Bands you wished had different singers

Umm, that's a negative ghost rider. I'm pretty sure Jimmy Page already tried that, they were known as the Firm. And when that went nowhere, he found a singer that sounded like Plant and did Coverdale/Page...which also went nowhere. Besides, if Zep didn't have Plant, more than likely they wouldn't have had Bonham either, then we're talking a band that isn't Led Zeppelin.

You could say that about any band. For example, without Axl, you wouldn't have Slash and then you wouldn't have Duff and then you wouldn't have a band. FWIW, I don't care for Plant's caterwaul. I respect LZ as a band, I just don't enjoy listening to them very much.
 
anyone remember when warren zevon sang with rem?

zep without vocal histrionics would be pretty off balance. page, jonesy, and bonham probably could have had john lee hooker sing if they’d wanted him.
 
OK I'm gonna say it. I think Led Zeppelin would be a better band if Robert Plant wasn't the singer.

So far I've hesitant to post in this thread, but this post requires a quick and decisive discipline! Bad Shawn! BAD! :D

It's a funny topic. Over the years, I've had thoughts about some of my favorite bands and their singers. I can't even tell you how many of my friends growing up said "I love Rush's music but don't like their vocals." And it's easy to "get" that. I never loved Anderson although I loved Yes. And then there's Dream Theater...

What I decided was that a band is the sum of it's parts, and then plus or minus from there based on smaller stuff. To take some of the greatest bands ever like Yes, Rush and DT, and then say "they would have been even better with a better vocalist" is not fair. Unless the band is Dream Theater, you can go through most bands and then replace every other member with your favorite player of that instrument, and then say "they are better with this guy on guitar" or "this guy on keys" etc. Point being, the band as a whole is what it is. Yes or Rush would not have been the same without Anderson and Lee singing. And yes, it's possible they could have been even better. It's also possible that they would not have been as good. You just don't know and speculation can't answer most of the questions.

So my answer is, unless they're so bad as to detract from an otherwise great band, then no I wouldn't want to replace any of them.
 
so you do or don’t like falsetto and cookie grumbling?

So far I've hesitant to post in this thread, but this post requires a quick and decisive discipline! Bad Shawn! BAD! :D

It's a funny topic. Over the years, I've had thoughts about some of my favorite bands and their singers. I can't even tell you how many of my friends growing up said "I love Rush's music but don't like their vocals." And it's easy to "get" that. I never loved Anderson although I loved Yes. And then there's Dream Theater...

What I decided was that a band is the sum of it's parts, and then plus or minus from their based on smaller stuff. To take some of the greatest bands ever like Yes, Rush and DT, and then say "they would have been even better with a better vocalist" is not fair. Unless the band is Dream Theater, you can go through most bands and then replace every other member with your favorite player of that instrument. Point being, the band as a whole is what it is. Yes or Rush would not have been the same without Anderson and Lee singing. And yes, it's possible they could have been even better. It's also possible that they would not have been as good. You just don't know and speculation can't answer most of the questions.

So my answer is, unless they're so bad as to detract from an otherwise great band, then no I wouldn't want to replace any of them.
 
Neil Peart seems overrated as well, although the vocals get me away from any Rush before I can really judge that for sure.
That's like saying "this Zo6 is overrated and slow. But the color gets me away from it before I can really take it for a drive and judge for sure."
 
you’d replace sting in the police?? they were keeping him from making sting records.

I think the reason most of Sting’s post-Police material is so painful is that he was trying sooooo hard to prove that he was uber-talented and being in a simple pop band was beneath him. If he wasn’t their singer...we may have been spared that...and perhaps he’d have had more time for his carreer as a male por...um...I mean model.
 
you mean this?:

vpc2kigd60eovnmexu2t.jpg


I think the reason most of Sting’s post-Police material is so painful is that he was trying sooooo hard to prove that he was uber-talented and being in a simple pop band was beneath him. If he wasn’t their singer...we may have been spared that...and perhaps he’d have had more time for his carreer as a male por...um...I mean model.
 
You could say that about any band. For example, without Axl, you wouldn't have Slash and then you wouldn't have Duff and then you wouldn't have a band. FWIW, I don't care for Plant's caterwaul. I respect LZ as a band, I just don't enjoy listening to them very much.

I get that, and respect your opinion, but it's ironic to me that you mention "caterwaul" and then use Axl Rose as the example. Probably much like Plant sounds to you, Axl's voice is nails on a chalkboard to me when he goes full banshee wail.
 
I think the reason most of Sting’s post-Police material is so painful is that he was trying sooooo hard to prove that he was uber-talented and being in a simple pop band was beneath him. If he wasn’t their singer...we may have been spared that...and perhaps he’d have had more time for his carreer as a male por...um...I mean model.

I think Andy Summers had some really complex playing on the Police albums. At least it's complex to me, but then again I'm a pretty crappy player.
 
Back
Top