Who do you consider "irreplaceable" musicians?

[Trav86]

- Not interested in a Aerosmith without Steven Tyler.

This reminds me that Steven was almost fired 11 or 12 years ago. More recently, Brad Whitford has said in an interview that he doesn't really care about the future of the band. So, kind of sad.

Sammy Hagar said he was approached about the idea of singing with them. From Joe Perry I believe. This was at least 10 years ago.

[Lowdz]

Yngwie. Though someone should replace him as vocalist 😁

[Architeuthis]

All three members of Rush
Tom Scholz - of Boston
Tommy Shaw - Styx
JP - nuff said
Jon Anderson - Yes (they've never been the same without him)
Angus Young 
Paul Roger's
David Gilmour
Joe Walsh - Eagles
Rik Emmett- Triumph

[WilliamMunny]

Chris Cornell — Singer, songwriter, and a helluva guitarist, I am still beyond heartbroken he is gone.

[eric42434224]

Ian Thornley of Big Wreck.
Gord Downie of The Tragically Hip.
Any Member of Kings X.

[Zook]

Jon Schaffer

[MirrorMask]

Jon Schaffer

Well, technically you're right, as recent events have proved 

[Dedalus]

Jon Schaffer

In Iced Earth or in the U.S. Capitol Riot?

[Zook]

Jon Schaffer

In Iced Earth or in the U.S. Capitol Riot?

He was probably the only person there with a picking hand of doom, so both.

[emtee]

Hard for me to imagine Heart with no Ann and Nancy.

[Max Kuehnau]

Hard for me to imagine Heart with no Ann and Nancy.

yes absolutely

[Stadler]

Chris Cornell — Singer, songwriter, and a helluva guitarist, I am still beyond heartbroken he is gone.

I just tortured myself watching the DVD/Blu-ray in the Temple Of The Dog box set.  I say "tortured", because it was so sad watching Chris play and sing those deeply moving songs about his friend, when it was absolutely impossible not to apply those words to him.   

Hearing - seeing, really - him sing Times Of Trouble was almost too much:

I saw you swinging
Yeah, swinging your mother's sword
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know you're playing but
Sometimes the rules get hard
But if somebody left you out on a ledge
If somebody pushed you over the edge
You got to hold on to your time till you break
Through these times of trouble

[El Barto]

It's an interesting question because a lot of the time the most irreplaceable member isn't even close to the most talented member. The really talented half of The Who is dead, yet they've plodded right along. Axl was the only crucial member of G&R, and he was both terrible and their biggest liability. Without Angus there is no AC/DC. Even Bryan Johnson was replaceable (to an extent). The most important one of them is dead, though. What it comes down to is that nobody is irreplaceable. It's just a matter of how much you're willing to lower your standards.

[Elite]

Michael Jackson
Miles Davis
other jazz band-leaders I won’t bother you with
Kristoffer Rygg in Ulver
Einar Solberg in Leprous

[Stadler]

It's an interesting question because a lot of the time the most irreplaceable member isn't even close to the most talented member. The really talented half of The Who is dead, yet they've plodded right along. Axl was the only crucial member of G&R, and he was both terrible and their biggest liability. Without Angus there is no AC/DC. Even Bryan Johnson was replaceable (to an extent). The most important one of them is dead, though. What it comes down to is that nobody is irreplaceable. It's just a matter of how much you're willing to lower your standards.

Perfectly said.

[TheCountOfNYC]

It's an interesting question because a lot of the time the most irreplaceable member isn't even close to the most talented member. The really talented half of The Who is dead, yet they've plodded right along. Axl was the only crucial member of G&R, and he was both terrible and their biggest liability. Without Angus there is no AC/DC. Even Bryan Johnson was replaceable (to an extent). The most important one of them is dead, though. What it comes down to is that nobody is irreplaceable. It's just a matter of how much you're willing to lower your standards.

