not sure anyone really noticed. That said, they were still far more successful with Jamison at the helm.

Chicago - They had only one hit, after Peter Cetera left the band, with "Look Away" and then faded into obscurity, so I would have to say that they were FAR more successful with Cetera at the helm.

Journey - Not sure we even need to discuss this one. There was the Perry era, and then everyone stopped noticing!

Does anyone know of any other bands who changed their lead singer with the same or more success, commercially speaking???

John from Boston

AC/DC
REO Speedwagon
The Moody Blues
Iron Maiden
Fleetwood Mac
Deep Purple


Also when Black Sabbath switched from Ozzy to Dio they ended up with their most commercially successful album "Heaven and Hell". Rainbow has had 4 lead singers and 3 of them were highly successful.

AR wrote:

Enigma869 wrote:I got to thinking about well-known bands changing their lead vocalist. Sure...it's happened many times in history, but, how many times has the change been met with success. For the record, my definition of success is selling the same number of albums/cd's, charting on the US charts, and actually still being recognized by the music industry as the band they once were. Here are the only bands I can think of who went on to have the same or more success than they had with the previous lead singer:

Van Halen - 5150 was their first cd with Hagar, and was their most successful album ever (for the record, it's still my favorite VH cd)

Genesis - I believe Phil Collins actually brought them more success than they had with Peter Gabriel at the helm

Survivor - This is a tricky one. Sure, they had a monster hit with "Eye of the Tiger", thanks to Rocky III. That said, they were a completely unknown band prior to "Eye of the Tiger", and therefore weren't established so when the change was made from Bickler to Jimi Jamison, I'm not sure anyone really noticed. That said, they were still far more successful with Jamison at the helm.

Chicago - They had only one hit, after Peter Cetera left the band, with "Look Away" and then faded into obscurity, so I would have to say that they were FAR more successful with Cetera at the helm.

Journey - Not sure we even need to discuss this one. There was the Perry era, and then everyone stopped noticing!

Does anyone know of any other bands who changed their lead singer with the same or more success, commercially speaking???

John from Boston

AC/DC
REO Speedwagon
The Moody Blues
Iron Maiden
Fleetwood Mac
Deep Purple


Also when Black Sabbath switched from Ozzy to Dio they ended up with their most commercially successful album "Heaven and Hell". Rainbow has had 4 lead singers and 3 of them were highly successful.

While you bring up some great examples AR, I think Journey doesn't quite fit into the same group as the aforementioned bands. Here's why: 1) The other bands made the transition in a "transition friendly" era. That is, at a time where radio WOULD play the songs with the new singer and he/she would be given a fair shake. That is no longer the case. 2) They did it, for the most part, BEFORE mega-stardom. Again, Journey is doing it AFTER. 3) The other bands didn't have that "signature voice" that is SO unique that he is NOT interchangable. The Perry-Journey connection, no matter how nauseating to some, isn't going to go away anytime soon. Unless of course, Journey once again becomes bold and attempts to venture into a newer, fresh direction musically. Hey...there's an idea for the new album title..."Venture" (and not the shitty store from the 80's-90's, either)

AR wrote:AC/DC
REO Speedwagon
The Moody Blues
Iron Maiden
Fleetwood Mac
Deep Purple


Also when Black Sabbath switched from Ozzy to Dio they ended up with their most commercially successful album "Heaven and Hell". Rainbow has had 4 lead singers and 3 of them were highly successful.

I can't comment on most of these bands, as I haven't listened to them all that much. The REO thing is interesting to me though. I remember the classic "High in Fidelity" album from back in the day, and am quite sure REO didn't have all that much success before that and maybe had a miniscule amount after that. I know Kevin Cronin was the front man for High in Fidelity and I know he is still the lead singer, so what am I missing here?


John from Boston

Enigma869 wrote:Chicago - They had only one hit, after Peter Cetera left the band, with "Look Away" and then faded into obscurity, so I would have to say that they were FAR more successful with Cetera at the helm.

