Members Vito Corleone Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 Originally Posted by stevesherbert in both of these cases, the prospective 'lead' singer can perform the main songs roughly as well as i can (while i am playing bass, btw), so i wonder: why exactly are we adding this guy? i have no qualms with having a guest singer for the songs that are tough to play bass and sing live, but adding a permanent 4th member (and taking a permanent pay cut, plus adding the hassle of dealing with another schedule and another ego) seems like a solution to a problem that never existed in the first place. No offense, but a lot of this is just sounding like sour-grapes from the fact that the rest of the band wants to add a singer while you believe you're just as good. If that's the case, then why DO they want to add a singer? Just for the visual? Perhaps you're not quite as good as you think you are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 Originally Posted by stevesherbert in both of these cases, the prospective 'lead' singer can perform the main songs roughly as well as i can (while i am playing bass, btw), so i wonder: why exactly are we adding this guy? i have no qualms with having a guest singer for the songs that are tough to play bass and sing live, but adding a permanent 4th member (and taking a permanent pay cut, plus adding the hassle of dealing with another schedule and another ego) seems like a solution to a problem that never existed in the first place. No offense, but a lot of this is just sounding like sour-grapes from the fact that the rest of the band wants to add a singer while you believe you're just as good. If that's the case, then why DO they want to add a singer? Just for the visual? Perhaps you're not quite as good as you think you are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SLScott86 Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 Originally Posted by guido61 No offense, but a lot of this is just sounding like sour-grapes from the fact that the rest of the band wants to add a singer while you believe you're just as good. If that's the case, then why DO they want to add a singer? Just for the visual? Perhaps you're not quite as good as you think you are? Worth noting the improved presentation that he could be right vocally, but if the frontman has charisma, he can still be an incredibly valuable addition. I'm not the winner in this department, but it's certainly easier when I'm not behind a keyboard and Mic stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SLScott86 Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 Originally Posted by guido61 No offense, but a lot of this is just sounding like sour-grapes from the fact that the rest of the band wants to add a singer while you believe you're just as good. If that's the case, then why DO they want to add a singer? Just for the visual? Perhaps you're not quite as good as you think you are? Worth noting the improved presentation that he could be right vocally, but if the frontman has charisma, he can still be an incredibly valuable addition. I'm not the winner in this department, but it's certainly easier when I'm not behind a keyboard and Mic stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevesherbert Posted October 4, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 in both cases, it's been one member of the band who 'knows the perfect guy' to add to the band. i have always been interested in adding more vocal talent to the band. however, after seeing (and hearing) the 'lead singer' in action, i would say that they are roughly on par with myself. after the session, i ask said band member whether we might be better off remaining open to other possible singers (perhaps one with more instrumental versatility / virtuosity / sex appeal), and not making a solid commitment to the first guy who comes along. then i am accused of being stubborn / hostile / closed-minded / not a team player... WTF??? (perhaps i am delusional about my vocal skills. however, last week i sang (and played bass) on a song, and the band's reaction was: 'Wow, that sounded BETTER than the original version!'. i consider that a fairly positive assessment, if i do say so myself) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevesherbert Posted October 4, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 in both cases, it's been one member of the band who 'knows the perfect guy' to add to the band. i have always been interested in adding more vocal talent to the band. however, after seeing (and hearing) the 'lead singer' in action, i would say that they are roughly on par with myself. after the session, i ask said band member whether we might be better off remaining open to other possible singers (perhaps one with more instrumental versatility / virtuosity / sex appeal), and not making a solid commitment to the first guy who comes along. then i am accused of being stubborn / hostile / closed-minded / not a team player... WTF??? (perhaps i am delusional about my vocal skills. however, last week i sang (and played bass) on a song, and the band's reaction was: 'Wow, that sounded BETTER than the original version!'