Jump to content

inxs


elie

Recommended Posts

Not as good. Usually it's a cliche that whenever a band member dies, the replacement is never meant to fill in right & the band ends up not able to cover the same spark they once had.

I disagree... what about when Bon Scott of AC/DC died? Brian Johnson took over and the band has stayed on track and haven't really missed a beat. I can't speak for any other bands, but I'm sure someone else will have an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still undecided on this one. I am a huge fan of Michael Hutchence. His presence on stage was powerful, sexy, energetic, and just hypnotic. In some ways he reminded me of Jim Morrison. Maybe it's because there was such a long gap of time before the band found another lead singer. I saw them on Letterman with the new singer and they were good, but not what they were with Michael.

As for AC/DC, it just worked. There was very little time in between Bon Scott and Brian Johnson and the fans stayed. I just think it depends on the band. Look at Queen, new album coming out with Paul Rodgers, who I like, but he is not Freddie, in fact no one could replace Freddie. I think Queen should have just left it alone and not brought on new lead singer. Just my opinion though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweetness, I agree with you on the Queen and Paul Rodgers point. Paul is not Freddie. My roomie has the Live album with Rodgers on vocals. He is great singer, but not like Freddie Mercury.

I also wanted to say that your point about the length of time between singers is a good one. Just might be the reason some bands can't keep their fans and others don't have much trouble with continued success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...