I wouldn't say they faded away after that song. Also the thing about Chicago is that Cetera was not the only lead singer. "You're Not Alone" from that same album went to #10. "What Kind of Man Would I Be" reached number #5. "Here In My Heart" also went to #1. In the end they were more sucessful with Cetera in the band but they were not in my opinion FAR more sucessful and they didn't fade into obscurity. Earlier this year they had a single and album in the charts.

Classic Rock wrote:I wouldn't say they faded away after that song. Also the thing about Chicago is that Cetera was not the only lead singer. "You're Not Alone" from that same album went to #10. "What Kind of Man Would I Be" reached number #5. "Here In My Heart" also went to #1. In the end they were more sucessful with Cetera in the band but they were not in my opinion FAR more sucessful and they didn't fade into obscurity. Earlier this year they had a single and album in the charts.

Thanks for straightening me out on "What Kind Of Man Would I Be". I had forgotten about that song. As far as the other two tracks...can't say I ever even heard of them. That said, according to you, they're all off of the same album, so even if I acquiesce to you on the point that clearly this album met the standard of being commercially successful, it's still just one album. One commercially successful release does NOT equate to the same level of success that Chicago enjoyed, prior to replacing Cetera, which was the whole premise of my question! I'm not much of a Chicago fan, but, I'm not sure anyone could ever dispute that they were a FAR more successful band with Peter Cetera than they ever were without him. I think the record speaks for itself!


John from Boston

[/quote]I can't comment on most of these bands, as I haven't listened to them all that much. The REO thing is interesting to me though. I remember the classic "High in Fidelity" album from back in the day, and am quite sure REO didn't have all that much success before that and maybe had a miniscule amount after that. I know Kevin Cronin was the front man for High in Fidelity and I know he is still the lead singer, so what am I missing here?

Crossing over boards here from the Styx side

REO Speedwagon has had 2 or 3 different singers. Kevin Cronin has been there the longest that is why most people consider him the only one they have had. This is the only 3 that I know of, but there could be another I forgot.

Terry Luttrell
Mike Murphy
Kevin Cronin

Also you need to add STYX to this discussion about bands getting rid of there lead singers. Unlike Van Halen, Styx went backwards when they changed there lead singer Dennis Deyoung, who has become more popular than his bandmates.

Thanks

styxfansite wrote:

I can't comment on most of these bands, as I haven't listened to them all that much. The REO thing is interesting to me though. I remember the classic "High in Fidelity" album from back in the day, and am quite sure REO didn't have all that much success before that and maybe had a miniscule amount after that. I know Kevin Cronin was the front man for High in Fidelity and I know he is still the lead singer, so what am I missing here?

Crossing over boards here from the Styx side

REO Speedwagon has had 2 or 3 different singers. Kevin Cronin has been there the longest that is why most people consider him the only one they have had. This is the only 3 that I know of, but there could be another I forgot.

Terry Luttrell
Mike Murphy
Kevin Cronin

Also you need to add STYX to this discussion about bands getting rid of there lead singers. Unlike Van Halen, Styx went backwards when they changed there lead singer Dennis Deyoung, who has become more popular than his bandmates.

Thanks

[/quote]

Well, I hate to sound like a broken record here, but, I don't recall REO Speedwagon have any commercial success with either of their other two lead singers. As far as Styx is concerned...I'm not much of a fan, but, I don't really recall hearing anything by Styx on the radio (back when radio actually counted for something) that didn't involve Dennis DeYoung singing lead.

John from Boston

Sorry about the quotes in the wrong place, still getting use to them. This is the link that I got the information about REO Speedwagon from. http://www.poemhunter.com/lyrics/reo-sp ... /biography
The REO Speedwagon website use to have alot more information on past memebers, but the website is still under repairs.

