I’ve always liked the band, Little Caesar. They were so strong, so tight, such a great band, made such great music.

I always wondered what happened to them. I figured Nirvana came along and it’s what killed them. Well, a bit, but there was a LOT more to it. I found this interview with Ron Young that explains it all:

Here’s part 1

and part 2 (which has the bulk of “what happened”):

And check it out. New album, Redemption. iTunes link. Sounds good. Ron’s vocals haven’t missed a beat.

Some years ago at a Scout campout we adults were sitting around the campfire, talking about whatever. The subject of bands came up, specifically trying to think of bands that did OK after lineup changes. Many names arose, and ones we struggled with the most were bands that changed the lead singer and still did OK.

Spike has a list of 9 bands that did better after changing their lead singer.

1. Van Halen
2. Genesis
3. Pink Floyd
4. Joy Division
5. Black Flag
6. Iron Maiden
7. Journey
8. AC/DC
9. Survivor

Pretty good list. Reading that prompted me to revisit this question that our campfire discussion ultimately turned to:

What is it that makes a band a band?

Is Van Halen still Van Halen with Sammy singing? Maybe, but then how about when Gary Cherone took over? Or perhaps less volatile a discussion is Bon Scott and Brian Johnson. In both of those cases, the singer and frontman changed. Sammy vs. Dave was certainly a bigger change, with Bon and Brian being somewhat similar in vocal style. Then you look at Journey… Steve Perry’s vocal sound is so vital to being able to hear a song and say “that’s Journey” that since Perry left the band they’ve only been successful when they had a new guy up front that sounded like Perry.

So then if the frontman is so vital, is Guns-n-Roses of today still GnR? Or is it really just the Axl Rose show. Would Velvet Revolver be closer to say what GnR really is?

Look at KISS. The prime creative forces there were always Gene and Paul and that remains the case today. Or is KISS more about the other stuff than the music? Is what makes KISS KISS the make-up, the theatrics, and the merchandising?

Did it matter to have a rotating slew of drummers in Slayer? Or would Slayer be the same if Kerry and Tom left?

Was it right to end Led Zeppelin when Bonzo died, but yet somehow call Page and Plant playing together a Zep reunion? Or how about when Keith Moon died and now Entwistle… is Daltrey and Townshend and a bunch of hired session guys still The Who? Consider as well many bands still touring on the nostalgia circuit that maybe just have the horn player as the only “original” member. Is that still the band? Consider a band like Napalm Death where today none of the founding members are still in the band but by 1990’s “Harmony Corruption” a lineup solidified that essentially remains today and has come to define what the band is.

I’ve often felt that what makes a band a band is the creative force behind that band. Who are the primary songwriters? Who are the primary “expressers” in the band… meaning the people that primarily give the expression to the band, which could be the vocal style, could be the guitar sound, could be the drumming, could even be who is the one out there getting all the face time on TV and such (e.g. Scott Ian is Anthrax, or at least he’s the one keeping himself on TV and is the face most associated with Anthrax). For example, Metallica wouldn’t be Metallica without James and Lars, because it’s them and their creative drive and tension that makes that band. They could replace Kirk with another shredder (remember, Kirk replaced Dave Mustaine) and they have demonstrated they can replace bassists… but you can’t replace Lars and James and still call it Metallica. You can’t replace the Young brothers and still call it AC/DC. You can’t replace Steven Tyler and Joe Perry and still call it Aerosmith.

So what do you think?