I was just thinking of this briefly (I don’t know why). On how sometimes a band will replace the lead singer of the group, and then the remaining band members will continue on with a *new* lead singer, and the *old* band name.nnThis is a tragic mistakennNow, the band CAN continue on with a new lead singer, as long as they use a new band name – that’s great. Maybe the music will be better? Or worse? It doesn’t matter – the band name matters to fans (because it brings up the question of what “is” **is**).nnI think I was listening to Paramore (self-titled – 2013), when I was trying to think of who played drums, and I knew it wasn’t Zac Farro, because he hadn’t rejoined the band, yet – it was just Hayley, Jeremy, and Taylor. And then I thought “what if Hayley went solo (she later released solo music, but didn’t “go solo” – she’s still 100% with Paramore) and Paramore continued on with a different lead singer? How fxxxing preposterous!”nnThis mistake has been made, too – John Corabi (former of early-90s Motley Crue) is living proof that when a “big” lead singer gets replaced, the consequences are disasterous (not a word? Misspelled?). And, it divides the fan base **greatly**. It’s jarring and invasive. nnRarely, oh so rarely, can a band continue on with a new lead singer and the *same* band name, and actually prove to be “worthy” OF that name. Even though there is still *vast* and *deep* divides amongst the fan base regarding “which is which” in terms of “the real deal” (again, what “is” **is**). Van Halen did this – David Lee Roth on vox was absolutely amazing, and, Sammy Hagar on vox was absolutely amazing, too – but, there are still deep divides amongst the fan base on which is “better”. And that’s a bad thing to do to the fans.nnJust wanted to state my thoughts on thisnn

Subscribe to from the desk of TMO

Don’t miss out on the latest issues. Sign up now to get access to the library of members-only issues.