Legacy acts

Nee Lewman

Nee Lewman

बैस्टर्ड
My YouTube feed popped up a video of Miley Cyrus playing a show with The Doors and it got me thinking. The Doors without Jim Morrison isn’t the Doors. Queen with Adam Lambert is not Queen. An Axl Rose solo album isn’t Guns N Roses.

I don’t know. Just a thought I wanted to scream into the void.
 
Melt Face Molly Drop said:
Purists will tell you that AC/DC without Bon Scott is not AC/DC
Click to expand...
This was kind of my point with Journey. The singer in AC/DC is just an instrument. You find someone who can fill that instrument competently and you’re the same.
Even when the core is the same and most important, it can matter about those instruments - like Smashing Pumpkins isn’t really just Corgan no matter what he thinks.
 
Lee Newman said:
Yeah that’s a tough one. They’re really two different things that I love equally. Actually three by the time you get to the eighties.

I guess Floyd is the same way. Maybe because of their very nature prog bands are more immune to drastic personnel changes.
Click to expand...
Floyd is a real crazy one considering how monumentally famous they are and most casual fans do not even know who Syd is which is kind of sad really. I personally like Syd more then Gilmour but thats still a hell of a replacement haha. Gilmour was obviously the right choice to move forward with at the time considering the mental unraveling Syd was going through and never came back from plus the band was still very young at that point.

I think Queen with Lambert is one of the worst "replacements" i've heard in my entire life though. I have a little cousin who loves him so I listened to 2-3 songs with him and imo he literally butchers tf out of every song I heard. Not even solid vocal covers, what were they thinking with that one? The rest of the band can still play though it seems but Freddie is obviously irreplaceable especially if you try to do just a straight up cover. Lambert has no shot as a vocalist or a showman in comparison to Freddie so that was a real odd choice.

At least with Miley it's labeled "Miley Cyrus & The Doors" plus she actually delivers a solid new sound to the original song. I've never been a fan of her original music but she can slaughter some covers imo and kind of give it a new sound which is what I want in a cover personally otherwise i'll just listen to the normally always vastly superior original. I agree 100% though they should not be called just "The Doors" with her or anyone else in Morrison's spot as he's another one of those impossible to replace guys especially after this much time has passed.

As a teenager I was a massive Sublime fan and I remember being pissed when they tried to replace Bradley with that Rome dude. They should have just started a whole new band with no mention of "Sublime" and it probably would have been much more successful.

I think two really great examples of it rarely working is both Genesis and Van Halen. I much prefer the Peter Gabriel material but they did about as good of a job as they could to keep going without him. I'm not much of a fan of Van Halen after Roth personally but that's a huge debate where a lot of people prefer or at least still love Sammy.
 
hype said:
Floyd is a real crazy one considering how monumentally famous they are and most casual fans do not even know who Syd is which is kind of sad really. I personally like Syd more then Gilmour but thats still a hell of a replacement haha. Gilmour was obviously the right choice to move forward with at the time considering the mental unraveling Syd was going through and never came back from plus the band was still very young at that point.

I think Queen with Lambert is one of the worst "replacements" i've heard in my entire life though. I have a little cousin who loves him so I listened to 2-3 songs with him and imo he literally butchers tf out of every song I heard. Not even solid vocal covers, what were they thinking with that one? The rest of the band can still play though it seems but Freddie is obviously irreplaceable especially if you try to do just a straight up cover. Lambert has no shot as a vocalist or a showman in comparison to Freddie so that was a real odd choice.

At least with Miley it's labeled "Miley Cyrus & The Doors" plus she actually delivers a solid new sound to the original song. I've never been a fan of her original music but she can slaughter some covers imo and kind of give it a new sound which is what I want in a cover personally otherwise i'll just listen to the normally always vastly superior original. I agree 100% though they should not be called just "The Doors" with her or anyone else in Morrison's spot as he's another one of those impossible to replace guys especially after this much time has passed.

As a teenager I was a massive Sublime fan and I remember being pissed when they tried to replace Bradley with that Rome dude. They should have just started a whole new band with no mention of "Sublime" and it probably would have been much more successful.

I think two really great examples of it rarely working is both Genesis and Van Halen. I much prefer the Peter Gabriel material but they did about as good of a job as they could to keep going without him. I'm not much of a fan of Van Halen after Roth personally but that's a huge debate where a lot of people prefer or at least still love Sammy.
Click to expand...
I like Sammy. Roth was better. Fuck Gary Cherone.
 
Lee Newman said:
I like Sammy. Roth was better. Fuck Gary Cherone.
Click to expand...
My parents love Sammy and supposedly he's a pretty awesome guy to bullshit with and because of them i've learned to appreciate him a lot more as time has passed. At least with Sammy it was never really an issue with talent just mostly me not accepting change haha

I just pretend the few Cherone years never happened but I fully stand behind that statement as well.. Fuck a Gary Cherone!
 
Russ I said:
What about Genesis without Peter Gabriel?
Click to expand...
I love both iterations of Genesis, but I think Phil does a fantastic job with the Gabriel material when peforming them live. The versions of Firth of Fifth and Supper’s Ready on Seconds Out are better than the album versions, IMHO. I don’t think Gabriel really perfected his singing until his third solo album, and the power of Collins’ vocals really fits the songs. I’m sure Genesis purists would call me a heretic, but 🤷🏼‍♂️
 
Sonicpharmacist said:
I love both iterations of Genesis, but I think Phil does a fantastic job with the Gabriel material when peforming them live. The versions of Firth of Fifth and Supper’s Ready on Seconds Out are better than the album versions, IMHO. I don’t think Gabriel really perfected his singing until his third solo album, and the power of Collins’ vocals really fits the songs. I’m sure Genesis purists would call me a heretic, but 🤷🏼‍♂️
Click to expand...
Somehow I came to Genesis late in the game, after Gabriel had departed, so the Phil Collins version is what I know best. I now appreciate the prog credentials of early Genesis, so I'd agree that both iterations are strong.
 
Last edited:
God this reminds me of that horrible show Rock Star: INXS or whatever the f it was called. Talentless karaoke singers competing to take over for Michael Hutchence. It was so bad they did another called Rock Star: Supernova or something like that. Both were absolute train wrecks.
 
moohoohahaha said:
Another similar one...

Bruce Dickinson wasn’t the original singer...but Iron Maiden isn’t Iron Maiden without him.
Click to expand...
I used to feel this way. When my friends and I got Killers in high school we let out a collective "what the fuck is this?" In time it's become my favourite Maiden album. Now, the Blaze Bailey albums, on the other hand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top