Members tlbonehead Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Uh, that would be you.I've seen plenty of singers in local bands who were just karaoke wannabes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TIMKEYS Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 I have played in a few bands with a stand alone singer back in the day. I never had a problem with it. They all carried their weight and had great vocal skills. One thing they all had in common was they were in the choir program at school. I would never play with a guy that was just a screamer and tried to run the show on stage personna . They had to have it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevesherbert Posted October 5, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 it's great to hear some different perspectives, keep em coming! i think what is rubbing me the wrong way is that i am being cast as the stubborn guy, when really i just want to find the best possible 4th member that we can. i wonder: what the hell is the point of having someone out to 'audition' unless everyone in the band gets to voice their opinions about him/her, both positive and negative? one of my criteria happens to be versatility, which of course gets less important the more talented / visually appealing / charismatic that person is on the mic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevesherbert Posted October 5, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 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. actually, i've been the dissenting 'dick' type you mention. i brought up my concerns with the other bandmates at the first reasonable opportunity. i'm the guy who'd rather not waste time dealing with pigs in need of perfuming! you are 100% correct about the frustration part, though. i wonder what it is like to to be such an enormously talented (or enormously deluded) person that the qualities cultivated by us regular folks such as ambition, self-improvement, and playing for the team never cross one's mind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members StratGuy22 Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 WTF is all this? If you don't like the idea of a lead singer who "only" sings, then don't hire one. Problem solved.But you might want to look around a bit and figure out why so many successful groups at ALL levels have a "singing-only" front man.You might also consider giving up the lead vocals on "your" songs and embracing the role of a kick-ass back-up vocalist, to keep the focus on the front person, where it (arguably) belongs. But that would mean putting the band first... This. If he's the lead singer, why do you need to sing any songs? Ego? Nikki Sixx never sings a lead, or ten million other examples. Play bass. Sing harmonies, let the lead singer do his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 This. If he's the lead singer, why do you need to sing any songs?Ego?Nikki Sixx never sings a lead, or ten million other examples.Play bass. Sing harmonies, let the lead singer do his job.I don't get why they would want to add a vocalist-only if better vocals are not needed? However, I also think it is best to have a little vocal variety in a band that does full gigs. But it sounds like the band aleready has a main lead singer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevesherbert Posted October 5, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 @ stratguy:wait a second. how the hell is it un-teammate of me to point out that certain types of behavior (e.g., sitting out when you aren't the star of the show) tend to damage team morale? and since when did it become a bad thing (as in the kind of 'ego' you mention) to have a reasonable level of confidence in yourself? like i mentioned in the OP, if i'm playing with a lead singer who cannot contribute in any other way, i would rather not sing lead at all because this would weaken THE TEAM. i'm feeling keith richards' sentiments ("wtf would mick do?") exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 3shiftgtr Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Nothing wrong with a singer just singing, and leaving the stage when he doesn't. If you set your set up right, he can be a feature....gives the show some flow. We had a vocalist that earlier this year took a job in another state, but before that, he was 'singer only' on stage. We played 3 songs at the beginning of each set without him, then brought him up and made a grand entrance out of it. Worked great. Also he booked most of the shows, did all the web stuff and we used his p.a. Does that count for anything? Also, had a nice little following. He was a party boy and his home town pals came out to see HIM. He was MORE than worth it and he only sang 6 our of a 10 song set. HATED to see him go. Good dude too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Consume Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 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. That is, until you have a lead singer who has actually had a few years of private vocal training with a great teacher. There are usually a few of them in each town, and they tend top be head and shoulders above the average musician you'll find in most places. The bet singers I know locally - the guys that stand out - have all studied privately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Consume Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 it's great to hear some different perspectives, keep em coming!i think what is rubbing me the wrong way is that i am being cast as the stubborn guy, when really i just want to find the best possible 4th member that we can. i wonder: what the hell is the point of having someone out to 'audition' unless everyone in the band gets to voice their opinions about him/her, both positive and negative? one of my criteria happens to be versatility, which of course gets less important the more talented / visually appealing / charismatic that person is on the mic. The question I have to ask is,"Do YOU want to be THE lead singer?" If so, and don't