Groups that do well after a key musician or vocalist leaves

[roadman65]

I know there are many bands where personell changes that effect the band's performance and sucess that take place all the time. Name a band where the group either got better when one key member quit or at least stay the same after the change.

I know Van Halen did pretty well after David Lee Roth left, although many will say that David Lee Roth is Van Halen!  There were some stations that would never play a Sammy Hagar Van Halen song like the defunct Thunder in Tampa, FL that seemed to be partial to Roth over Hagar when they were broadcasting.  Many seem to like Diamond Dave and will not give Sammy a chance because of the old substitute thing.  Me I think that there is a change between the band with the two vocalists, but I will not say that one is better than the other! Just different!  Now Van Halen alternates between the two and have fired bassist Michael Anthony so who knows if its going to be Dave or Sammy the next time they regroup. Egos away!

Rush did better upon aquiring Neil Peart as drummer.
The Who stayed level after Keith Moon's death.
Ozzy Osbourne (although not a group) but did well after Randy Rhoades passed away.
AC/ DC did better with the current vocalist than the late Bon Scott.
Little Feat is level even without Lowell George.

[Mr_Northside]

The Who stayed level after Keith Moon's death.

Debatable.

[xonhulu]

I know Van Halen did pretty well after David Lee Roth left, although many will say that David Lee Roth is Van Halen!  There were some stations that would never play a Sammy Hagar Van Halen song like the defunct Thunder in Tampa, FL that seemed to be partial to Roth over Hagar when they were broadcasting.  Many seem to like Diamond Dave and will not give Sammy a chance because of the old substitute thing.  Me I think that there is a change between the band with the two vocalists, but I will not say that one is better than the other! Just different!  Now Van Halen alternates between the two and have fired bassist Michael Anthony so who knows if its going to be Dave or Sammy the next time they regroup. Egos away!

Didn't Van Halen just release a new song "Tattoo" with DLR?  And Sammy Hagar's with Michael Anthony in Chickenfoot, so I think they're probably both out of the VH picture.  BTW, coincidently Chickenfoot also has a fairly new CD out that sounds pretty good to my ears.

I liked both versions of Van Halen while recognizing they were different.  I actually think of them as almost two different bands.  

Whenever a group changes personnel, to me it's just a matter of "does it still sound good?"  It's a little obsessive as a fan to be irrationally loyal to that former member; if he was really that good, then the band's sound will suffer because of his absence and I'll lose interest in the group, as I have in Foreigner without Lou Gramm and Styx without Dennis De Young (not that I was ever that interested when he was in the group).  But if they still sound good without that person, just different, I'll continue to be a fan.  

Rush did better upon aquiring Neil Peart as drummer.
The Who stayed level after Keith Moon's death.
Ozzy Osbourne (although not a group) but did well after Randy Rhoades passed away.
AC/ DC did better with the current vocalist than the late Bon Scott.
Little Feat is level even without Lowell George.

AC/DC was more successful with Brian Johnson than they were with Bon Scott, but I don't think they are "better;"  I prefer their older sound.  Their surge in popularity had more to do with producer Mutt Lange taking them in a different musical direction -- he's been a difference maker in a number of band's careers, most notably Def Leppard.  Ditto Ozzy; while he was successful commercially after Rhoads died, most fans would tell you the music was better with Randy.  And I agree with Mr_Northside that your point on The Who is debatable.  

This will probably trigger some violent reaction, but I think Journey has had some mostly good albums without Steve Perry, although I won't deny those songs would've been better with him on vocals.  The other members of the group are still capable of producing good music, although lately not so good about staying out of trouble.

[xonhulu]

I guess I should add Guns 'n' Roses to a group I lost interest in after key members (Slash and Stradlin) left

[oscar]

Pink Floyd, after the early loss of Syd Barrett.  One of the group's classic albums, "Wish You Were Here", can be considered either a belated tribute to Barrett, or a commentary on the mental health issues that forced the band to replace him with David Gilmour.

[roadman65]

You know you had Genesis hit big after Peter Gabriel's departure and Phil Collins moving up from the Drums to be the frontman.   Although a friend of mine will argue that the change from progressive to pop came after Steve Hackett left the band in 1978.  This man hates pop music and loved the old sound that he states happened on albums like Trick of the Tail and Wind & Wothering (2 albums directly after Gabriel's departure).  To me all Phil Collins  Genesis Albums changed after Abacab, though it was And Then There Was Three that spawn the groups first top forty hit: Follow You and Follow Me (the first album after Hackett left).  I think the pop era changed with the self titled album (aka the Mama Album) and to the end.  The group did lose popularity after Collins left as the new vocalist could not attract the audience.  Matter of fact Calling All Stations  (the album after PC left) is already out of print.

