• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Which position within a band is typically most irreplaceable?

Always the singer, you can always find another good drummer etc... but different vocals basically change who the band is.
 
Singer, if you're talking rock band. However, if it's not a rock band, then all your poll options are viable 😉
 
I voted Singer, but now I changed my mind. The irreplaceable position is the person who writes the music. It seems to be the singer in many bands, but not all.
 
Depends on whether you're interested in making good music or selling albums I guess.

If you want to make good music then I would say that whoever contributes the most musically is the most valuable member. If you want to sell albums then the singer is going to be the person that most people will recognize and use to identify your band.
 
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Depends on whether you're interested in making good music or selling albums I guess.

If you want to make good music then I would say that whoever contributes the most musically is the most valuable member. If you want to sell albums then the singer is going to be the person that most people will recognize and use to identify your band.
Click to expand...

It was a general question.
 
Assuming they all have equal say in the band, it'd be singer. Black Sabbath is the only band to ever improve with a new vocalist.
 
Can't even be Van Halen with out DLR, and the band is named after the Lead Guitarist and Drummer, but Dave is still better at doing Van Halen than they are without him.
 
Singer and drummer. People with actual talent in either are rare and if you find one that works it really hurts if they leave.

Good singers are hard to find because most people think screaming into a mic is singing. They try to do all these fancy vibratos and ad libs, but have no sense of keeping beat.

Good drummers are hard to find because many of them don't have a place to practice. The advent of affordable electronic drums has helped that somewhat, but that doesn't help building your stamina. There's no replacement for acoustic drums, but you need to build some guns to hit 'em, and unless you live alone, the people you live with won't put up with that very long.
 
Depends on what the strong point of the band is, which is who is the best at their particular instrument and who are the primary songwriters?

Examples: Primus....obviously it's the bass player. Noboby other than hard core fans even know who else is in the band.
Rolling Stones...obviously it's Mick and Keith....they've had different drummers, bassists, and lead guitarists over the years, but Mick and Keith are not replaceable.
The Who...obviously it's Pete and Roger...they've already lost one of the best-ever drummers, and IMO the best-ever bassist and are still going.
Zeppelin...Page and Plant. Singer and guitarist, just like The Who. They could have replace Bonham and kept going. Could have replaced John Paul Jones and kept going. Some wouldn't have liked it, but they could have done it. But if Plant or Page had quit/died...no way.
Van Halen...Eddie. Everyone else in the band is replaceable and the band could have still been successful. But not Eddie.

See, it varies from band to band.
 
Originally posted by: glen
Can't even be Van Halen with out DLR, and the band is named after the Lead Guitarist and Drummer, but Dave is still better at doing Van Halen than they are without him.
Click to expand...

Guess that explains why VH with Sammy still sold millions of albums and sold out concerts for years while Dave had one big selling album then faded into playing clubs?
 
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Depends on what the strong point of the band is, which is who is the best at their particular instrument and who are the primary songwriters?

Examples: Primus....obviously it's the bass player. Noboby other than hard core fans even know who else is in the band.
Rolling Stones...obviously it's Mick and Keith....they've had different drummers, bassists, and lead guitarists over the years, but Mick and Keith are not replaceable.
The Who...obviously it's Pete and Roger...they've already lost one of the best-ever drummers, and IMO the best-ever bassist and are still going.
Zeppelin...Page and Plant. Singer and guitarist, just like The Who. They could have replace Bonham and kept going. Could have replaced John Paul Jones and kept going. Some wouldn't have liked it, but they could have done it. But if Plant or Page had quit/died...no way.
Van Halen...Eddie. Everyone else in the band is replaceable and the band could have still been successful. But not Eddie.

See, it varies from band to band.
Click to expand...

Rolling Stones has always been Charlie Watts, no?
 
I'd have to agree with singer, although as many have said the person who contributes the most musically would kill ther band if they left. (Which in my bands case is the Lead Guitar, soo.....)
 
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Good drummers are hard to find because many of them don't have a place to practice. The advent of affordable electronic drums has helped that somewhat, but that doesn't help building your stamina. There's no replacement for acoustic drums, but you need to build some guns to hit 'em, and unless you live alone, the people you live with won't put up with that very long.
Click to expand...