take this as an attack on you - take some **private** voice lessons. There has to be somebody in your region who is a decent vocal instructor, and go for Bel Canto (Opera) training.... it will teach you correct breath support, teach you how to strengthen the muscles in the throat, how to project, and how to take care of your voice. Or buy a program/book like Jaime Vendera's "Raise Your Voice", or Thomas Appell's "Can you hit a High C"; I would also suggest Al Koehn's vocal program. (Al trained with the same instructor that Ann Wilson and Geoff Tate did, the late Maestro David Kyle.) I have all three programs and they are excellent, you'll learn different things from different instructors.But the thing is, with 12 weeks or so of studying/training under your belt - the other guys in your band will only have one reason for wanting a lead singer - it will be because they want a "Front man" rather than a musician who sings lead. And, if they do choose to still want a front man/lead vocalist, your ability to sing much better than he can, will give you the opportunity to step into a better situation than you are currently in if you choose to do so. But be forewarned, once you start training vocally - it is addictive. It is a lot of fun and once you start hearing the changes in your voice, you'll look back and go,"Man, why didn't I do this 10 years earlier?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flemtone Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 I have no expectations that lead singers play instruments. But I do expect them to be front-people---working the crowd IS their "instrument" in many ways--and expect them to sing backup on songs where other people sing. God dammit - I swore to myself I would never agree with David about anything! Sonomabeech speaks perfect truth right here. *shakes fist at sky* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members frankthomson Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 ... my question is this: Am i out to lunch for expecting a little more versatility from a prospective band member than merely vocals? this sounds like a dummers question. u a drummer, steve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members frankthomson Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 davey jones the bitch...give him a tambourine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tim_7string Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Nothing wrong with a singer just singing, and leaving the stage when he doesn't. I can see this if the songs he doesn't sing are at a minimum (say, one per set). Otherwise, I'd expect him or her to be up there singing every song, especially if it's set up more like a 2 to 2.5 hour concert rather than the typical bar/casino band 4-5 set situation. I personally don't like it when I see female singers singing their ass off in a band, then whenever it's the guitarist's or drummer's turn, they just disappear. Why not sing some harmony or basic backups? It just gives the appearance that the band is supporting each other that way. She looks more like a diva whenever one of the musicians sings a song and the band suddenly reduces to a three- or four-piece because she left the stage. I was in a band as a bassist/keyboardist where the female lead singer *used* to sing backing vocals for me on songs like "Wonderful Tonight" (where it worked great, just like the record) and "Take It Easy." For some reason, after several months, she decided to stop doing that and just left the stage whenever one of the guys sang a song. Thankfully, the drummer and I could harmonize (the guitarist not so much), so there was always some backing when we would become a trio on those tunes. If anything, I thought her absence from the stage on those songs looked more out of place, because the band had her name first (like a "Tom Petty And The Heartbreakers" type name). If I were a potential customer that wanted to see a band based on the attractiveness of the frontwoman, I'd certainly want to see her onstage all the time, whether she was singing lead on every song or not. But that's me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members frankthomson Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 op, "part of the issue for me lies in the fact that i sing lead" unless ur CSNY or The Eagles, there should be ONLY 1 SINGER.period. unless ur a cover band, then all bets are off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tim_7string Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 I don't think things should be that set in stone. What if someone at the record company told Alice In Chains that Jerry Cantrell is not allowed to sing lead once they got signed? At all? ("Just stick to singin' harmony, son.") We would have missed out on some interesting songs. Same with The Who or a few other bands. Most bands? Sure, it makes sense to stick to a winning formula with having only one singer. It's fairly common and it works. But to intentionally limit a band when there could be an opportunity for call-and-response vocals in the music with original songs (or covering songs that have those types of vocals) seems a bit harsh. It depends on the band of course. If it becomes more of a control/power issue, then the band has to decide what is best for the band and the singers have to figure out what they will or won't do in that situation and respond accordingly (sublimating the ego, quit the band, or sharing the duties). