>NWOBHM
>>was very "punk" in that regard.
>>
>Punk had as many frontman types as most other rock forms to
>me.

I put punk in quotes because of its general concept of the anti-star. And I don't agree at all that punk had as many frontman types as other forms of rock. Your typical punk/hardcore/crust type of band does not have a frontman as ''star''. meanwhile, even your local bar-rock band will have a singer being a poseur and acting out.


>first of all, I said 'most times', there's not a ton of
>top-tier bands where the lead singer isn't an asset or a
>strength.

Top-tier bands as in ''bands I like'' or top-tier bands as in commercially successful? Of course a singer is an asset or a strength just like a good/cool drummer, bassist etc. is. However,I do not think he makes or breaks a hard-rock band.


>But STP to Bush to Creed to Nickelback isn't a
>personality/singer-songwriter driven arc.

Those bands copied the aesthetics of the mainstream alternative of the early 90's which started to over-emphasize the personality with all the negative shit that leads to (=self-conscious emotional resonance, too much emphasis on lyrics, vocal-melodies etc.). Meanwhile, US alternative rock of the 80's didn't do that-it largely subscribed to a more ''faceless''/band-oriented garage/punk aesthetic and as a result sounded more like *my* idea of great rock. Anyway, this has nothing to do ith the post, I just saw another chance to shit on Cobain/Corgan.

>I've never liked Hetfield's voice or given his lyrics any
>thought.

I'm sure a lot of people agree with you and yet, Metallica is an objectively top-tier band.


>I mostly thought Motley Crue sucked outside of about five
>songs, which puts them above Poison, Warrant, Winger & them
>but their legacy is more 'rock & roll lifestyle' shit than
>actual music.

Point is that they didn't need the singer to make/break them; vince neil is shit more-or-less-they could have had any LA poseur singing for them and it wouldn't have made a difference...
>
>>van Halen may have had a charismatic singer in Roth but
>let's
>>be real:Eddie was the star and the fact that they continued
>to
>>be popular even after the EXTREMELY uncharismatic and dull
>>Hagar replaced Roth proves my point.
>>
>Eddie was the star, sure, I never said that the guitarist
>couldn't be the or a star.
>
>I said the success/quality of a band often lives/dies with guy
>up front for better or worse.
>
>And Van Halen was never the same post-Roth so that's a
>double-edged sword for your point.
>
>>AC/DC even survived losing one of the best frontmen and
>>RAWK-singers ever and replaced him with a dude that was
>pretty
>>much a regular joe. Why? Because it's Angus and Malcolm's
>>band-''everyone'' knows that.
>>
>But Bon Scott was in fact a great frontman & the work suffered
>as a result, particularly after the initial 'something to
>prove' burst of 'Back In Black' and the next album's title
>track.
>
>Saying that a guitarist like Eddie Van Halen or a band as
>powerful as AC/DC can 'get by' for a bit without their
>original singer/lyricist is almost proving *my* point, it
>takes an all-time great guitarist or one of the most powerful
>hard-rock backdrops ever to overcome such a thing.

They made it...

>
>Jeff Beck couldn't do it & neither could The Doors.

Jeff Beck was never a songwriter, arranger or whatever; he is a good lead-guitarist who after the original Jeff Beck group never worked with a truly good band. And if I'm not mistaken, his instrumental fusion-albums from the mid-70's were more successful than the Rod Stewart stuff. The Doors reputation rested on Mporrison to a large extent.it's not comparable with AC/DC or van Halen; a band like Queen is probably a better comparison and no, they never made it without Mercury either.
>
>>There are also lots of exceptions of course but in those
>>cases, the singer is often a driving force in the
>>songwriting...
>>
>>Basically, I think you are applying classic rock/pop
>>aesthetics to the wrong genre.
>>
>What 'genre' is Def Leppard in the overall scheme of things?
>
>The difference between 'Hysteria'-era Def Leppard & 'Slippery
>When Wet' era Bon Jovi is almost negligible to me.

No arguments there except that I still think Leppard was better (¤not much better though). I still think you can hear SOME traces of Leppards NWOBHM roots on "Hysteria"; Bon Jovi were more the worst aspects of Bruce Springsteen posing as hard-rock...

>
>I would take the album that inspired this post over a
>compilation of my favorite songs from those two bands over the
>course of their careers without hesitation.

I'd probably take Def Leppard's debut ''On through the night" as we4ll as their first EP and 7'' over "Appetite..." but that's me...