The importance of being a frontman (or woman)

[Trollheart]

It's not always the case, but quite often the loss - through death or just "musical differences" - of a frontman or frontwoman can cripple a band. Sometimes the band will go on, of course, with a new leader (or occasionally with none, rejigging the lineup so that someone already in it takes on vocal duties) but I think the majority tend to suffer from the loss. What do you think, and what bands do you think fall into either, or even neither category?

Personally I'm for Thin Lizzy and Queen for the former. While no band wants to be, um, a one-man-band, as it were, I feel Lizzy's sound was created and owed more to Phil Lynott's gruff Dublin brogue than it did to either Scott Gorham or even Brian Robertson's axe licks, and I just didn't see them continuing after he passed. Nor did they, as they split and I think some or most of them became Black Sky Riders or something. The thing about Lizzy that set them apart from a hundred other hard rock/heavy metal bands of their time was definitely Lynott's, not only voice as above, but his magnetic personality, humour and presence, to say nothing of his songwriting. It's probably not too far from the truth to say he was Thin Lizzy.

As for Queen, they certainly owed their distinctive sound to Brian May's guitar playing and their close harmony vocals, but who would deny that Freddie Mercury was the star, the focus of all the attention, the man who could hold a crowd of hundreds of thousands (in the case of Live Aid, millions or even billions) in the palm of his hand so effortlessly? Plus he was of course a great songwriter too. Queen tried to go on apres Freddie, but I think their efforts smacked a little of desperation to keep going; nobody was ever going to replace, or come close to being as good as the kid from Zanzibar who defiantly unleashed a seven-minute-plus song on the charts, and despite the prevailing wisdom at the time for short, snappy tunes, saw it not only climb to number one and remain there for months, but end up enshrined as a classic of rock music.

[innerspaceboy]

I think the Joy-Division-to-New-Order transition demonstrates one example of a band succeeding after the untimely passing of their frontman. Forgive the obvious example but I think it should be noted to satisfy TH's topic.

[Lisnaholic]

* Not obvious to everyone, ISB

The first band that occurred to me was The Doors, whose three members continued after Jim Morrison died, with the neatly named Other Voices album. That's to their credit, I think, as a lot of the musical ideas were things they were working on while JM was still alive, taking an ill-fated sabatical in Paris. Unfortunately, their combined other voices were doomed to sound banal without that sinister mix of sex, drugs and mysticism that JM was so good at: his input, along with Ray Manzanera's keyboards was a genuinely symbiotic relationship imo, and without JM, those keyboards just didn't conjure up the same magic.

[Trollheart]

More or less what I was going for, Lisna: some people just made bands and they weren't the same without them. I mean, an outfit like Fleetwood Mac could lose Christine but not Stevie too, whereas you can't imagine U2 without wotsisface can you? One example that doesn't exactly spring to mind right away though I think is Motorhead. I mean, who would deny Lemmy was that band? And once he shuffled off to the Great Pub in the Sky, I think the other two just looked at each other, shrugged and said "Fuck it, I'm off down the boozer. You comin'?" And that was that. Admittedly a three-piece carrying on when one of them leaves/dies is unlikely: look at Rush. Sure, Peart was "only" the drummer, and how many bands have died without their skinsman? But then again, he was also the main (only?) lyricist and Rush kind of almost was his baby. Plus they'd been together from the start, quite rare for a band: not one lineup change in over what, 50 years? So it wasn't surprising his death hit Geddy and Alex so hard and they disbanded. Kind of hard to see one Daft Punk continuing on his own, isn't it, or Belle without Sebastian. But as far as bands go, Genesis was probably one that survived - mostly - the loss of their creative lead, as did Marillion, but you don't care about them. Nirvana couldn't go on without Kurt (could they?) and it's hard to imagine The Eagles coming back after Glenn has hung up his cowboy boots and moseyed out onto God's Ranch.

Then again, Sabbath survived not one, not two, not even three but somewhat more than three frontmen, and so did Journey, and Deep Purple, and AC/DC sort of reinvented themselves after Bon Scott's death, so it can be done, and sometimes is. But I think the majority of the bands do tend to fold, or at least struggle to continue, without their main man. Sorry, I just can't think at the moment of a band with a frontwoman who left, though I'm sure there are plenty. I guess it also depends on how long the band has been around. Don't really see a bunch of guys or girls who have been together for two years losing it if their frontperson leaves. It's somewhat often about a brand, too, isn't it? I mean: Aerosmith without Tyler? Saxon without Biff? Zep without Plant? As if.