When it comes to live performances, no member is truly irreplaceable as there are plenty of great mimics out there (if John Petrucci decided to retire but the rest of the band wanted to continue touring they would just have to give Eric Gillette a call). The idea of an irreplaceable musician comes into play when the time comes to write and record new music. The main songwriter being replaced will change the entire sound of the band. This is why Metallica can’t function without Lars Ulrich as he is a master of arrangement and without him, Metallica’s music would just be a disjointed collection of James Hetfield riffs (who I would argue is the MOST irreplaceable musician alive today). If a band is gonna transition into being a nostalgia act who only plays the classics live and never makes new music, then really only the lead singer would come close to being irreplaceable, but if a band wants to continue making new music, the main songwriter is absolutely irreplaceable.

[kirksnosehair]

Bah, I tend to agree that anyone is replaceable but I don't think it's a matter of lowered standards, it's a matter of acceptance.  No band gives a single fuck about my standards.  They're gonna do what they're gonna do whether I like it or not.  I mean, I guess I'm just putting it a different way, but you when bands change you either roll with it or you don't.  There are even some cases where it's a wash.  People change but the quality of the band doesn't really change much at all, not every time.  Take Styx for example.  I've seen them...10 times.  Equally enjoyable shows, lots of lineup changes over the years.  They're just as good today playing live as they were 40 years ago when I first saw them.  Honestly, I prefer them now because they play smaller, more intimate venues where I can actually get seats within 20 feet of the stage.  I saw them 3 years ago at the Orpheum Theater in Boston and they brought the house down.  One of the best concerts I've seen in 45 years of going to concerts. Only 2 original members on stage last time I saw them.  Foreigner is another one.  Two or three original members.  They still put on a hell of a concert.  No adjustment to my standards necessary.  I know what's good.  Kansas, they're down to the drummer and I think one of the guitar players who comes out and plays a few songs with them, everyone else is new.  I loved their last two albums and they killed it live.  Outstanding.  No better or worse than the first time I saw them with the original lineup in '79.  I've been in a dozen or so bands over the years.  Bands change.  It's just the nature of the beast.  Not all changes in lineups are downgrades though. 

[WilliamMunny]

Bah, I tend to agree that anyone is replaceable but I don't think it's a matter of lowered standards, it's a matter of acceptance.  No band gives a single fuck about my standards.  They're gonna do what they're gonna do whether I like it or not.  I mean, I guess I'm just putting it a different way, but you when bands change you either roll with it or you don't.  There are even some cases where it's a wash.  People change but the quality of the band doesn't really change much at all, not every time.  Take Styx for example.  I've seen them...10 times.  Equally enjoyable shows, lots of lineup changes over the years.  They're just as good today playing live as they were 40 years ago when I first saw them.  Honestly, I prefer them now because they play smaller, more intimate venues where I can actually get seats within 20 feet of the stage.  I saw them 3 years ago at the Orpheum Theater in Boston and they brought the house down.  One of the best concerts I've seen in 45 years of going to concerts. Only 2 original members on stage last time I saw them.  Foreigner is another one.  Two or three original members.  They still put on a hell of a concert.  No adjustment to my standards necessary.  I know what's good.  Kansas, they're down to the drummer and I think one of the guitar players who comes out and plays a few songs with them, everyone else is new.  I loved their last two albums and they killed it live.  Outstanding.  No better or worse than the first time I saw them with the original lineup in '79.  I've been in a dozen or so bands over the years.  Bands change.  It's just the nature of the beast.  Not all changes in lineups are downgrades though.

Agreed 1000% percent. While many may disagree, I think that Kiss has made they're three (IMO) records with three separate line-ups ('Love Gun,' 'Creatures,' and 'Revenge')...given that these three albums are literally spread across 15 years and a multple line-ups, the level of sustained quality from the band is beyond impressive.

[Setlist Scotty]

Phil Lynott


Lexxi Foxx  : )

Kurt Cobain

No Tater? Epicview, you disappoint me!   

[Peter Mc]

It's an interesting question because a lot of the time the most irreplaceable member isn't even close to the most talented member. The really talented half of The Who is dead, yet they've plodded right along. Axl was the only crucial member of G&R, and he was both terrible and their biggest liability. Without Angus there is no AC/DC. Even Bryan Johnson was replaceable (to an extent). The most important one of them is dead, though. What it comes down to is that nobody is irreplaceable. It's just a matter of how much you're willing to lower your standards.