[hbelkins]

Deep Purple's best era was the Mk II lineup with Ian Gillan as the singer.

Black Sabbath was never the same after Ozzy left, although I liked the "Born Again" album with Gillan as the vocalist.

Terry Kath's death, to me, was also the death of Chicago.

I always thought Kiss did just fine without Frehley and Criss.

Van Halen wasn't the same without DLR, it will be interesting to hear the new album.

Bon Scott era AC/DC > Brian Johnson era AC/DC

[xonhulu]

Deep Purple's best era was the Mk II lineup with Ian Gillan as the singer.

Agreed.

Black Sabbath was never the same after Ozzy left, although I liked the "Born Again" album with Gillan as the vocalist.

Also agreed.

Terry Kath's death, to me, was also the death of Chicago.

They were kind of declining before that, Kath's death just punctuated it.  I consider the first Greatest Hits album (IX) to mark where they went astray, but even that's a bit arbitrary.  But Kath died after Chicago X and XI, both of which I thought were pretty poor efforts and the start of their evolution to the polished commercial sound, which I almost consider to be a different group, excepting Chicago 16 which I liked.  BTW, I think it's a crime Chicago isn't in the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame.

I always thought Kiss did just fine without Frehley and Criss.

Except when they lost the make-up!  

Van Halen wasn't the same without DLR, it will be interesting to hear the new album.

That's what I said above, but Van Hagar wasn't that bad -- IMO, better than most of the stuff at the time.  The one track I heard from the new album didn't do much for me.

Bon Scott era AC/DC > Brian Johnson era AC/DC

Yeah, he just sounded better.  While Johnson growls/screams out his vocals, Scott's voice had a lot more depth.  Plus, AC/DC's sound post-Bon just sounds more over-produced.

[NE2]

The Beatles after (1) Pete Best left and (2) Paul died.

[Tarkus]

You know you had Genesis hit big after Peter Gabriel's departure and Phil Collins moving up from the Drums to be the frontman.   Although a friend of mine will argue that the change from progressive to pop came after Steve Hackett left the band in 1978.  This man hates pop music and loved the old sound that he states happened on albums like Trick of the Tail and Wind & Wothering (2 albums directly after Gabriel's departure).  To me all Phil Collins  Genesis Albums changed after Abacab, though it was And Then There Was Three that spawn the groups first top forty hit: Follow You and Follow Me (the first album after Hackett left).  I think the pop era changed with the self titled album (aka the Mama Album) and to the end.  The group did lose popularity after Collins left as the new vocalist could not attract the audience.  Matter of fact Calling All Stations  (the album after PC left) is already out of print.

I'd tend to agree with Hackett's departure being the real change, as Trick of the Tail (arguably my fav album of theirs) and Wind & Wuthering are still pretty true to the Gabriel-era style (and I honestly prefer PC vocally).  They kind of went through a transitional period after that, trying to adjust.  

And Then There Was Three was largely awful, Duke was very hit or miss, but to be honest, I like Abacab and the self-titled "Shapes" album (esp. its first half).  There are still some very "prog" elements on those albums, but they're filtered through a synthpop lens.  It's much like Yes' controversial Drama album, where Jon Anderson and Rick Wakeman were replaced by the Buggles--Trevor Horn and Geoff Downes.  They went too far in the commercial direction with Invisible Touch, and I don't really even consider Calling All Stations a legitimate Genesis album--it's just Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford with a guy they seemingly plucked out of nowhere.

On the Yes front, I think their initial few personnel shakeups improved the group--replacing Peter Banks and Tony Kaye with Steve Howe and Rick Wakeman, respectively (though their initial self-titled Yes album from '68--not to be confused with the later The Yes Album--is an underappreciated gem).  The Bill Bruford to Alan White transition after Close to the Edge was largely a lateral move, and I think the Wakeman to Patrick Moraz switch on Relayer was an improvement at that time, and that bringing Wakeman back for Going for the One was a mistake, as he had, by that point, acquired some really cheesy late-70s synths (Polymoog?  Blech.), and Anderson's songwriting started going down the tubes.  Bringing on the Buggles was actually a good move at that point.  I actually kind of like 90125 as well (it's grown on me), though it's very Foreigner-esque, but they lost it after that.