. i consider that a fairly positive assessment, if i do say so myself) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators BATCAT Posted October 4, 2012 Moderators Share Posted October 4, 2012 I don't really understand the OP. If somebody is skilled at whatever instrument, then it's nice if they play another, but there's no need for everyone in every role to be a multi-instrumentalist, particularly if they are good at their main instrument.If you don't think the guy your band hired is good enough at what he's being asked to do, that an entirely different matter than whether or not a non-instrument-playing singer can be an asset to a band. (obviously they can as countless examples prove)And if you want the guy to sing harmony or bang a tambourine while you take lead, why not just ask him to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators BATCAT Posted October 4, 2012 Moderators Share Posted October 4, 2012 I don't really understand the OP. If somebody is skilled at whatever instrument, then it's nice if they play another, but there's no need for everyone in every role to be a multi-instrumentalist, particularly if they are good at their main instrument.If you don't think the guy your band hired is good enough at what he's being asked to do, that an entirely different matter than whether or not a non-instrument-playing singer can be an asset to a band. (obviously they can as countless examples prove)And if you want the guy to sing harmony or bang a tambourine while you take lead, why not just ask him to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members caeman Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 I see nothing wrong with a dedicated vocalist. We all choose our instruments, and a vocalist has chosen their voice over any other instrument. The issue of not helping with load in/out is a completely different issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members caeman Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 I see nothing wrong with a dedicated vocalist. We all choose our instruments, and a vocalist has chosen their voice over any other instrument. The issue of not helping with load in/out is a completely different issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tim_7string Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 Originally Posted by stevesherbert in both of these cases, the prospective 'lead' singer can perform the main songs roughly as well as i can (while i am playing bass, btw), so i wonder: why exactly are we adding this guy? i have no qualms with having a guest singer for the songs that are tough to play bass and sing live, but adding a permanent 4th member (and taking a permanent pay cut, plus adding the hassle of dealing with another schedule and another ego) seems like a solution to a problem that never existed in the first place. I ran into this same problem in the past. The way I look at it, if you are going to hire a separate lead singer that just sings, there is a very good reason for doing so. In many cases, it's because none of the band can sing very well, so they actually *need* a singer. Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin were great examples of this. Since this is not the case for you, because you can sing, you need someone who will harmonize with you like you will for them, right? I only had a couple of bands where this was the case. The band I had in 2000 had a pretty good frontman, but he was also excellent at singing harmonies when it was my turn. We basically split the songs 50/50 on lead vocals and it sounded great. That was the exception, though. Most of the time, whether they just sang, played bass at the same time, or guitar, they would sing lead, then they would just not sing at all whenever it was someone else's turn on the mic. Not cool.If I were in your situation, I'd find a guy who could play guitar halfway decently and sing harmony as well as lead. It sounds like that's what you're looking for, where you both sing songs and back each other up. Most of the time, if a band is fronted by a singer, people will expect that person to sing 95-100% of the songs. The old joke from Keith Richards when asked why he doesn't sing more songs ("What would Mick do?") kind of rings true, despite the fact that Jagger can play rhythm guitar halfway decently, because he is primarily seen as a singer/frontman.Also, if the guy is just standing around as he sings (as in, he doesn't really get the crowd going or do things you'd expect from a frontman), then he's really not pulling his weight. I wouldn't have someone like that in my band. They'd either have to have a really good voice (Brad Delp, Steven Tyler), be a fantastic showman (ala David Lee Roth), or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tim_7string Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 Originally Posted by stevesherbert in both of these cases, the prospective 'lead' singer can perform the main songs roughly as well as i can (while i am playing bass, btw), so i wonder: why exactly are we adding this guy? i have no qualms with having a guest singer for the songs that are tough to play bass and sing live, but adding a permanent 4th member (and taking a permanent pay cut, plus adding the hassle of dealing with another schedule and another ego) seems like a solution to a problem that never existed in the first place. I ran into this same problem in the past. The way I look at it, if you are going to hire a separate lead singer that just sings, there is a very good reason for doing so. In many cases, it's because none of the band can sing very well, so they actually *need* a singer. Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin were great examples of this. Since this is not the case for you, because you can sing, you need someone who will harmonize with you like you will for them, right? I only had a couple of bands where this was the case. The band I had in 2000 had a pretty good frontman, but he was also excellent at singing harmonies when it was my turn. We basically split the songs 50/50 on lead vocals and it sounded great. That was the exception, though. Most of the time, whether they just sang, played bass at the same time, or guitar, they would sing lead, then they would just not sing at all whenever it was someone else's turn on the mic. Not cool.If I were in your situation, I'd find a guy who could play guitar halfway decently and sing harmony as well as lead. It sounds like that's what you're looking for, where you both sing songs and back each other up. Most of the time, if a band is fronted by a singer, people will expect that person to sing 95-100% of the songs. The old joke from Keith Richards when asked why he doesn't sing more songs ("What would Mick do?") kind of rings true, despite the fact that Jagger can play rhythm guitar halfway decently, because he is primarily seen as a singer/frontman.Also, if the guy is just standing around as he sings (as in, he doesn't really get the crowd going or do things you'd expect from a frontman), then he's really not pulling his weight. I wouldn't have someone like that in my band. They'd either have to have a really good voice (Brad Delp, Steven Tyler), be a fantastic showman (ala David Lee Roth), or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jerry_L Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 I've gotten compliments on my vocals, too. But I know I don't have the vocal stamina to sing all night without getting hoarse, and my lung power is somewhat compromised when I'm holding an instrument, so I don't mind at least sharing vocals. I will get annoyed if someone else is butchering a tune I know I can sing well, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jerry_L Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 I've gotten compliments on my vocals, too. But I know I don't have the vocal stamina to sing all night without getting hoarse, and my lung power is somewhat compromised when I'm holding an instrument, so I don't mind at least sharing vocals. I will get annoyed if someone else is butchering a tune I know I can sing well, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GCDEF Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 in both of these cases, the prospective 'lead' singer can perform the main songs roughly as well as i can (while i am playing bass, btw), so i wonder: why exactly are we adding this guy? i have no qualms with having a guest singer for the songs that are tough to play bass and sing live, but adding a permanent 4th member (and taking a permanent pay cut, plus adding the hassle of dealing with another schedule and another ego) seems like a solution to a problem that never existed in the first place. Sounds like you should be asking your other band members this, not us. But keep in mind, the singer is by far the most important person in the band. Perhaps they want the look and stage presence of a dedicated front person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members n9ne Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 Can't help but wonder whether the OP has a problem with guitarists who only play guitar? Or drummers who only play drums? And no.....it's not different at all. Each member makes his/her own individual contribution and does his/her own part....and the sum of those parts is the song. Now, I'll admit, there's much to be said for value and versatility. All other considerations being equal....the more a person has to offer, the more valuable they are to the band. If I'm choosing between a singer who only sings and a singer who also plays an instrument, then that will be factored into the decision-making process. It seems like the OP feels that a singer who only sings is "just a singer"....as if it somehow devalues their role in the band. I would remind the OP that in the overwhelming majority of bands, it is the singer who gets most of the attention, and is viewed as the face and the identity of the band. As such, I would want a singer who not only sounds good singing the material, but whose public persona and appearance represent the band well. If that person also happens to play an instrument....great. But they are the face of the band, first and foremost. That being said, you have every right to your views, and your belief that a vocalist should possess some level of instrumental skill. However, you should be aware that your bandmates may not necessarily agree with your views....and they have every right to their own opinions, just as you do yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flanc Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 A cover band...probably any band...is only as good as their front man / lead singer. If that front person can engage the audience in an entertaining way while singing and playing...then it's a beautiful thing. If playing detracts from being a good front man, then they should probably loose the instrument...or just play it occasionally as a novelty. Freddie Mercury would occasionally go to the piano, but not too often as it's hard to be a front man behind a piano. It sounds like you and your band mates are on different pages with respect to what the new singer(s) bring to the table. You view the new additions as marginal talent...the other band-mates seem to regard them as "the missing piece" or maybe just good enough to merit addition. It also sounds like the new singers have been crow-barred into the band and you feel you didn't get to voice your disapproval. Now, you'll either be the dissenting "dick" who wants to kick out the new guy or you find a way to swallow your opinions and deal with the new guy. It seems like you are choosing the latter and trying to "perfume the pig" by putting a guitar or cow-bell in their hands. Actually, you seem frustrated that the new, marginally talented singer isn't taking the initiative to fill out the