I don’t disagree with this and it’s pretty much what the original poster said when posing the question.  Yes anyone is ultimately replaceable but it’s more of a personal thing “who do YOU consider to be irreplaceable”.  Yes, they could replace Axl and get a copycat singer but, to me personally, I would no longer consider that to be GNR, same with Freddie and Queen etc.  Years ago, I would have said Slash too but I did enjoy Chinese Democracy and it still felt like GNR so I guess it’s just Axl.

[Elite]

anyone is ultimately replaceable

I don't believe this is true at all.

[Peter Mc]

I’m quoting the original poster here but it’s absolutely correct.  If a singer leaves a band, there’s millions of singers out there who could come in, same with any band member.  Whether you would still be into that band is another issue and that’s the question here, who do YOU consider to be irreplaceable.  So, if Rush continued with a new replacement drummer after Neil Peart’s death, is that still Rush to you or is he irreplaceable to you.  If Petrucci left DT and they got another replacement guitar player, is it still DT or is Petrucci irreplaceable to you?

[MirrorMask]

Speaking of singers and DT, and I know I'm gonna get flak for this, I consider James LaBrie de facto irrepleaceable.

Yes, there are scores of singers with a better overall live performance and stage presence than him. And there are many singers who could do justice to DT's songs, most likely some young guys in their prime could nail 10 times out of 10 the high stanza of Take the Time live.

But.... James has been on every single DT album except the debut. His voice is so ingrained in DT's sound and songs, that I can't imagine anyone else singing those songs and feeling "right". Yes, you'll find a long line of singers who will be able to sing the songs and have a better overall live performance. But after so many years and basically an entire carrer save a single, debut album.... no one else would make me go "ah, yes, this is still DT", even if Petrucci and Rudess are still there. A known singer, like, dunno, Russell Allen would feel like SX and DT together. An unknown singer would feel like "DT and some guy". A JLB clone would sound like a copy of the original. So I  can't think of anyone other than James sounding like DT, even if they could sing the songs.

It would take a gigantic, monumental, undisputed masterpiece of a JLB-less album to keep me interested in a version of DT without him.

[Max Kuehnau]

Speaking of singers and DT, and I know I'm gonna get flak for this, I consider James LaBrie de facto irrepleaceable.

Yes, there are scores of singers with a better overall live performance and stage presence than him. And there are many singers who could do justice to DT's songs, most likely some young guys in their prime could nail 10 times out of 10 the high stanza of Take the Time live.

But.... James has been on every single DT album except the debut. His voice is so ingrained in DT's sound and songs, that I can't imagine anyone else singing those songs and feeling "right". Yes, you'll find a long line of singers who will be able to sing the songs and have a better overall live performance. But after so many years and basically an entire carrer save a single, debut album.... no one else would make me go "ah, yes, this is still DT", even if Petrucci and Rudess are still there. A known singer, like, dunno, Russell Allen would feel like SX and DT together. An unknown singer would feel like "DT and some guy". A JLB clone would sound like a copy of the original. So I  can't think of anyone other than James sounding like DT, even if they could sing the songs.

It would take a gigantic, monumental, undisputed masterpiece of a JLB-less album to keep me interested in a version of DT without him.

fully agree, hence why I mentioned DT's current lineup in my post here

[Elite]

And singers are an easy example, because everyone's voice is noticeably different, but DT with a different guitar player than John Petrucci will not sound the same at all, similarly to how DT's sound has changed when Mike Portnoy left the band and was replaced by Mike Mangini.

If a singer leaves a band, there’s millions of singers out there who could come in, same with any band member. 

And.. this is where the problem from this entire thread comes in; the question is about individual musicians (it's even in the thread title) and not about bands. You could basically consider any solo artist here, but since that's a bit cheaty (is it though?), I'd reckon we take a closer look at some band-leaders. I named Miles Davis, but you could say the same thing about Duke Ellington (there was no-one like him, hence he is irreplaceable), Stevie Wonder, Frank Zappa, Kristoffer Rygg (Ulver) or Jeff Waters (Annihilator). There's tons of examples of artists with their own voice (not always in a literal sense) that can not simply be replaced by anyone without there being a noticeable difference.

