Replacements versus the irreplaceables

[Higgy]

As I read about Phil Collins retirement, I began thinking about how successfully Genesis transitioned after Peter Gabriel. I think deep down, most will admit (at least to themselves) that Genesis, in the end, was the band that Phil Collins fronted. No one (except for some die hards) went to a Genesis show in the 80s and felt like they were really missing something by not having Peter Gabriel in the band. Even when they would do stuff like "I Know What I Like", Phil Collins made the song his.

That got me thinking about bands who have lost their leaders / visionaries / frontmen. They fall into the following categories: 1. Bands that try to go on without replacing them (Pink Floyd, The Doors, The Sex Pistols, The Beach Boys) - this is almost ALWAYS unsuccessful (with, of course, the exception of Genesis). Remaining members often lack the artistry that can lead a band. 2. Bands that quit all together (The Beatles, The Cars, a million others). 3. Bands that try to replace them (Van Halen, Journey, Asia, Styx, ACDC). These bands are fairly evenly divided between the successful and unsuccessful. I think what makes that distinction is if a casual fan can go to the concert and not feel cheated.
For example, Brian Johnson was successful replacement for Bon Scott. ACDC fans would have thought Bon Scott was irreplaceable. However, Brian Johnson made the band his own and it took off. As much as I hate to admit it, Sammy Hagar did the same thing with Van Halen. Sure the band was boring as hell, but he made it his own and was a successful replacement. You may think - well thats because these bands were still in their prime when they lost their leaders. Well, lets take Journey - Arnel Pineda has proven to be a very successful replacement for Steve Perry who was, arguably, the "face" and "sound" of Journey. However, Journey is generating more excitement now than they have in a long time (I would argue since Frontiers).

So... what about Styx? NOBODY goes to a Styx show and doesn't notice Deyoung's absence. I know some people might say, its only us who really care about Dennis not being there -not so. Having seen pseudo-styx with people who only know the band from casually listening to the radio (and couldn't name Dennis Deyoung OR Tommy Shaw) and had no idea that any members were different, were IMMEDIATELY left aware that the real leader of Styx wasn't there. The Tommy songs didn't even sound the same to them. So - Styx falls into that category of unsuccessful. Gowan was a shitty replacement for Dennis Deyoung. If Styx had truly wanted to continue on - at this stage in their careers - they should have either gone with someone like Arnel who sounded like DDY or they should have gone with someone with enough charisma to make the band their own like Brian Johnson did.

In any case, cheers to Phil Collins, whose retirement brought about this entire line of thought.

[masque]

pink floyd lost syd barrett and actually increased their fame......then years later lost roger waters and still had massive success......both albums sold very well (in the millions) and the tours were enormously successful.

[Higgy]

pink floyd lost syd barrett and actually increased their fame......then years later lost roger waters and still had massive success......both albums sold very well (in the millions) and the tours were enormously successful.

Yeah? You hearing "Dogs of War" and "High Hopes" a lot on the radio these days? How about "Wish You Were Here", "Another Brick In The Wall", the entire Dark Side of the Moon Album, or "Comfortably Numb"? Maybe things weren't quite the same. Maybe you're citing two nostalgia tours that Gilmour did with about 20 session musicians on stage. Yeah, that worked out well.

[Boomchild]

As I read about Phil Collins retirement, I began thinking about how successfully Genesis transitioned after Peter Gabriel. I think deep down, most will admit (at least to themselves) that Genesis, in the end, was the band that Phil Collins fronted. No one (except for some die hards) went to a Genesis show in the 80s and felt like they were really missing something by not having Peter Gabriel in the band. Even when they would do stuff like "I Know What I Like", Phil Collins made the song his.

That got me thinking about bands who have lost their leaders / visionaries / frontmen. They fall into the following categories: 1. Bands that try to go on without replacing them (Pink Floyd, The Doors, The Sex Pistols, The Beach Boys) - this is almost ALWAYS unsuccessful (with, of course, the exception of Genesis). Remaining members often lack the artistry that can lead a band. 2. Bands that quit all together (The Beatles, The Cars, a million others). 3. Bands that try to replace them (Van Halen, Journey, Asia, Styx, ACDC). These bands are fairly evenly divided between the successful and unsuccessful. I think what makes that distinction is if a casual fan can go to the concert and not feel cheated.
For example, Brian Johnson was successful replacement for Bon Scott. ACDC fans would have thought Bon Scott was irreplaceable. However, Brian Johnson made the band his own and it took off. As much as I hate to admit it, Sammy Hagar did the same thing with Van Halen. Sure the band was boring as hell, but he made it his own and was a successful replacement. You may think - well thats because these bands were still in their prime when they lost their leaders. Well, lets take Journey - Arnel Pineda has proven to be a very successful replacement for Steve Perry who was, arguably, the "face" and "sound" of Journey. However, Journey is generating more excitement now than they have in a long time (I would argue since Frontiers).

