Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 30.09.2009 at 15:51

Written by Dangerboner on 30.09.2009 at 15:49


Yeah I know. Bush still sucks though

No, he doesn't
He's a brilliant vocalist. I can fully understand why Metallica wanted him on vocals originally.

I like how he sounds on Raising Fear by Armored Saint, but he took a more dull approach on vocals for Anthrax. Whether or not it was by choice or age I dunno, but his singing lacked the personality that Joey had. But, even Joey's voice couldn't help their shitty album, Persistence of Time lol

Yeah generally its a disaster when it happens, yet in some cases it changes for the better...ie Joutsen going to Amorphis was a helluva improvement. Recently Scar Symmetry got 2 vocalists to replace Christian Alvestam - which worked out ok. The problem isnt the quality of their vocals, Robert Karlsson's growls are sometimes indistinguishable from Alvestam's and the clean vocals of Lars are good. The problem is they probably arent as talented as Alvestam when it comes to WRITING the vocal passages and Lars especially seems to fall a little flat when it comes to the vocal melodies. He sings well enough, but I dont think hes got the talent or the range to sing the way Alvestam does.

Who knows, its his first album with the band, I think he probably tried to play it safe which is understandable. Hopefully he will be a bit more daring on the next album..

It is diffrent when singer who is not fontman of the band leaves the band.For example,If james hetfiled would leave metallica it would be terrible.But in some other cases would be diffrent.You can't imagine bands like metallica,Megadeth Iron Maiden etc. without their singers.

Written by terrorist on 30.09.2009 at 20:30

It is diffrent when singer who is not fontman of the band leaves the band.For example,If james hetfiled would leave metallica it would be terrible.But in some other cases would be diffrent.You can't imagine bands like metallica,Megadeth Iron Maiden etc. without their singers.

What do you mean a singer who is not a forntman?
The singer is always the frontman. The term frontman refers to the vocalist and not to for example the non-singing guitarist, non-singing bas player, non-singing drummer (although those are somehow never reffered to as frontman) etc.

Btw, for me it is possible to imagine Iron Maiden without their singer...because to me Paul DiAnno was actually better than Bruce Dickinson and I also like Dickinson singing in Maiden.

Written by GamlaSonn on 30.09.2009 at 14:55


Yes, what you say makes sense, I agree it probably was for the better for both parts, but just commented it must suck for him to get booted by his friends. Hm, I'm not sure if the average AE fan cares more about the Amott's or Angela, people tend to think the front(wo)man is most important, don't you think? I mean, teenage girls is fascinated by Angela "omg she can growl and she's a girl shes my idol" etc. Of course, anyone with a clue about Michael's history would see the obvious choice.

Yeah it would suck, but its not exactly the first time its happened. Just look at Dave Mustaine with Metallica. You are quite correct a lot of people are very curious about Angela on the basis of "She is a woman". I must admit when I first saw them I was more than a little curious, so it is hard to say wether or not people in general like the band for Angela or the Amotts. I suppose it would be something of a mix.
As for Michaels history, she was his girlfriend wasn't she? I did read about it a few years ago, but my memory isn't the most relyable.

Written by terrorist on 30.09.2009 at 20:30

It is diffrent when singer who is not fontman of the band leaves the band.For example,If james hetfiled would leave metallica it would be terrible.But in some other cases would be diffrent.You can't imagine bands like metallica,Megadeth Iron Maiden etc. without their singers.

I don't think it is posible that the singer is not in the front of peoples minds when they see a band. You can see and average band with a great singer and still enjoy it, but if you see a brilliant band with a crap singer suddenly it dosn't sound so good. Because their voice is 'human', it will naturally draw more attention than say a bass player or drummer. But it is not to say singers arn't replaceable, but 9 times out of 10 it is a desaster.

Written by Dangerboner on 30.09.2009 at 14:05

Another plus: Mortuus/Arioch becoming the Marduk vocalist

I fully agree with that one... I always thought that the vocals before wwere pretty generic. Mortuus/Arioch has a really impressive voice.

The only band that has bothered me so far with the change of a singer is Nightwish. Other than that I don't think I can complain so far.

Written by Warman on 01.10.2009 at 17:59

The only band that has bothered me so far with the change of a singer is Nightwish. Other than that I don't think I can complain so far.

Well I totaly agree whit you, but also 3th and the Mortal when Kari left, Thatre of Tragedy, The Gathering , some 80's bands to, but NW is TOp1 dispaoiment after Traje left and will be till Steave Harris kick out Bruce and take Tokojo hotel singer

Uh, Mike Patton.

Yes, I know there are some misled people out there who prefer Chuck Mosley, but I'd advise them to stop snorting coke...