[Stadler]

I’m quoting the original poster here but it’s absolutely correct.  If a singer leaves a band, there’s millions of singers out there who could come in, same with any band member.  Whether you would still be into that band is another issue and that’s the question here, who do YOU consider to be irreplaceable.  So, if Rush continued with a new replacement drummer after Neil Peart’s death, is that still Rush to you or is he irreplaceable to you.  If Petrucci left DT and they got another replacement guitar player, is it still DT or is Petrucci irreplaceable to you?

Well, if that's your criteria, then there are a LOT of irreplaceable singers.  I'm fairly picky; there's an entire subset of singers that are sort of generic (sorry, I'm going to ruffle feathers here, but I put Jeff Scott Soto and Russell Allen in here; I have Joel Hoekstra's solo record and I can't tell the difference between them) that I can do without.    Michael Schenker is a good example: I only listen to the Barden/Bonnett records.  I've warmed to McAuley and White, seeing them live, but even then, on the Schenker Fest records, it's hard to tell who's singing what.  Asia is another one; "Asia = John Wetton on vocals" for me, period.  I saw the John Payne version live and was bored out of my titties.

I'd probably bail on Dream Theater without James.  He's not my favorite singer of all time, but he's why I got into them back in the day (I heard Images and Words and was blown away:  It was Maiden, Rush and Journey all rolled into one!).  I honestly don't love Geddy Lee as a singer, but I also know I've never really been blown away by the various Rush covers I've heard over the years.   There's a fine line between Brian Johnson and someone who just screams, so I'm not really interested in AC/DC if they change again.

[Setlist Scotty]

There's a fine line between Brian Johnson and someone who just screams, so I'm not really interested in AC/DC if they change again.

How did you do with Axl filling in for Brian?

[Stadler]

There's a fine line between Brian Johnson and someone who just screams, so I'm not really interested in AC/DC if they change again.

How did you do with Axl filling in for Brian?

I haven't heard any of the actual shows, to be honest, but I know Axl from his covers of Whole Lotta Rosie, and he's probably the dividing line, to be honest.  I like Axl - seeing him live in a 1,000 seat club, sing for THREE HOURS almost straight (I think he left the stage for all of 10 minutes, maybe) was all I needed to see - and I don't find his voice as grating as some do, but he's probably right at the red line.

[Adami]

There's a fine line between Brian Johnson and someone who just screams, so I'm not really interested in AC/DC if they change again.

How did you do with Axl filling in for Brian?

I haven't heard any of the actual shows, to be honest, but I know Axl from his covers of Whole Lotta Rosie, and he's probably the dividing line, to be honest.  I like Axl - seeing him live in a 1,000 seat club, sing for THREE HOURS almost straight (I think he left the stage for all of 10 minutes, maybe) was all I needed to see - and I don't find his voice as grating as some do, but he's probably right at the red line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFSxi96o43Q there you go.

I think for me, it just didn't feel right. His voice was fine, but it was the atmosphere. You took (what appears to be) a down to earth, nice guy who represents the common folk (Brian) and replaced him with (what appears to be) an elitist, egotistical, douchie guy who wants little to do with common folk (Axle). Felt strange.

[MirrorMask]

Both AXL and AC/DC are too famous. It's not AC/DC, it's Axl singing AC/DC, an experiment, a different approach. Kinda like Rob Halford replacing Dio for two nights in 1992 and Ozzy for one show in 2004 or what was the year.... it's not Sabbath, it's Rob Halford from Judas Priest singing for Sabbath.

Even though I assume there's plently of people who would not mind at all to hear an Halford-fronted Sabbath album.

Sabbath also had Ian Gillian, and by all accounts that felt like what it was, not a version of Sabbath, just Ian Gillian singing Sabbath songs.

[Stadler]

Both AXL and AC/DC are too famous. It's not AC/DC, it's Axl singing AC/DC, an experiment, a different approach. Kinda like Rob Halford replacing Dio for two nights in 1992 and Ozzy for one show in 2004 or what was the year.... it's not Sabbath, it's Rob Halford from Judas Priest singing for Sabbath.

Even though I assume there's plently of people who would not mind at all to hear an Halford-fronted Sabbath album.

Sabbath also had Ian Gillian, and by all accounts that felt like what it was, not a version of Sabbath, just Ian Gillian singing Sabbath songs.