Eh, I dunno if they're really all that important. Slayer and Judas Priest went through drummers like candy and it never really hurt them.
 
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Singer and drummer. People with actual talent in either are rare and if you find one that works it really hurts if they leave.

Good singers are hard to find because most people think screaming into a mic is singing. They try to do all these fancy vibratos and ad libs, but have no sense of keeping beat.

Good drummers are hard to find because many of them don't have a place to practice. The advent of affordable electronic drums has helped that somewhat, but that doesn't help building your stamina. There's no replacement for acoustic drums, but you need to build some guns to hit 'em, and unless you live alone, the people you live with won't put up with that very long.
Click to expand...
Look at all the bands out there.....and there are PLENTY of drummers they could find in an instant that could replace their current drummer and pretty much nobody would care.
Only exceptions are drumming icons like Neal Peart of Rush, Charlie Watts, etc.
Think anyone cares who 3 Doors Down's drummer is? How about Nickleback? Disturbed? System?
Even older bands like Poison and Cinderella...think anybody wouldn't go to their shows because they changed drummers? Nope, as long as Bret Michaels and CC are there, or Tom Keifer for Cinderella, nobody would care.
Only drummers that would impact their bands by leaving would be people like Lars from Metallica, Alex Van Halen, Tommy Lee, etc....dudes that have been around for awhile and are associated with a particular band.
Heck, Motley Crue even replaced Tommy Lee for a tour with the chick from Hole and still did well.

 
Originally posted by: DainBramaged
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Depends on what the strong point of the band is, which is who is the best at their particular instrument and who are the primary songwriters?

Examples: Primus....obviously it's the bass player. Noboby other than hard core fans even know who else is in the band.
Rolling Stones...obviously it's Mick and Keith....they've had different drummers, bassists, and lead guitarists over the years, but Mick and Keith are not replaceable.
The Who...obviously it's Pete and Roger...they've already lost one of the best-ever drummers, and IMO the best-ever bassist and are still going.
Zeppelin...Page and Plant. Singer and guitarist, just like The Who. They could have replace Bonham and kept going. Could have replaced John Paul Jones and kept going. Some wouldn't have liked it, but they could have done it. But if Plant or Page had quit/died...no way.
Van Halen...Eddie. Everyone else in the band is replaceable and the band could have still been successful. But not Eddie.

See, it varies from band to band.
Click to expand...

Rolling Stones has always been Charlie Watts, no?
Click to expand...
No. They had at least 3 drummers before Charlie.
 
Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Good drummers are hard to find because many of them don't have a place to practice. The advent of affordable electronic drums has helped that somewhat, but that doesn't help building your stamina. There's no replacement for acoustic drums, but you need to build some guns to hit 'em, and unless you live alone, the people you live with won't put up with that very long.
Click to expand...

Eh, I dunno if they're really all that important. Slayer and Judas Priest went through drummers like candy and it never really hurt them.
Click to expand...

When you're in a professional circle, musicians and singers are a dime a dozen. If you're in a local band- not so easy to come by.
 
Originally posted by: newParadigm
I'd have to agree with singer, although as many have said the person who contributes the most musically would kill ther band if they left. (Which in my bands case is the Lead Guitar, soo.....)
Click to expand...
I agree, too. Van Halen is really an exception to the rule of still having big success with a new singer. Replacing Dave really defied the odds, since many consider him to be the best rock frontman of all time. (not "singer" but "frontman")

I guess Genesis actually did much better by replacing Peter Gabriel with Phil Collins, but they really weren't very popular with Gabriel in the band, anyway. Maybe they would have been, eventually, but to that point, they weren't that big.

But most bands would have a hard time replacing the singer.
Sabbath didn't do too well replacing Ozzy, though they had some limited success.
Imagine Zeppelin without Robert Plant.
Poison w/out Bret Michaels.
Metallica w/out James.
Priest w/out Halford. (oh wait, they tried that)
Crue w/out Vince. (oh wait, they tried that, too)
Ratt w/out Pearcy. (also a failure)
Skid Row w/out Sebastian (currently failing)

And the list goes on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top