Would Metallica have been a better band with John Bush as a lead singer?

[AdamCalifornia]

Would Metallica have been a better band with John Bush as a lead singer?

In the early 1980s Metallica courted John Bush of Armored Saint to become their lead singer.
They had approached him before they released their debut album "Kill 'Em All" and also later.
See the quote below.


See also Anthrax with Joey Belladonna or John Bush or ...?.

Quote:

Yet after release of their debut, Metallica remained unsure of Hetfield as a singer. .... he [Hetfield] was singing, only because no one else wanted the job. The band still considered enlisting a conventional lead vocalist and front man and confining Hetfield to rhythm guitar. As late as 1984 there was still one likely candidate. [Lars Ulrich said:] "Thre's only been one guy that we have really been keen on getting for the band, and that's the front man for Armored Saint, John Bush. ... He's got the f.... best voice. ... in like five years, he's only 19 now, he's gonna be one of the biggest singers and frontmen. He's gonna be up there with Dio."

(From 'Sound of the Beast', 2003, page 91.)

As some of us know, John Bush rejected Metallica's offer. He turned them down.

See Bring The Destruction - An Interview with John Bush of Anthrax

Here is a fragment from the above 'Interview with John Bush'.

Quote:

Speaking of Metallica, at one point several years ago before hooking up with Anthrax Bush was ask to join the band. “Before the band made their album Kill Em All they were still pondering getting another singer and my band at the time, Armored Saint, was starting to happen and they knew me from that and they tried to recruit me, I guess. It was a weird time because the guys in Armored Saint and I – we started together, I mean, we were 19 years old. I wasn’t going to join another band; I didn’t even know these guys. I knew kind of who they were but I was into my own thing. But a lot was made of it through the years, Metallica went on to be the band that they are, and James [Hetfield] went on to be the amazing vocalist that he is. It’s just a circumstantial thing that every few years it’ll come back up again. I don’t know if people want to bust the guy’s balls that got offered to play with Metallica and declined, but it wasn’t quiet like that at the time. I don’t think it was my destiny.”

Anyway, Metallica could have been:

John Bush - lead vocals.
James Hetfield - rhythm guitar.
Lars Ulrich - drums.
Cliff Burton - bass guitar
Lead guitar player Dave Mustaine through April 1983 and Kirk Hammett thereafter.



Let's spaculate. What do you think?

Must see VIDEO:
John Bush (Armored Saint) Live in 1983

 

[jilgiljongiljing]

Absolutely not, I dont even know who this other dude is, but to me Hetfield defined Metallica and is the powering force behind the band. Without him there is no Metallica.

But we might have had a different band, which may or may not have done great and stupid things.

...and LOL@Mustaine on the right!

 

[Rip N' Burn]

I can't imagine John Bush doing vocals on MOP.

I have lately been listening to Sound Of White Noise and We've Come For You All. John sounds amazing on those albums.

Always room for one more...

 

[Adab]

no

 

[Beyerfan70]

Of course not.
Rather silly question really.

 

[AdamCalifornia]

I've added a video to my op featuring John Bush in 1983 and some more text.

If you find some interesting videos with John Bush in the (early) 1980s post them.

 

[MaZa]

NO! Hetfields has a perfect singing voice be it Thrash barking or Rock singing. Skill might fail at the times, but voice is perfect.

Who the heck is John Bush anyway?

 

[Kraps]

I dont know who John Bush is, but even if he were a more talented singer than Hetfield, no one could ever imagine Metallica with another frontman. Metallica is an institution in Rock music just as it is.

 

[cdailey]

I don't think so. I do think they could/should have replaced Lars though. I'm not a fan of his drumming at all.

 

[Adab]

Why would you even say this

 

[Patu]

I'm just wondering here that how Metallica could be any better than it already is. Is there really anything to accomplish anymore? Metallica is probably the best known metal band in world.

 

[scytheavatar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm just wondering here that how Metallica could be any better than it already is. Is there really anything to accomplish anymore? Metallica is probably the best known metal band in world.

Best known =/= best. Accomplish commercially =/= accomplish musically. Hetfield's vocals were pretty much the saving grace of Metallica in the past, if they had wanted to be better they should have gotten rid of Lars and Kirk first. And got someone who actually knows how to write music.

But now that his vocals are actually the worst part of Metallica yes, Metallica would have been a better band without Hetfield.

 

[xBones]

When I was a kid I used to think they were the best band ever, but now I realize Kirk and Lars suck...bad.

I can't tell you the last time I listened to a Metallica album. I always listen to my Megadeth though! Dave is the man.

 

[Adab]

Someone tell me what is wrong with Lars' drumming?

 

[xBones]

There's not really anything "wrong" with it per se, but he's way overrated. Everyone and their mom knows who Metallica is, and there are alot of people that don't listen to metal, except for Metallica, so they think he's the greatest.

He's only recognized because of Metallica's popularity. Same think with Kirk Hammett. There are so many better musicians out there....