As far as The Who, I don't think Keith Moon could really be replaced.  Kenny Jones is decent, but Moon was the man.  Syd's time in Pink Floyd (at least in terms of albums) was a lot shorter than a lot of people realize, too.  He was barely on Saucerful of Secrets at all (and that's arguably among my fav Floyd albums), and was gone after that.  I won't get into King Crimson, as they pretty much shifted every single album (my favorite lineup was the Larks' Tongues In Aspic lineup)--ditto with The Mars Volta (though I still don't get why they canned Thomas Priedgen). 

[Duke87]

Metallica managed to survive without Cliff Burton, although his loss did clearly change them.

Kevin Cadogan's departure from Third Eye Blind negatively impacted their productivity, but not their performance.

[Takumi]

After Ian Curtis committed suicide, Joy Division became New Order and have done quite well.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Blood, Sweat, & Tears switched out Al Kooper for David-Clayton Thomas After their first album.
The Temptations had multiple hits with mulitple lineups in the 60s and 70s.

[roadman65]

You have the Allman Brothers Band that have both Duane Allman and Berry Oakley who cannot be replaced.  Although, Brothers and Sisters came out just after Oakley was killed and did well on the charts, still the dual guitars of Dicky Betts and Duane together had one sound that could never be duplicated.  Overall, they have had moments with albums post Duane and Oakley, but fans always love them in concert no matter what the line up is.  It is always a treat to see them perform in many southern rockers eyes.

The Doobies do quite well considering the constant personell changes over the decades.  However, Micheal McDonald coming into the band did change their overall sound to R & B except for Taking It To The Streets which still had the old Tom Johnston sound to it.  When they reunited in the 80s, they moved sort of back to their roots with Brotherhood in 1991 giving Pat Simmons more vocal spots as that particular album had him and Johnston with equal amount of songs to sing.

Joe Walsh brought the Eagles Top 40 fame, even though they were somewhat known with Bernie Leadon's banjo picking earlier on.  Me personally love both pre and post Walsh sound.  Both bassists Randy Meisner and Timothy B. Schmidt were different, but neither were better than the other.  The reunion since Hell Freezes Over brought a new type of sound than they were before but How Long reminded me of Take It Easy as both have that same type of rifts in the songs.

The Grateful Dead can never be the same without Jerry Garcia.  However, with all the keyboardists the band has had, that never changed them throughout their career.

[Stephane Dumas]

Foreigner menaged to get bigger hits in the 1980s after the departure Ian McDonald and Al Greenwood.

The Supremes menaged to survive until 1977 after Diana Ross departure and mutliple changes in the lineup.

[xonhulu]

You have the Allman Brothers Band that have both Duane Allman and Berry Oakley who cannot be replaced.  Although, Brothers and Sisters came out just after Oakley was killed and did well on the charts, still the dual guitars of Dicky Betts and Duane together had one sound that could never be duplicated.  Overall, they have had moments with albums post Duane and Oakley, but fans always love them in concert no matter what the line up is.  It is always a treat to see them perform in many southern rockers eyes.

Obviously, the same is true of Lynyrd Skynyrd.  To my ears they were basically done after the plane crash, but there do seem to be some fans who continue to follow them and turn out for concerts with the various replacements.

Joe Walsh brought the Eagles Top 40 fame, even though they were somewhat known with Bernie Leadon's banjo picking earlier on.  Me personally love both pre and post Walsh sound.  Both bassists Randy Meisner and Timothy B. Schmidt were different, but neither were better than the other.  The reunion since Hell Freezes Over brought a new type of sound than they were before but How Long reminded me of Take It Easy as both have that same type of rifts in the songs.

The Eagles do seem to be one of those groups that have been immune to personnel changes.  Their sound has been consistently good throughout their existence.  That's probably owing to the permanent presence of Henley and Frey.  Heck, even Henley's solo albums have all been good, though I can't say the same for Frey or Walsh.

[bugo]

Iron Maiden is better with Dickinson than Di'Anno.

Black Sabbath was better with Dio than with Ozzy.

Then, there were the bad replacements.  Judas Priest is excellent with Halford, but they were terrible with Ripper.  One person can affect the chemistry of a band so much.

[Alps]

The new Alice in Chains sounds promising.