So... what about Styx? NOBODY goes to a Styx show and doesn't notice Deyoung's absence. I know some people might say, its only us who really care about Dennis not being there -not so. Having seen pseudo-styx with people who only know the band from casually listening to the radio (and couldn't name Dennis Deyoung OR Tommy Shaw) and had no idea that any members were different, were IMMEDIATELY left aware that the real leader of Styx wasn't there. The Tommy songs didn't even sound the same to them. So - Styx falls into that category of unsuccessful. Gowan was a shitty replacement for Dennis Deyoung. If Styx had truly wanted to continue on - at this stage in their careers - they should have either gone with someone like Arnel who sounded like DDY or they should have gone with someone with enough charisma to make the band their own like Brian Johnson did.

In any case, cheers to Phil Collins, whose retirement brought about this entire line of thought.

Although the current Styx is not my cup of tea, I think it was the right choice to pick someone that wasn't a clone (vocally) to Dennis. Personally, I find that cheesy and fake. Styx without Dennis will not achieve anything more then what they have now and that's not saying much. Some bands have been able to achieve success after losing a key member but for Styx I think Dennis had so much to do with who they were that without him they are just average at best.

[FormerDJMike]

Actually I have heard "Dogs Of War" recently and still hear "On The Turning Away" and "Learning To Fly" almost daily. While different I thought those 2 albums were quite enjoyable.

[FormerDJMike]

Foreigner is surprisingly good too.

I remember Aerosmith replacing Steven Tyler back in the late 70's early 80's. Big time flop.

From Wiki:

By the end of the 1970s, they were among the most popular hard rock bands in the world and developed a loyal following of fans, often referred to as the "Blue Army".[12] However, drug addiction and internal conflict took their toll on the band, which resulted in the departures of Perry and Whitford, in 1979 and 1981 respectively. They were replaced by Jimmy Crespo and Rick Dufay.[7] The band did not fare well between 1980 and 1984, releasing a lone album, Rock in a Hard Place, which went gold but failed to match their previous successes.
Although Perry and Whitford returned in 1984 and the band signed a new deal with Geffen Records, it was not until the band sobered up and released 1987's Permanent Vacation that they regained the level of popularity they had experienced in the 1970s.

[gr8dane]

As I read about Phil Collins retirement, I began thinking about how successfully Genesis transitioned after Peter Gabriel. I think deep down, most will admit (at least to themselves) that Genesis, in the end, was the band that Phil Collins fronted. No one (except for some die hards) went to a Genesis show in the 80s and felt like they were really missing something by not having Peter Gabriel in the band. Even when they would do stuff like "I Know What I Like", Phil Collins made the song his.

That got me thinking about bands who have lost their leaders / visionaries / frontmen. They fall into the following categories: 1. Bands that try to go on without replacing them (Pink Floyd, The Doors, The Sex Pistols, The Beach Boys) - this is almost ALWAYS unsuccessful (with, of course, the exception of Genesis). Remaining members often lack the artistry that can lead a band. 2. Bands that quit all together (The Beatles, The Cars, a million others). 3. Bands that try to replace them (Van Halen, Journey, Asia, Styx, ACDC). These bands are fairly evenly divided between the successful and unsuccessful. I think what makes that distinction is if a casual fan can go to the concert and not feel cheated.
For example, Brian Johnson was successful replacement for Bon Scott. ACDC fans would have thought Bon Scott was irreplaceable. However, Brian Johnson made the band his own and it took off. As much as I hate to admit it, Sammy Hagar did the same thing with Van Halen. Sure the band was boring as hell, but he made it his own and was a successful replacement. You may think - well thats because these bands were still in their prime when they lost their leaders. Well, lets take Journey - Arnel Pineda has proven to be a very successful replacement for Steve Perry who was, arguably, the "face" and "sound" of Journey. However, Journey is generating more excitement now than they have in a long time (I would argue since Frontiers).

So... what about Styx? NOBODY goes to a Styx show and doesn't notice Deyoung's absence. I know some people might say, its only us who really care about Dennis not being there -not so. Having seen pseudo-styx with people who only know the band from casually listening to the radio (and couldn't name Dennis Deyoung OR Tommy Shaw) and had no idea that any members were different, were IMMEDIATELY left aware that the real leader of Styx wasn't there. The Tommy songs didn't even sound the same to them. So - Styx falls into that category of unsuccessful. Gowan was a shitty replacement for Dennis Deyoung. If Styx had truly wanted to continue on - at this stage in their careers - they should have either gone with someone like Arnel who sounded like DDY or they should have gone with someone with enough charisma to make the band their own like Brian Johnson did.

In any case, cheers to Phil Collins, whose retirement brought about this entire line of thought.

I always get a good laugh out of these kinds topics.
Toph must have done a least 50 of them.Topics where it will always end up glorifying Dennis and making everybody else related
to Styx look like 4th tier players.Which reminds me.toph specialty would be quizzes where Dennis would always be the answer
and with questions that pointed out the big successes related to Styx.

And by the way Phil enjoy your retirement.I am sorry about your back.Maybe Gabriel wants to give it a go.

[styxfanNH]

This from Brian May about lead singer changes. Written about the changes in Journey, but it applies to all bands with some level of success.