sound on their own and rather opt to take a smoke or a piss. My sense, is that you are probably the type that have a lot of opinions; maybe you'd be better off running your own band? I had a guy join our band once who used to run his own band for years. He swore he was thankful to just be "in a band" and not have to be the leader. Well, every time we had a decision to make (new song, arrangement, what is the right chord, should we play at this place for this much money), he always had a dissenting opinion and made everyone miserable with his belly-aching. He eventually moved on to our joy and did the same thing in the next band...he just quit that one as well. Anyway...I guess you really only have a few options: - ignore this issue (shut up and play) - try to make things better as you see it (work to kick out the singer or have the singer play instruments too and improve their stock in your mind) - quit and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sventvkg Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 Vocals are the focal point and BY FAR THE MOST IMPORTANT THING in a band as far as the audience is concerned. Sorry but it's true..If your singer is extaordinary like a Steve Perry, Robert plant, etc and has the charisma and showmanship than let him/her do their thing because they are far and away pulling their weight!...However, if they are average/above average on those fronts and typical local musician level, then I believe they should bring something a bit more to the table..Book the shows, own the PA, Work the crowd, etc...Singing is a full on instrument just like your guitar playing or a drummer...Expecting the drummer to only play drums is no different than a singer only singing...Ya dig? Get rid of that double standard attitude because a REAL singer is an instrument unto themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 Can't help but wonder whether the OP has a problem with guitarists who only play guitar? Or drummers who only play drums?And no.....it's not different at all. Each member makes his/her own individual contribution and does his/her own part....and the sum of those parts is the song. I think part of the problem the OP is having is the common one where singers are looked upon as not making a full contribution because they may not be singing on every song--especially if there are other singers in the band. "Why should this guy get full pay when he's only on stage 2/3rds of the time"? I've never had a problem with singers who leave the stage when they aren't singing. If they are as good as they should be, what they bring to the band when they are up there more than makes up for it. Of course it's great if they hang out and sing backups if needed. And they probably shouldn't be roaming the club hitting on chicks and slamming shots (unless doing so helps the "networking" aspect of the band). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 in both of these cases, the prospective 'lead' singer can perform the main songs roughly as well as i can (while i am playing bass, btw), so i wonder: why exactly are we adding this guy? i have no qualms with having a guest singer for the songs that are tough to play bass and sing live, but adding a permanent 4th member (and taking a permanent pay cut, plus adding the hassle of dealing with another schedule and another ego) seems like a solution to a problem that never existed in the first place.personally, I find them to be dead weight. If you are a singer, why not be a musician too. Obviously there are a few exceptions at the top level. I just find a 'singer only" to be kind of dorky in a typical gigging band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 Vocals are the focal point and BY FAR THE MOST IMPORTANT THING in a band as far as the audience is concerned. Sorry but it's true..If your singer is extaordinary like a Steve Perry, Robert plant, etc and has the charisma and showmanship than let him/her do their thing because they are far and away pulling their weight!...However, if they are average/above average on those fronts and typical local musician level, then I believe they should bring something a bit more to the table..Book the shows, own the PA, Work the crowd, etc...Singing is a full on instrument just like your guitar playing or a drummer...Expecting the drummer to only play drums is no different than a singer only singing...Ya dig? Get rid of that double standard attitude because a REAL singer is an instrument unto themselves.I've never played with a drummer or bass player who didn't sing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted October 4, 2012 Members Share Posted October 4, 2012 The best singers I've ever worked with haven't played instruments. Some of the best instrumentalists I've worked with haven't sung. I can't imagine limiting myself to only working with people who did both if it would have meant not working with any of these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IsildursBane Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 personally, I find them to be dead weight. If you are a singer, why not be a musician too. The voice is an instrument, singing is music, and being a singer is being a musician. -Dan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 The voice is an instrument, singing is music, and being a singer is being a musician.-Dan.who is disputing that? Any musician in a band who plays and sings is much more of an asset than one who only does one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kmart Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 If you are a singer, why not be a musician too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.