Is it really the same after a lead singer dies?

In Off-topic

I can't play an instrument, I've never been in a band so I don't know if this is just me but...

Is it right for remaining band members to go on after the lead singer is dead?

I don't know if this is just my view, but isn't the lead singer super important and basically the "face" of the band? Is it really the same after the lead singer dies?

I mean I can understand a band going on, but using the same name?

The reason why I'm debating this is because the other day on TV I saw that "Queen" is coming to MN for a concert. Is it really the same without Freddy? Or I was reading on E Online! that Alice In Chains was going to tour this summer. Layne Stanley has been dead for a few years now.

Is this somehow morbidly wrong or is it just me? Just think what if Nirvana would have went on without Kurt. That would have been a disaster!

No, it isn't the same after the lead sinfger dies. I listen to Queen once in a while, and I don't think it's the same without Freddie Mercury either...

Generally no it rarely works if the band are already huge. With Queen though, Paul Rodgers isn't mant to be a Freddie replacement, more of a tribute. The tour is called "Queen + Paul Rodgers" so he hasn't actually joined the band.

Freddy Mercury is the best lead vocalist of any band ever. Queen without Freddy is like a slap in the face. The world may never know a rock band with better lead vocals and they should have left it at that.

If any major member of a band dies, they should make a new band. Did you know that Joey Ramone still tours? That is f*cked up.

Just like the case with Lynyrd Skynryd. About 3 of the members died in a plane crash in the late seventies. The band is still going today, but with the lead singer the original singers brother, previously of 38 special. They've never been as popular as they were with the first few records. I think they should carry on, because most of the time the excuse is "He would have wanted us to carry on". Fortunately none of the Yes members have died, And
a Bass player from 1976-1978 John Glascock and Mark Craney, drummer from "A" has kicked it in Tull. The lead singer, sometimes is just too unique to replace, Jethro Tull being a prime example.

Didn't the original Lead Singer of AC/DC die?

Generally I think it is a bad idea to keep going without a departed band member. However, in the case of Lynyrd Skynyrd, they did the right thing... They were a great band, my favorite of the oldies actually, and there name should carry on. Same goes for METALLICA, they kept going and look at them now, they are legends.

I guess it just depends on the situation.


I don't think it's a good idea, especially in the case of Queen.

It just isn't the same any more.

Freddy Mercury was great and they can't replace him.

i voted no. it's just.... not the same.

like when i saw the Misfits a few years ago, Jerry Only was singing . sure Glenn Danzig is still alive, but the Misfits aren't the Misfits without him.

i think it is cool though if the remaining members carry on with a band, but they really should rename. they're pretty much going off the fame the band has already established. CHEAP!

No. Led Zeppelin without John Bonham, The Doors without Jim Morrison, etc., have all pretty pathetic results. Even the Rolling Stones lost a lot of their "bluesy" edge when Brian Jones died in the '60's. I'm glad the other members of Nirvana went their own ways and didn't try it. And Queen without Freddie Mercury?! Blasphemy!!!!!!!!