I would be first in line for that (well, I would have back in the '90's; I don't know about right now).

[WilliamMunny]

Chris Cornell — Singer, songwriter, and a helluva guitarist, I am still beyond heartbroken he is gone.

I just tortured myself watching the DVD/Blu-ray in the Temple Of The Dog box set.  I say "tortured", because it was so sad watching Chris play and sing those deeply moving songs about his friend, when it was absolutely impossible not to apply those words to him.   

Hearing - seeing, really - him sing Times Of Trouble was almost too much:

I saw you swinging
Yeah, swinging your mother's sword
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know you're playing but
Sometimes the rules get hard
But if somebody left you out on a ledge
If somebody pushed you over the edge
You got to hold on to your time till you break
Through these times of trouble

Well said...it's an emotional story for sure.

[WilliamMunny]

Both AXL and AC/DC are too famous. It's not AC/DC, it's Axl singing AC/DC, an experiment, a different approach. Kinda like Rob Halford replacing Dio for two nights in 1992 and Ozzy for one show in 2004 or what was the year.... it's not Sabbath, it's Rob Halford from Judas Priest singing for Sabbath.

Even though I assume there's plently of people who would not mind at all to hear an Halford-fronted Sabbath album.

Sabbath also had Ian Gillian, and by all accounts that felt like what it was, not a version of Sabbath, just Ian Gillian singing Sabbath songs.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said here...but man, call it Black Sabbath or anything else, 'Born Again' is a freaking awesome record!

I think the thing that would help so, so, so many bands here would be simply changing the name.

Now, I get it—the name is what sells.

But, for me, it also creates a hurdle. Queen w/ Adam Lambert is far more palpable than simply calling it 'Queen"

Stone Temple Pilots made, what I consider, one of the best rock albums I've heard in the last decade, but it took some mental gymnasitics on my part getting over it being 'STP w/o Scott.' Had they simply renamed themselves (I mean, they did it with Talk Show and Army of Anyone), I think I would've been way more on board from the beginning. But again, I get it. STP sells.

Either way, regardless of my misgivings, I always come around in the end. The bottom line is, if a band makes a killer record, I tend to get over the name/artwork/packaging qualms I may have right quick.

[MirrorMask]

In retrospect, when Dio and Iommi got back together, calling themselves Heaven and Hell was a smart move.

Make no mistake - it was Black Sabbath. The touring line up of 2007/8 recorded together an album under the name Black Sabbath and the three new songs that were also played live came out on a collection called Black Sabbath - The Dio Years. It was the Dio version of Sabbath, simple as that.

However if the band in the bill is "Black Sabbath", people will want to hear Iron Man and Paranoid. Going the Heaven and Hell way freed them from the pressure of the name and the Ozzy songs, and Dio wanted to sing his own songs anyway, so it's was a win win situation.

[Stadler]

Both AXL and AC/DC are too famous. It's not AC/DC, it's Axl singing AC/DC, an experiment, a different approach. Kinda like Rob Halford replacing Dio for two nights in 1992 and Ozzy for one show in 2004 or what was the year.... it's not Sabbath, it's Rob Halford from Judas Priest singing for Sabbath.

Even though I assume there's plently of people who would not mind at all to hear an Halford-fronted Sabbath album.

Sabbath also had Ian Gillian, and by all accounts that felt like what it was, not a version of Sabbath, just Ian Gillian singing Sabbath songs.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said here...but man, call it Black Sabbath or anything else, 'Born Again' is a freaking awesome record!

I think the thing that would help so, so, so many bands here would be simply changing the name.

Now, I get it—the name is what sells.

But, for me, it also creates a hurdle. Queen w/ Adam Lambert is far more palpable than simply calling it 'Queen"

Stone Temple Pilots made, what I consider, one of the best rock albums I've heard in the last decade, but it took some mental gymnasitics on my part getting over it being 'STP w/o Scott.' Had they simply renamed themselves (I mean, they did it with Talk Show and Army of Anyone), I think I would've been way more on board from the beginning. But again, I get it. STP sells.

Either way, regardless of my misgivings, I always come around in the end. The bottom line is, if a band makes a killer record, I tend to get over the name/artwork/packaging qualms I may have right quick.

Which STP record, if you don't mind?