Band Wreckers and the Happy Bands They Destroy

Band Wreckers and the Happy Bands They Destroy

Band wreckers are the worst kind of singers. They are those dudes who take advantage of an unstable group relationship and insert themselves in the middle. They break into a band and destroy their happy home. And who suffers? The children do. The children always suffer. All of those fans whose childhood memories of beloved bands are forever dashed by seeing step-singers replace their favorite vocalists.

These interlopers may take their hijacked groups to new commercial heights, but it's always a Pyrrhic victory. Their success is without honor. In most cases, however, the band wrecker gets to travel with his eloped bandmates on the road to career oblivion and package tours at county fairgrounds. It's a fate they deserve for cheating in the first place. Cheaters never win. You hear that, Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones? You can't replace Robert Plant. A band makes a promise that's as deep as a marital vow: 'til death do us part. Remember that before you decide to hit the road with the winner of some Led Zeppelin sound-a-like contest.

In fairness, I have to blame the band too. It takes two to make a thing go right

This thread title rules. My vote for thread title of the year. Make a note.

Steve Perry was not the original singer for Journey.

This thread title rules. My vote for thread title of the year. Make a note.

I thought it was going to be about my ex wife!

Band Wreckers and the Happy Bands They Destroy

 

QUEEN with PAUL RODGERS

...and Freddie is turning over in his grave for sure.

 

you would have thought he learned too! :poke:

I kinda liked the way Rodgers sounded with Queen. Not how I expected it to sound.

You forgot AC/DC and that horrid loser they got when Bon Scott died. Or the "Burrito Brothers" after everyone you ever heard of left.

This thread title rules. My vote for thread title of the year. Make a note.

Does it matter that it was cut n pasted, verbatim, from Yahoo News? :

http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/getback/32105/band-wreckers-and-the-happy-bands-they-destroy/

You mean the one they sold 50,000,000 albums with (and counting)?

Didn't exactly destroy the band, did he?

Does it matter that it was cut n pasted, verbatim, from Yahoo News? : http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/getback/32105/band-wreckers-and-the-happy-bands-they-destroy/

:phil:

I briefly considered this earlier, but the idea that the singer "ruined" the band is just another example of clinging to the past and not allowing artistic progression. Even assuming Roth never leaves, is it fair for Van Halen to sound the same in 1978 and 1986?

Life goes on - deal with it.

:phil: I briefly considered this earlier, but the idea that the singer "ruined" the band is just another example of clinging to the past and not allowing artistic progression. Even assuming Roth never leaves, is it fair for Van Halen to sound the same in 1978 and 1986? Life goes on - deal with it.

That's part of the culture we find ourselves in: Part of elevating ourselves has become a requisite tearing down what has ascended.

If Van Halen gets a new singer, they're runied. If they don't, they suck because they haven't progressed.

Clapton is another example: He has lost his fire, just phones it in etc. But had he still played the same stuff he did in 1969, he'd be criticised for not growing as an artist.

I'd bet that had Hendrix or SRV lived, they'd be deconstructed as worn out hacks by now.

Methinks you're confusing sales with artistic merit and rock and roll integrity.

"Who Let the Dogs Out?" sold a lot of records, too.

I saw Van Halen in '76 or so and I thought they sucked then. So, you know...

Clapton is stuck playing the same licks he played in '69 -- or a small subset of them, only, by and large, he's not playing them with nearly the fire or relative precision. I saw Clapton in '75 or so and he sucked mud. He couldn't even be bothered to play hardly any of his own leads; George Terry was in the shadows at the back of the stage playing the real solos while dorky Eric played his variation on air lead guitar at the front of the stage. I walked into that show a big Eric Clapton fan -- I walked out with a foul taste in my mouth.

SRV never had a chance, seems to me, to get past the next-great-guitar-whiz stage... he was still stuck playing crap repertoire when he died --but he often played it brilliantly. "Mary Had a Little Lamb," anyone?

Jimi -- that one's tough... even before he died, I felt like he was spinning his wheels. Mind you, Jimi Hendrix spinning his wheels is STILL better than 99% of the other putative guitar legends out there wanking around.

Quick! Someone get Blue a cup of coffee!!

I'm making my second pot of joe, now.*

None of my comments above are new thoughts. In essence, I've made them all before and I stand by them, with the understanding, of course, that they are statements of personal opinion.

[uPDATE: I will say this though about Van Halen. As much as I hated both EVH's playing when I saw them and 'Diamon Dave's' lycra-coated shenanigans (they looked like utter clowns), I thought the first album was pretty good and I thought both EVH and Dave did a good job. While not really any kind of fan of VH, I was still horrified when they brought in the hapless loser, Sammy Hagar -- I guy I'd already learned to hate even before then... I didn't much like him in Montrose, even though I sort of liked Ronnie Montrose's occasionally disciplined melodicism. When he went solo, there he was the bride stripped bare and it was a pretty revolting development.]

*And I think I'm in pretty good position to cut straight from under-caffeinated grumpiness to caffeine-fueled mistanthropy and snarky antagonism...

Yeah, I thought this was another Ono bashing party.

Actually I think women break up more bands than any other factor.

A hyper-caffienated lash at a discussion of popular culture? Your opinion isn't the one that matters. :poke: It's really about the way the pop culture machine shoots the artists either way - if you become popular and continue doing what made you popular "You didn't grow as an artist"; if you do attempt to grow "You alienated your fans".