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 30.09.2009 at 20:46

Written by terrorist on 30.09.2009 at 20:30

It is diffrent when singer who is not fontman of the band leaves the band.For example,If james hetfiled would leave metallica it would be terrible.But in some other cases would be diffrent.You can't imagine bands like metallica,Megadeth Iron Maiden etc. without their singers.

What do you mean a singer who is not a forntman?
The singer is always the frontman. The term frontman refers to the vocalist and not to for example the non-singing guitarist, non-singing bas player, non-singing drummer (although those are somehow never reffered to as frontman) etc.

well out of memory i can only name Manowar as a band which has a instrument player that also talks extensively to rouse up the audience etc... maybe Iced Earth too but Jon leaves that to Barlow mostly, though i'm sure there's more bands like that. i would say Joey DeMaio is a half-frontman(along with being a half-wit and a half-decent bass player)

It doesn't bug me entirely if a band decides to change up it's vocals, and bring someone else into the mix, however if the singer being replaced has a long-standing history and influence on the overall sound of the band that would be compromised if replaced, then I mind.
Sometimes the singer in a band makes up a certain whole of that band, and would leave a missing fraction of the group, and the material it releases if changed.
However ; If a band can successfully change it's singer, and maintain the same sound, style, and influence as they did before the switch, then I don't really mind at all.

Written by Warman on 01.10.2009 at 17:59

The only band that has bothered me so far with the change of a singer is Nightwish. Other than that I don't think I can complain so far.

Myeah, same here. Though. No, wait. Scar Symmetry. <_<
Nightwish has totally changed their style since Tarja was kicked out of the band, that's confusing me but otherwise - no big deal if the music doesn't change much.

Written by jupitreas on 01.10.2009 at 20:25

Uh, Mike Patton.

Yes, I know there are some misled people out there who prefer Chuck Mosley, but I'd advise them to stop snorting coke...

Yeah, Mike saved that band. While, at times, Chucks's vocals were funny... he sorta sucks.

Written by jupitreas on 01.10.2009 at 20:25

Uh, Mike Patton.

Yes, I know there are some misled people out there who prefer Chuck Mosley, but I'd advise them to stop snorting coke...

Actually this is a good one, Mike Patton is an amazing musician.

(Hope this isn't off-topic, but...) Actually, I sort of wish that Black Sabbath would have had a different singer during their first few albums... Ozzy just bores me, but the music is just so good. What do you guys think?

Written by Fat & Sassy! on 02.10.2009 at 22:19

(Hope this isn't off-topic, but...) Actually, I sort of wish that Black Sabbath would have had a different singer during their first few albums... Ozzy just bores me, but the music is just so good. What do you guys think?

I think Dio is better than Ozzy as frontman for Sabbath, the change also helped the band move into the 80s. Basically to me Sabbath is six albums, the first four with Ozzy and the two with Dio, Dio sort of revitalised the band who again seemed to fade out when he left.

To me the best vocal change of all time is the Misfits. Both periods are fantastic. The Danzig one was dark and raw and the Graves one more polished and aggresive. I honestly love both eras of the band and do not consider losing Danzig as a disaster as the band went on the write excellent music in concordance to its times and probably avoided the inevitable, "this is becoming boring" that most bands go through.

Written by Haddonfield on 03.10.2009 at 03:16

Written by Fat & Sassy! on 02.10.2009 at 22:19

(Hope this isn't off-topic, but...) Actually, I sort of wish that Black Sabbath would have had a different singer during their first few albums... Ozzy just bores me, but the music is just so good. What do you guys think?

I think Dio is better than Ozzy as frontman for Sabbath, the change also helped the band move into the 80s. Basically to me Sabbath is six albums, the first four with Ozzy and the two with Dio, Dio sort of revitalised the band who again seemed to fade out when he left.

To me the best vocal change of all time is the Misfits. Both periods are fantastic. The Danzig one was dark and raw and the Graves one more polished and aggresive. I honestly love both eras of the band and do not consider losing Danzig as a disaster as the band went on the write excellent music in concordance to its times and probably avoided the inevitable, "this is becoming boring" that most bands go through.

Dio actually is on 3 Sabbath albums (Heaven and Hell, Mob Rules and Dehumanizer).

And yeah, Matt Graves is just as raw as Danzig.

Written by Fat & Sassy! on 03.10.2009 at 22:39

Dio actually is on 3 Sabbath albums (Heaven and Hell, Mob Rules and Dehumanizer).

My bad but I've never managed to get into the other albums, just the six mentionned.

Written by Haddonfield on 04.10.2009 at 21:24

Written by Fat & Sassy! on 03.10.2009 at 22:39

Dio actually is on 3 Sabbath albums (Heaven and Hell, Mob Rules and Dehumanizer).

My bad but I've never managed to get into the other albums, just the six mentionned.

