The metal version of the Beatles- or at least close?

The Beatles were a band without a hands-free, lead vocalist. All four band members sang the songs. Which metal bands do we have that sing from all positions, or at least more than a few? Bands with two vocalists themselves are few (new Tarot, new Manilla Road, Biohazard, Wuthering Heights, Newsted-era Metallica maybe, Machine Head occasionally, Iced Earth at times), so more than two would be a stretch.

King's X - three vocalists
Galactic Cowboys - I'm not 100% certain, but I think all of them sang lead at some point, so that's four vocalists.

Mastodon - 3 lead vocalists + 1 backing vocalist

Kiss - pretty sure that all 4 original members sang lead at some point.

The only band that comes to mind is not a metal band, the Georgia Satelites.

jettafiend wrote:

Kiss - pretty sure that all 4 original members sang lead at some point.

Yeah, I think KISS comes the closest to being a more metal, or I guess hard rock or whatever, version of the Beatles. At least as far as the way the band is set up. With all members playing instruments, all doing lead at some point, and all writing songs/contributing to writing songs.

Half of me wishes that KISS had just had Paul as the lead vocalist, because it would have made so many bad Gene songs better. But then we never would've gotten gems like Shock Me and Hooligan, so that makes the Gene songs tolerable.

I used to say that God of Thunder made all the other bad Gene songs tolerable, but after hearing the Paul version from the box set..well...I would've preferred him singing even that one.

Quote :

Yeah, I think KISS comes the closest to being a more metal, or I guess hard rock or whatever, version of the Beatles.

In the "X-Treme Close Up" home video Gene sez flat out that when they formed KISS they wanted to be "heavy metal Beatles."

Fat Freddy wrote:

Quote :

Yeah, I think KISS comes the closest to being a more metal, or I guess hard rock or whatever, version of the Beatles.

In the "X-Treme Close Up" home video Gene sez flat out that when they formed KISS they wanted to be "heavy metal Beatles."

I haven't seen that in forever, but it sounds vaguely familiar. Mission accomplished, Gene.

Even though I love KISS, moreso than the Beatles (who I like okay), musically KISS have never been up to the standards set by the Beatles. But KISS-mania, I think, definitely rivaled Beatlemania.

Of course I wasn't there for either...but the legion of KISS Army do not lie. Ha.

ZombieHavoc wrote:

musically KISS have never been up to the standards set by the Beatles.

The Beatles were good songwriters. They weren't really great musicians IMO. I'm not saying they were bad by any means, but they weren't the be-all-and-end-all musicians, especially Ringo Starr. Kiss aren't the greatest either, but they are no slouches. Gene Simmons is actually a wicked bass player, and Ace Frehley had a ton of charisma and style. Paul Stanley is a great singer with a technically great voice. He pulls off Kiss and he can pull off Broadway as well. (Yes, Paul sang in the Phantom of the Opera.) Peter Criss was bad-ass when he was young. Just take a listen to Alive! He was never a metal drummer, but he did have a wicked style. That's not including guys like Eric Carr and Eric Singer, who are 10x the drummer that Ringo Starr ever was.

The Beatles' influence is very obvious on the first 3 KISS albums...it's one reason I took to them so hard when I revisited them late last year...I heard The Beatles' stamp on their sound.

George Harrison was probably the best technically skilled guitarist in The Beatles, but Paul was no slouch (Paul plays guitar, bass, piano, drums). John knew he was passable and very basic but not awesome...especially his piano playing.

I always looked at Peter Criss like Ringo...not a technical powerhouse, but tasteful.

ultmetal wrote:

The Beatles were good songwriters. They weren't really great musicians IMO. I'm not saying they were bad by any means, but they weren't the be-all-and-end-all musicians, especially Ringo Starr. Kiss aren't the greatest either, but they are no slouches. Gene Simmons is actually a wicked bass player, and Ace Frehley had a ton of charisma and style. Paul Stanley is a great singer with a technically great voice. He pulls off Kiss and he can pull off Broadway as well. (Yes, Paul sang in the Phantom of the Opera.) Peter Criss was bad-ass when he was young. Just take a listen to Alive! He was never a metal drummer, but he did have a wicked style. That's not including guys like Eric Carr and Eric Singer, who are 10x the drummer that Ringo Starr ever was.