Most songs from Styx that you would hear on the Radio would be "Lady", "Come Sail Away", and "Mr. Roboto", "Show Me The Way", were songs with Dennis as lead and each song was in the Top 10 in the charts. Since DDY left the group, they haven't had an "Original" Styx song to top the charts.

Another question regarding Styx and Journey? Why doesn't Neal want to perform with Styx anymore?

I'm with you on this John. I don't recall any band having as much success with a replacement as they had with their most popular frontman except Van Halen. I didn't like Sammy as much as Dave with them, but that's beside the point. Lots of bands have changed singers and been successful. Very few, if any, have been able to meet previously attained huge success with a replacement.

I don't even think Journey can be as commercially successful with Jeff as they were with Perry, but I think they can do a whole hell of a lot better than they did with Augeri.

TOTO

Enigma869 wrote:Van Halen - 5150 was their first cd with Hagar, and was their most successful album ever (for the record, it's still my favorite VH cd)

Initially, you're right. It was their first album to go to #1. Then again, had it not been for Michael Jackson's "Thriller", then "1984" probably would've also gone to #1. Anyway, it's not their most successful album ever. It actually ranks 2nd or 3rd. Their debut is still their highest selling album.

Genesis - I believe Phil Collins actually brought them more success than they had with Peter Gabriel at the helm

Well, Collins was already in the band as their drummer and had previously done lead vocals on at least a couple of tracks, so it wasn't that big a change.

Chicago - They had only one hit, after Peter Cetera left the band, with "Look Away" and then faded into obscurity, so I would have to say that they were FAR more successful with Cetera at the helm.

"Look Away" was definitely their biggest post-Cetera hit but they also scored on the charts with "Will You Still Love Me", which went to #3, "If She Would Have Been Faithful" (#17), "I Don't Want to Live Without Your Love" (#3), and "You're not Alone" (#10). So anyway, they actually did pretty well with those two post-Cetera albums, "Chicago 18" and "Chicago 19", and the singles from them.

Here's a story that fits this thread perfectly.

http://music.msn.com/music/thismonthinm ... placements

shoot_em_up wrote:Here's a story that fits this thread perfectly.

http://music.msn.com/music/thismonthinm ... placements

Interesting article. Thanks for posting that link. I actually agreed with most of the list, until they got to Hagar being a bad replacement for Roth! I will take Hagar ANY DAY over Roth! I never disliked Roth in VH. That said, Hagar was 100 times the vocalist Roth was on his best day! Love the post about Augeri being a bad replacement for Perry. Shit...they called Augeri "womanlike". I guess I'm not the only one who thought he was wearing his wife's blouse in the 2001 DVD! Check out that last line! I'm pretty sure I've been saying that for years!


9. Steve Augeri replaces Steve Perry in Journey (1998)
Over the course of their long history, Journey had skillfully established its brand: strident arena rock that was hard enough for the boyfriends and sentimental enough for the girlfriends. So when Steve Perry departed, the remaining members decided the best way to preserve the brand was to go the doppelganger route. They replaced him with Steve Augeri, who sounds like Steve Perry, looks like Steve Perry and whose name rhymes with Steve Perry. The only problem: He wasn't Steve Perry. It doesn't take long to note the huge gap between Perry's powerfully nuanced delivery and Augeri's bombastic, workmanlike approach. The tepid response to 2001's "Arrival" and 2005's "Generations" could indicate that the band's sound had become outdated, but it's more likely that they had long owed their success to the original Steve.


John from Boston

Enigma869 wrote:I actually agreed with most of the list, until they got to Hagar being a bad replacement for Roth! I will take Hagar ANY DAY over Roth! I never disliked Roth in VH. That said, Hagar was 100 times the vocalist Roth was on his best day!

I both agree and disagree with you, John. To me, there is Van Halen and Van Hagar. Hagar is the superior vocalist, which really changed the way the band approached writing and recording. Van Halen died when Roth left, and they just didn't officially change the name of the band. They never played a lot of pre-Hagar songs in concert once Hagar joined. They immediately began a new era and left the old one behind more and more with each album and tour.