Styx chose option 4

_________________________________________________

QUEEN guitarist Brian May has posted the following message on his web site:

"I was actually moved to write a new page tonight [early hours of June 14], by thinking about our great pal, Jeff Scott Soto. Many of you have been writing to me about the shock of seeing him suddenly erased from the JOURNEY website, as if he had never existed. It's a strange place that I view this from. JOURNEY are, in a way, in a very similar position to ourselves. They have a legacy of hits which people will always want to hear played live. And their singer all through their golden age can no longer perform with them (Steve Perry, a truly luminous singer, in my opinion — a voice in a million). So the JOURNEY guys (I wrote about them just a couple of months ago when they visited — Neal Schon is a fabulous player and an esteemed friend of mine) have a similarly difficult and maddeningly set of options to juggle.

"Option 1: They (or we) throw in the towel and say, 'It can never be as good, so let's put on our carpet slippers and live off the past.' In other words, it's over, and all the talent and experience now goes for nothing. (Some 'fans' actually ask for this, unable to let the artists move on.)

"Option 2: They go out on tour with a 'replacement' for the legendary singer - someone who looks and sounds like Steve Perry; in this case they find themselves in a stale situation, where they are stuck in the past. I was always against this in our case - I could not stand being a fossil, going out there and effectively saying, "We can't improve on what is past — we have nothing more to say".

"Option 3: They forget the name 'JOURNEY' and start from scratch with a new line-up and a new 'image'. I know the JOURNEY guys have been some way down that road. It's brave, but it's very unrewarding, because you tend to end up disappointing all the people who grew to love the old band, and effectively you are turning your back on everything you spent half your life building. Most times you end up playing the old hits anyway ... because why would you not want to play your own music?!

"Options 4: They find a singer with something NEW to offer, a new foil, someone who has a musical world of his own, and is worth arguing with! Even someone who can steal some of the limelight. This is what I have LOVED, working with our wonderful colleague, Paul Rodgers — yes, we can play the old stuff, and yes we can be, in a sense, a continuation of QUEEN, but everything is new — the sky is the limit — because, like in the old days, we are working with a brilliant creator, we are sharing a new creative process, feeding off each other's ideas - experimenting, growing. This is what excites me, at the age of ...oh, forget it!!! ha ha ....

"When I saw JOURNEY this year, live in London, I felt excited, because I felt they had taken Option 4 by the horns. Knowing Jeff, I knew that he had jumped in without a parachute — he turned around the whole direction of his life, not only into being a worthy part of a great band, but pushing ahead, experimenting, looking for ways to be new, within the framework. I was truly astounded by his range, power, and interpretations, and his contact with the audience. The band looked energised - even dangerous. How cool.

"Well, now we get a shock. I know in my heart Jeff would never have walked out on this — he is way too loyal. It saddens me that he seems to [have] been shed like a used pair of boots. Those boots sure covered some good ground. You know, for all the reasons above, it's understandable that JOURNEY might decide to make a U-turn. I just hope that they will be man enough to say so if this is the case, rather than hiding behind some kind of pretence that it was a mutual decision. That's an integrity thing, and a karma thing. You have to own yer own poo. And I hope they will see fit to recognise Jeff's lasting contribution to the family, and realise that he deserves to be treated with respect. And ... I desperately hope they don't go down that other road: JOURNEY is worth a whole lot more than Option 2."

[Boomchild]

Actually I have heard "Dogs Of War" recently and still hear "On The Turning Away" and "Learning To Fly" almost daily. While different I thought those 2 albums were quite enjoyable.

I always enjoyed the pre and post Waters versions of PF. They seemed to be successful enough to prompt Waters to sue his former band mates. After all at that time PF was still playing in arenas and Waters was stuck playing smaller venues.

[gr8dane]

Actually I have heard "Dogs Of War" recently and still hear "On The Turning Away" and "Learning To Fly" almost daily. While different I thought those 2 albums were quite enjoyable.

I always enjoyed the pre and post Waters versions of PF. They seemed to be successful enough to prompt Waters to sue his former band mates. After all at that time PF was still playing in arenas and Waters was stuck playing smaller venues.

Maybe I got my facts wrong,but don't you mean pre Gilmour and post Waters.

Yes,I also like the 2 Floyd albums after Waters.Certainly miles more enjoyable than the Final Cut.
Now that was a depressing album.

[Boomchild]

Actually I have heard "Dogs Of War" recently and still hear "On The Turning Away" and "Learning To Fly" almost daily. While different I thought those 2 albums were quite enjoyable.

I always enjoyed the pre and post Waters versions of PF. They seemed to be successful enough to prompt Waters to sue his former band mates. After all at that time PF was still playing in arenas and Waters was stuck playing smaller venues.

Maybe I got my facts wrong,but don't you mean pre Gilmour and post Waters.

Yes,I also like the 2 Floyd albums after Waters.Certainly miles more enjoyable than the Final Cut.
Now that was a depressing album.

I guess I should have said I enjoyed all the versions of PF. I liked The Final Cut, not as much as some others. It's a shame how egos and personality conflicts kill great bands.