I actually agree with you, I just think I worded that wrong.

The Beatles were a bit more experimental, and at times more innovative, than KISS. KISS weren't really trying to be, most of the time. They succeeded at their primary goal, which was putting on a great show and playing thundering rock n' roll (and making a ton of money).

The Beatles get credited as the 'first' for a lot of things, and I don't think they always deserved to be...often they were as much the product of their time as much as they were the innovators of said product. And I am of course, talking about The Beatles post-1965.

So I just basically meant that often the Beatles are looked at as raising the bar for songwriting in pop music in the late 60s, with everyone trying to have their Sgt. Pepper's, and their White Album, and so on. In the 70s, I don't think KISS were really setting the bar for rock n' roll songwriting, which wasn't their goal anyway. They were, however, raising the bar for theatrics, stage shows, loudness, and personality. If any of that makes sense.

Ace is one of my favorites, from any genre. And you didn't include him, and I know a lot of people don't like him, so it may have been intentional, but Vinnie is and will always be one of my favorite guitar players ever. I don't care how self-indulgent his playing is. I can't get enough.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

The Beatles' influence is very obvious on the first 3 KISS albums...it's one reason I took to them so hard when I revisited them late last year...I heard The Beatles' stamp on their sound.

George Harrison was probably the best technically skilled guitarist in The Beatles, but Paul was no slouch (Paul plays guitar, bass, piano, drums). John knew he was passable and very basic but not awesome...especially his piano playing.

I always looked at Peter Criss like Ringo...not a technical powerhouse, but tasteful.

That's pretty accurate, in my opinion. Except I would give John more credit. I'm not a musician, so I won't attest to his technical capabilities, but I feel his voice, his personality, and just his overall John Lennon-ness brought so much to the Beatles. So much character. In my eyes, it could have been Lennon and Harrison, with any two other random dudes, and the band would've been just as great.

Quote :

The Beatles get credited as the 'first' for a lot of things, and I don't think they always deserved to be...often they were as much the product of their time as much as they were the innovators of said product. And I am of course, talking about The Beatles post-1965.

The Beatles started out as a cover band, but grew into forward thinking artists pretty rapidly. What "firsts" are they credited with that you disagree with?

Quote :

but I feel his voice, his personality, and just his overall John Lennon-ness brought so much to the Beatles.

Absolutely and without a doubt, but that's not technical skill...that's personality and style.

Quote :

In my eyes, it could have been Lennon and Harrison, with any two other random dudes, and the band would've been just as great.

There's no way to factor out Paul McCartney in The Beatles.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

The Beatles get credited as the 'first' for a lot of things, and I don't think they always deserved to be...often they were as much the product of their time as much as they were the innovators of said product. And I am of course, talking about The Beatles post-1965.

The Beatles started out as a cover band, but grew into forward thinking artists pretty rapidly. What "firsts" are they credited with that you disagree with?

Well, nothing specific. It's just there are many of the late-60s psych bands, or whatever, that are pretty much always referred to as Beatles clones or some other sort of diminutive adjective. And some of them were. But some of them were coming up with similar ideas at the same time. Or were Who clones. Or Hendrix clones. Or Pet Sounds clones.

Sometimes I just feel that they are credited with everything that evolved in music in the late 60s.

Quote :

Sometimes I just feel that they are credited with everything that evolved in music in the late 60s.

I'm one of those that think that nearly everything that came after them can be traced back to them on some level. Somebody had to be first. Everything from the experimental use of multi-track recording to using middle-eastern instrumentation in pop/rock songs. They did not invent vocal harmonies or pop songs, but they sure knew how to use them.

People still think that the Beatles invented backwards-masking on the "Sgt. Pepper" album...

...but those of us "in the know," know that Spinal Tap did it first on "Rainy Day Sun."