Doobie Brothers changed lead singers {although the other dude sang to}, when they got M. Mcdonald and did quite well.Last ive seen they did a tour a few years back with Tom Johnston the original singer.

Enigma869 wrote:Van Halen - 5150 was their first cd with Hagar, and was their most successful album ever (for the record, it's still my favorite VH cd)

And, they still haven't fully recovered from their second lead singer change.

Genesis - I believe Phil Collins actually brought them more success than they had with Peter Gabriel at the helm

And, when they changed lead singers a second time, what happened to them? It was so unsuccessful that most people probably didn't even know it happened.

Survivor - This is a tricky one. Sure, they had a monster hit with "Eye of the Tiger", thanks to Rocky III. That said, they were a completely unknown band prior to "Eye of the Tiger", and therefore weren't established so when the change was made from Bickler to Jimi Jamison, I'm not sure anyone really noticed. That said, they were still far more successful with Jamison at the helm.

Then they went back to Bickler and it went nowhere, and back to Jamison, and it went nowhere, now they are on to someone completely new.

Chicago - They had only one hit, after Peter Cetera left the band, with "Look Away" and then faded into obscurity, so I would have to say that they were FAR more successful with Cetera at the helm.

Chicago has remained a solid touring band...every bit as solid as Journey. Go look at the venues they tour to...They are about as "obscure" as Journey.

Monker wrote:

Enigma869 wrote:Van Halen - 5150 was their first cd with Hagar, and was their most successful album ever (for the record, it's still my favorite VH cd)

And, they still haven't fully recovered from their second lead singer change.

Genesis - I believe Phil Collins actually brought them more success than they had with Peter Gabriel at the helm

And, when they changed lead singers a second time, what happened to them? It was so unsuccessful that most people probably didn't even know it happened.

Survivor - This is a tricky one. Sure, they had a monster hit with "Eye of the Tiger", thanks to Rocky III. That said, they were a completely unknown band prior to "Eye of the Tiger", and therefore weren't established so when the change was made from Bickler to Jimi Jamison, I'm not sure anyone really noticed. That said, they were still far more successful with Jamison at the helm.

Then they went back to Bickler and it went nowhere, and back to Jamison, and it went nowhere, now they are on to someone completely new.

Chicago - They had only one hit, after Peter Cetera left the band, with "Look Away" and then faded into obscurity, so I would have to say that they were FAR more successful with Cetera at the helm.

Chicago has remained a solid touring band...every bit as solid as Journey. Go look at the venues they tour to...They are about as "obscure" as Journey.

See that Monker....Miracles can and do happen! I agree with EVERY one of your points!!!!!! Never thought I'd say that! I think changing a lead singer once is almost always suicide and I think the only reason Van Halen had so much success with it was because they got a better vocalist (imo) than the guy who was replaced! I think Journey will continue to be a solid touring band (they always have been)! That said, I'm not sure it's going to go much beyond that, but, we shall see.

John from Boston

NealIsGod wrote:
Van Halen died when Roth left, and they just didn't officially change the name of the band. They never played a lot of pre-Hagar songs in concert once Hagar joined. They immediately began a new era and left the old one behind more and more with each album and tour.

Great point NIG! There are many who would argue that Journey died when Perry exited stage left. I guess I just don't ever see Journey not playing any of the Perry era material in concert. I think even if Journey had a super successful release with Jeff at the helm, it would be suicide for Journey to completely ignore all of the Perry era material. Not to mention, they don't have enough material to get through a concert, without the Perry material! I'm still a fan hoping that the next release Journey puts out is worth listening to and really hope that they don't move too far away from what made them so successful!


John from Boston

yulog wrote:TOTO

Good one- the Joseph Williams era was my favorite time for them.