So...a band loses a singer, wants to keep going on without them, and so they decided to hire a new singer...and yet it's the new singer's fault for taking the opportunity? Me thinks we are looking at it backwards here.

Yes, I agree, it's always a lame move when a band replaces a key member of a group that was so integral to what made them who they were, but to me, it's the band's fault for not knowing when to give it up. Why should the singer be blamed? How many here would pass it up if being offered such a gig? I'll bet it pays pretty well too.

Can't disagree with any of that. Not exactly.

Although the verb matters requires an object to become meaningful. My opinions would seem to cut little weight to the popular culture -- and I don't expect that to change any time soon.

But my opinions do matter to me. And I guess if you're bothering to respond to them, they must matter -- no matter how negatively -- to you.

That makes sense.

I blame Sammy Hagar for being Sammy Hagar. And I blame Van Halen, the band, for hiring someone like Sammy Hagar. Put the blame where it belongs, I say.

"You hear that, Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones?... A band makes a promise that's as deep as a marital vow: 'til death do us part."

If Jimmy Page followed that credo he would still be in the Yardbirds.

Much of the blame should go to the fact that the lead singer is almost always the focus of attention in a band. The excessive attention inspires many singers to think that they don't need the rest of the band.

I don't blame the bands for replacing the singer in that case, because they worked hard to build a reputation for the band and they need to make a living. I do think its classier to hire a new singer with a different sound than to find a clone. (although it sure worked for AC/DC financially)

But consider this, how many of you would choose to spend the rest of your life working closely with the same people you met in high school or shortly after?

"Jimi -- that one's tough... even before he died, I felt like he was spinning his wheels. "

I disagree, some of his best stuff was the recordings made shortly before he died. The recordings show that he was exploring a lot of new directions fruitfully.

Lastly, I'm not a big Clapton fan, but his playing, singing and enthusiasm seems to be better now than its been since Layla. Check out the Cream reunion DVD or the most recent Crossroads DVD for evidence, he's back to form and playing better than most of his contemporaries.

Me too!

Can't disagree with any of that. Not exactly. Although the verb matters requires an object to become meaningful. My opinions would seem to cut little weight to the popular culture -- and I don't expect that to change any time soon. But my opinions do matter to me. And I guess if you're bothering to respond to them, they must matter -- no matter how negatively -- to you.

Your opinion on the artistic merits Van Halen doesn't matter to the conversational topic of how popularity is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't propostion.

Happy now, you pedant.

I'm just a perennially happy kinda guy. :)

Agreed that the most comforting interpretation was that he was exploring and experimenting and that's the interpretation I've chosen to adopt since the Great One's unfortunate ultimate excess. But, as noted, I certainly felt, at the time, like he was spinning his wheels in terms of writing and career/music direction. If he'd stuck around a while longer, I'd like to think he would have moved into new phases of the genius he clearly could tap into...

I, too, think Clapton's singing has mellowed nicely. I should have probably made it more clear that I was thinking primarily of his guitar playing which was the main attraction for me, for the most part. But I did enjoy his singing, even early on. And, frankly, when I go back and listen to even his Cream-era guitar work, it's maybe not the god-like genius I thought it was at the time.

I check in with EC from time to time, but probably the latest thing I have from him in my collection are the two duet songs he contributed to Gatemouth Brown's obligatory, late-career duets album (A Long Way Home, w/ all the usual culprits, Bonnie Raitt, etc -- a surprisingly by-the-numbers exercise considering what a wonderful, electrifying performer Gate could be on his own). There's a less formal studio duet with Clapton and Gate trading off acoustic guitar backing and solos; we all have our off days but Gate played circles around EC on it.

Here's how the normally fairly generous All Music described that Gatemouth album, one of only two of his many albums to be given a measly 1.5 stars out of 5 by them:

And I thought that was still pretty generous to Clapton. He couldn't even keep his rhythm playing in time as they traded off.

All this Clapton talk got me going. I just tossed his first solo record (1970 eponymous LP, which I liked a lot when I was a kid) into the mix. I doubt I've heard it since the 70s. We'll see how this nostalgia trip goes... I don't know if you can go home again -- but I can see it from Wasila if I stand on top of this battered Airstream.

UPDATE: First track came on... oh yeah... it's the Delaney and Bonnie album. Heck, this first solo is actually kinda cookin'... complete with enough guitar echo to fuel a cover of "Jump into the Fire." Except he gets stuck at one point... someone bump EC out of that lick, wouldjya? Still, the album gets 5 bonus points for wah-wah clavinet. I loved that sound... UPDATE 2: three songs in and I'm kinda diggin' it all. Great little horn section. Maybe not the slickest recording quality but the band cooks. I've learned to really hate "After Midnight" but this is clearly the best version. Wish they'd mixed the drums up about 8 dB, though. My pick for some of the weirdest, most overly graphic sexual lyrics on a pop album: "Easy Now"'s chorus: "making love against the wall... easy now, don't let my love flow out of you / please remember that I want you to come, too." Tender -- and considerate -- but kinda weird, considering.

Big jump from Cream, of course. Gotta give the guy credit: Yardbirds, Cream, Blind Faith, Derek (not to mention his contributions to Beatles and other recordings back in the day) -- he was there in the center of some great music and landmark albums.