I think the Beatles are under rated musicians, Paul McCartney is one hell of a bass player, listen to his bassline on 'Silly Love Songs' and while its a pop song and not one of his best, the bassline is amazing, as they are on a number of songs, both as a solo artist and the Beatles.

George Harrison is an excellent guitarist, he just playes in none flashy style. The emergence of Hendrix (God) changed everything, but Hendrix himself was a huge Beatles fan.

Ringo Starr may not have been Keith Moon, but his personality came thru in his playing, and one of the few drummers who had his own 'sound'.

John Lennon, like McCartney is a brilliant songwriter, or in Lennon's case should say was.

The main innovation I would prescribe to the Beatles is their use of the studio as an extentison of the band, using the studio as a tool to expand their musical horizons, explore new sounds, and give their songwriting a bigger canvas to paint with.

Such was that influence that bands as diverse as Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, and even Def Leppard followed this lead.

Comparing the musical merits of The Beatles to Kiss seems kinda silly. Norwegian Wood vs Rock And Roll All Night kinda cracks me up.

Kiss were great at that they did, but c'mon, they aren't even close to the level of songwriters, musicians and arrangers and ORIGINATORS that the Beatles were.

Kiss was a really tasty cheeseburger...The Beatles were Filet Mignon.

Ringo also had a certain "swing" style to his drumming that no one else had at the time.... in pop music.

chewie wrote:

Ringo also had a certain "swing" style to his drumming that no one else had at the time.... in pop music.

I also love Ringo's solo work. I think a lot of that was very underrated. Just fun music. Can't go wrong with "Drumming is My Madness".

I love George's solo work too, and a lot of John's.

I never really got into Paul's. Paul was just too traditional for me. He's got a traditionally good voice. He was traditionally attractive. And so on. The other three guys were just not that traditional, in many aspects. But maybe Paul's traditional thing did help round out the group.

ultmetal wrote:

ZombieHavoc wrote:

musically KISS have never been up to the standards set by the Beatles.

The Beatles were good songwriters. They weren't really great musicians IMO. I'm not saying they were bad by any means, but they weren't the be-all-and-end-all musicians, especially Ringo Starr. Kiss aren't the greatest either, but they are no slouches. Gene Simmons is actually a wicked bass player, and Ace Frehley had a ton of charisma and style. Paul Stanley is a great singer with a technically great voice. He pulls off Kiss and he can pull off Broadway as well. (Yes, Paul sang in the Phantom of the Opera.) Peter Criss was bad-ass when he was young. Just take a listen to Alive! He was never a metal drummer, but he did have a wicked style. That's not including guys like Eric Carr and Eric Singer, who are 10x the drummer that Ringo Starr ever was.

JBall_z and 3072 others likes this.

Ult hit the nail on the head.

Paul has always been my favorite member of the band, but Gene is a great vocalist too. Frankly, I think all of the original members had cool voices. I'm diggin' the current line-up too. Tommy and Eric both sing with confidents and style.

Many popular bands in the seventies had multiple lead vocalists and songwriters who all brought there own personality to the band and to the songs they wrote and performed. Styx, Fleetwood Mac, and The Eagles come to mind. I miss this. I wish more bands today featured this much individual talent.

ZombieHavoc wrote:

But maybe Paul's traditional thing did help round out the group.

It was the push/pull dichotomy that made those classic Lennon/McCartney compositions so magical. Paul would inject that pop sensibility into John's ideas while John would add that air of sarcasm and wit to Paul's ideas.

The classic example being "I have to admit it's getting better" (Paul) backed by "It couldn't get no worse" (John).

Ringo Starr is an AWESOME drummer. He kept things simple but he was solid and he had great fills. If you have ever seen footage of them live such as on the Ed Sullivan Show, Ringo tears it up! Listen also to the later Beatles stuff where he is allowed to do more and it clearly shows he was no slacker.

As far as a Metal 'Beatles' version... I too would say Kiss.

The first name I thought of was GALACTIC COWBOYS.