Naturally, those are the only albums that are worth listening to anyway. Also, the latest Heaven and Hell (formally known as Black Sabbath) is pretty good. Dio is on that one too.

Written by Fat & Sassy! on 04.10.2009 at 21:33

Written by Haddonfield on 04.10.2009 at 21:24

Written by Fat & Sassy! on 03.10.2009 at 22:39

Dio actually is on 3 Sabbath albums (Heaven and Hell, Mob Rules and Dehumanizer).

My bad but I've never managed to get into the other albums, just the six mentionned.

Naturally, those are the only albums that are worth listening to anyway. Also, the latest Heaven and Hell (formally known as Black Sabbath) is pretty good. Dio is on that one too.

I've heard but I'm sceptic about it, you know the fear of sudden disapointment.

Well My Biggest Breakdown when lance king left Pyramaze in 2006 and left behind him 2 masterpieces !! then who replaced him was the front singer of iced earth Matthew Barlow ..this change fucked me up specialy when they released the new album with him !! so bad album( in singing section ) comparing to lace king's previous releases !!
Lance King is the only american dude who i respect his vocals and musicianship in general !! he left a great impact in the danish crue !!

I dont care for sepultura after arise but i must say that derrek greene sucks.

Yeah, Sepultura changed Max Cavallera to Derek Green.
Kipelov went away from Aria, and Artur Berkut is now in Aria.
Turonen Tarja - off the Nigthwish.
I think that it sometimes useful to refresh sound and to create perspective albums.

I bascially hate it when a band changes a singer of a totally differenty quality and ascpect of singing. I'm not saying bands should get a copy, far from that, diversity is admirable, but when the difference between the original vocalist and the current is too big, it reflects negatively on their older songs.

For example, I can't get over Maryangela Demurtas singing songs Vibeke Stene originally did with Tristania. Vibs was an operatic singer, whilst Maryangela has this badass rock stlye and when she sings anything up to Ashes, it's just horrible. And I don't find Mary a bad singer, far from that, but she just can't interpret the older songs and thus, for me, ruins it.

As oppose to that, Nell Sigland was a great replacement for Liv Kristine in Theatre of Tragedy, both have this gentle, sweet voice; Nell's a bit colder than Liv was, but she handles the old songs very well.

Exodus sounded better back in the day but the change was good because the band didn't decrease the sound was different but nothing bad.

As a metal band, I don't definitely focus on the vocalist of the band. If we treat singer as one sort of instruments who expresses concepts or emotions just by words, then, singers are nothing special than other parts of the band. I mean, I always put premium on whole balance and the feeling of any songs, not just listen to the singers totally. Maybe we would not accept new voice, and familiar singers are attractive, but no longer come back. From another aspect, vocalists can't always stand most part in metal fans' heart. I think that the best part of metal is the whole construction and the pure expression toward music. This work is shared equally by vocalist, bass, guitar,keyboard and drums. None of them can emphasizes the importance of it's existence.

Good topic!

well, there's always a risk when bands change their vocalist because obviously, sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. And there are many examples for both situations. For example I like Bush era Anthrax; I think it worked well for them. Dio replacing Ozzy worked well as well, Heaven and Hell is a great album. Coverdale and Hughes joining Deep Purple worked great as well, Burn is an amazing album if you ask me, and the two follow up albums are good albums as well. I cannot say the same thing about the Joe Lynn Turner album (Slaves and masters), although not a bad album, I for one don't wanna hear JLT sing in Purple, it's one of DP's weakest efforts.

Ray Adler joining Fates Warning worked out well, too. Zachary Stevens joining Savatage was an improvement IMO to Jon Oliva's singing.

Some examples when the change did not work would be John Lawton replacing David Byron in Uriah Heep. Lawton sounded bluesier, not bad, but Byron had an amazing vocal range, Lawton did not. To make matters worse, the singer to replace Lawton was even worse, the young John Sloman who sang on Conquest (1980).

Ian Gillan singing in Black Sabbath was a mistake in my humble opinion, I for one was rather confused . The songwriting on that album was poor and Gillan did not deliver a good performance.

Paul Rodgers joining Queen was bad idea in the end simply because the studio album they did together was simply dull.

Blaze Bayley was a wrong choice to replace Bruce Dickinson, although I do like The X Factor. he is way inferior to Bruce and the band did not use him properly, the guy is pretty talented (or so i realized listening later to his albums).

I'm not very fond of Ripper Owens in Judas Priest although i can't say the albums they made with him are bad.

That's all i can think of right now, I'll be back if I remember other situations.

I don't care if they changed the vocal if they still strong in the instrumental part, like Cannibal Corpse, Cryptopsy, Morbid Angel, and Decapitated etc.

I much prefer Paul Baloff over the other Exodus vocalists.