Last month, Thin Lizzy announced that Ricky Warwick of the Almighty would be joining them as their third lead vocalist following the departure of John Sykes, who had been the band’s singer since they originally reformed in 1996.
In the same month, the Faces were confirmed as headliners of this August’s Vintage at Goodwood festival in West Sussex, with a certain Mick Hucknall due to stand in for Rod Stewart on vocals. Both of these announcements beg the question: how much do a band need their lead singer?
Many Thin Lizzy fans would argue that the band’s legend owes a great deal to original frontman Phil Lynott, who passed away in 1986. Lynott was a quintessential rock star that lived life to excess and wrote some of the greatest rock songs of the Seventies. When Thin Lizzy was reformed by other members of the band, including Sykes who had played guitar on their last album, there was a great deal of criticism regarding the use of the original name. However, the group argued that the reunion was only intended as a tribute to Lynott’s work and have never recorded any new material. They managed to form a successful touring career and continue to perform a large number of popular shows each year.
Thin Lizzy aren’t the only band that have opted to give it another go after losing their singer. Last year, Alice in Chains released their fourth album ‘Black Gives Way to Blue’ with new vocalist William DuVall. Despite the lack of original frontman Layne Staley, the album was a huge success, both critically and commercially. By carrying on without Staley, Alice in Chains have proved that a band can be just as important without its original singer. However, other examples have not been so successful. Also during last year, the surviving members of Californian punk/reggae band Sublime had legal action brought against them for trying to reform the group with new singer, Rome Ramirez. The court prohibited them from using the name and the band have since continued under the name Sublime with Rome.
There have been several other notable instances where bands have reformed without their vocalist but have chosen to record under a new name. When Zack de la Rocha left Rage Against the Machine in 2000, the remaining three members decided to stay together and, in the following year, they enrolled Soundgarden’s Chris Cornell as their new singer. However, instead of calling themselves Rage Against the Machine, they formed Audioslave and went on to play a completely different style of rock music. Obviously, one of the main differences here is that, in the other examples, the bands’ original frontmen were deceased. If Phil Lynott and Layne Staley were both still alive, but had refused to rejoin their former bands, would Thin Lizzy and Alice in Chains have carried on without them? This leads us onto another famous example.
When Duff McKagan, Matt Sorum and Slash joined forces with Stone Temple Pilots’ lead singer Scott Weiland in 2003, there was never any question of them playing under the name Guns N’ Roses. This was simply because Guns N’ Roses had never officially broken up. Although, at the time, the band had not released an album since 2003’s ‘The Spaghetti Incident?’, Axl Rose had hung onto the name after all the other band members had left (with the exception of keyboard player Dizzy Reid). Velvet Revolver recorded two albums of brand new material, but continued to play several Guns N’ Roses tracks during live performances.
Since then, Guns N’ Roses have toured frequently with the current line-up and, in 2008, they released their long-awaited fifth album ‘Chinese Democracy’. Guns N’ Roses are probably one of the best examples of a band with several key members, as well as their lead vocalist. Slash himself is a legend in his own right. However, Axl Rose would surely argue that a band is nothing without its singer. Courtney Love, who recently reformed Hole without her bandmates, would almost certainly agree.
So, the question of whether or not a band is bigger than its singer is a tricky one. In some cases, bands have managed to carry on successfully without their original frontman. In others, the vocalist has been able to continue without the rest of the band. But is this always possible? The Libertines are a good example of a group that has struggled without its key members. The success of a band that attempts to carry on after losing certain members is largely dependent on its fans. Many people wouldn’t dream of going to watch Thin Lizzy or Sublime these days, while others are keener to provide a second chance, as is obviously the case with Alice in Chains.
Recently, Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin have both tried - and failed - to get back together without their vocalists. In most cases where a band has lost its singer, the other members have chosen to call it a day for good. If Foo Fighters were not as successful as they are, would Dave Grohl be looking to reform Nirvana? It seems unlikely. Recently, Mick Jones and Paul Simonon have started playing together as members of Gorillaz. But would they consider reforming the Clash without Joe Strummer? One would hope not. Although it is arguable that a band is more important than its frontman, there is no denying that the singer is an integral player. The vocalist is the voice and face of the group, who often embodies their personality as well. This is why bands are frequently swapping members with no real impact, but swapping the singer is not quite as easy.
NOTE FROM THE EDITOR
We don't run any advertising! Our editorial content is solely funded by lovely people like yourself using Stereoboard's listings when buying tickets for live events. To keep supporting us, next time you're looking for concert, festival, sport or theatre tickets, please search for "Stereoboard". It costs you nothing, you may find a better price than the usual outlets, and save yourself from waiting in an endless queue on Friday mornings as we list ALL available sellers!