[bugo]

I pretend that the new "Alice In Chains" doesn't exist.  I haven't heard their new album, and I don't plan to unless somebody forces me to listen to it.  It's a tremendous disrespect to Layne Staley that this album was made under the AIC name.  If it were a Jerry Cantrell solo album or the band had a new name, I'd be all over it.  But Staley was 50% of AIC.  Cantrell was the other 50% but it's not AIC without Layne. 

I'm not a fan, but it's also disrespectful that Sublime did an album without Bradley Nowell.  It would be the same if Chris Novaselic and Dave Grohl did a Nirvana album with a new singer/guitarist.

[brianreynolds]

Just a few replies to earlier comments.

The loss of Keith Moon was huge.  The Who moved on, but were never as good.

Little Feat had pretty much crumbled by the time Lowell George died.  It was good that they took a dozen years off before they tried again.  I like both versions, but prefer the Lowell George years.

D-C Thomas was a better singer than Al Kooper, but Kooper was much more in the way of musical talent.  I liked both versions, but prefer with Kooper.

The Temptations. Wow.  David Ruffin, what a sad story.  This is what happens when you start believing your own publicity.  Big rise, big tragic fall.  Dennis Edwards was the perfect replacement for Ruffin.

--
Brian Reynolds
Hastings Michigan

[drummer_evans_aki]

Dream Theater moving from Charlie Dominici to James LaBrie on vocals... then from Derek Sherinian to Jordan Rudess on keyboards.. then from Mike Portnoy to Mike Mangini on drums.

uh....

Cryptic Shade (here in Portland, OR) moving from me on drums to........ wonder if they ever replaced me =)

[hobsini2]

One could argue the "firing" of Dennis DeYoung was not the end of Styx esp since they have a newer lineup with a couple of the original members and are still selling out concerts.

Asa far as Genesis goes, I was always more of a fan of the Collins led part instead of Gabriel, not to say that I didn't like Gabriel. Love Gabriel's solo work.  As far as some of my all time favorite songs/albums, I believe that Invisible Touch album while it was a more of a main stream commercial album, it was one of the best complete albums of the 80s.  It had the "hits" that the radio listeners enjoyed but listening to the whole album, Domino and the Brazilian were throwbacks to late 70s Genesis. And who could hate "Tonight, Tonight, Tonight"? Yes lyrically silly but a real jam of synth pop rock.  I also feel the same way with 1992's We Can't Dance album. Softer but still a good album from beginning to end.

[agentsteel53]

examples abound for bands which fired some early member (Rush, Iron Maiden... hell, Judas Priest with Al Atkins, anyone? maybe even Deep Purple) and gained fame with a later lineup that is now considered classic.

however, for a band which has been equally good, in my opinion, with a change in a key member of the lineup... the aforementioned AC/DC, and I'd add Cannibal Corpse as the first example I can think of.  They've been great both with Chris Barnes and with George Fisher on vocals. 

[roadman65]

I know this is the reverse of what I started, but what is the difference between Wham and George Michael?  To me they are the same, but I heard (and was considered) a group spite the fact it was only two people in it.  Now Steely Dan, Air Supply, America, and others were two man bands, but you have both artists contributing.  I know that George Michael, does not have any talent so he was the vocals exclusively as there were no back round vocals either.  Then you had to have uncredited studio musicians  to make the musical sounds and whoever else was considered Wham with George Michael had to be one of a few.  Post Wham you never even heard of the other person, only the man who changed a certain practice that only women did prior to his debut what many men (especially the NFL) do now.

To me I consider all things sung by Michael as by him.  Just like one user who considers two other users here who both were known to ask silly forum questions to be the same, I consider both of these artists to be the same until I see reason to differentiate.

[Brandon]

I know this is the reverse of what I started, but what is the difference between Wham and George Michael?  To me they are the same, but I heard (and was considered) a group spite the fact it was only two people in it.  Now Steely Dan, Air Supply, America, and others were two man bands, but you have both artists contributing.  I know that George Michael, does not have any talent so he was the vocals exclusively as there were no back round vocals either.  Then you had to have uncredited studio musicians  to make the musical sounds and whoever else was considered Wham with George Michael had to be one of a few.  Post Wham you never even heard of the other person, only the man who changed a certain practice that only women did prior to his debut what many men (especially the NFL) do now.

To me I consider all things sung by Michael as by him.  Just like one user who considers two other users here who both were known to ask silly forum questions to be the same, I consider both of these artists to be the same until I see reason to differentiate.

I could've sworn that Andrew Ridgely (yes, the other person in Wham!) did vocals as well.