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members StratGuy22 Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 @ stratguy: wait a second. how the hell is it un-teammate of me to point out that certain types of behavior (e.g., sitting out when you aren't the star of the show) tend to damage team morale? and since when did it become a bad thing (as in the kind of 'ego' you mention) to have a reasonable level of confidence in yourself? like i mentioned in the OP, if i'm playing with a lead singer who cannot contribute in any other way, i would rather not sing lead at all because this would weaken THE TEAM. i'm feeling keith richards' sentiments ("wtf would mick do?") exactly. I'm in a cover band, 4 out of 5 of us sing & play. The bass player sings only backups, myself (guitar) the other guitarist and the keyboardist all play and sing leads. We take turns, depending on whose voice fits the song. But if I was in an original band, I would want the singer to be "the voice" of the band. He would pretty much define the sound of the band, and I would be the guitarist that sings backups... On the off chance that someone else sang lead for a song. I also agree. The singer should play tambourine or something and song backups. I was in another band where we had a lead singer. He would stick around for songs us guitarists sang. (I think I sang 1 and the other guitar player sang a couple) afar as I recall he stuck around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SLScott86 Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 I don't think things should be that set in stone. What if someone at the record company told Alice In Chains that Jerry Cantrell is not allowed to sing lead once they got signed? At all? ("Just stick to singin' harmony, son.") We would have missed out on some interesting songs. Same with The Who or a few other bands.Most bands? Sure, it makes sense to stick to a winning formula with having only one singer. It's fairly common and it works. But to intentionally limit a band when there could be an opportunity for call-and-response vocals in the music with original songs (or covering songs that have those types of vocals) seems a bit harsh. It depends on the band of course. If it becomes more of a control/power issue, then the band has to decide what is best for the band and the singers have to figure out what they will or won't do in that situation and respond accordingly (sublimating the ego, quit the band, or sharing the duties). He doesn't seem to be the most popular man in Seattle, but man do I love Jerry Cantrell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SLScott86 Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 @ stratguy:wait a second. how the hell is it un-teammate of me to point out that certain types of behavior (e.g., sitting out when you aren't the star of the show) tend to damage team morale? and since when did it become a bad thing (as in the kind of 'ego' you mention) to have a reasonable level of confidence in yourself?like i mentioned in the OP, if i'm playing with a lead singer who cannot contribute in any other way, i would rather not sing lead at all because this would weaken THE TEAM. i'm feeling keith richards' sentiments ("wtf would mick do?") exactly. How well do you know this guy? This post sounds like sour grapes. "When he isn't the star of the show?" I'll tell you, when I am on a stage and not playing it's really uncomfortable. I would love to disappear. IMO, they should be watching everyone but me. Unfortunately that's not how it works. You're projecting diva onto this guy without knowing his motivations. Maybe he thought getting out of the way was the best way to not step on toes. Tell him what you want and see if he does it before you jump to conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rodclement Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Singers are musicians. I have been studying singing and fronting bands, and getting paid to perfomr music since being a kid. Now drummers... JK. Do not confuse bad singers/bandmates with good ones! That is the crux of your problem, find a good singer, not some karaoke wannabe. Lastly, if you want to be the singer, then tell your band you wanna be the singer, see if they agree, if they don't, look for another band. Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MikeyParent Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 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. This is what I struggle with. I am not nearly as good a lead singer stuck behind my keyboard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 God dammit - I swore to myself I would never agree with David about anything!Sonomabeech speaks perfect truth right here.*shakes fist at sky* It's OK. My watch was right twice today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SLScott86 Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 This is what I struggle with. I am not nearly as good a lead singer stuck behind my keyboard... Do you use the keytar much? They carry a stigma, and it's too bad because they're actually pretty awesome. I've got my little compact rig with a pivoting stand, which helps immensely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members New Trail Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Not to oversimplify, but it really depends on how good they are. A truly great singer can single-handedly carry a So-so band...... I agree. If a lead singer is a GREAT singer, then that's all you need from him, as long as he engages the audience SOME. Or, he can be a good singer but a great front man, or any percentage of those things. If he's just an okay singer and an okay front man then I don't see the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 I don't think things should be that set in stone. What if someone at the record company told Alice In Chains that Jerry Cantrell is not allowed to sing lead once they got signed? At all? ("Just stick to singin' harmony, son.") We would have missed out on some interesting songs. Same with The Who or a few other bands.Most bands? Sure, it makes sense to stick to a winning formula with having only one singer. It's fairly common and it works. But to intentionally limit a band when there could be an opportunity for call-and-response vocals in the music with original songs (or covering songs that have those types of vocals) seems a bit harsh. It depends on the band of course. If it becomes more of a control/power issue, then the band has to decide what is best for the band and the singers have to figure out what they will or won't do in that situation and respond accordingly (sublimating the ego, quit the band, or sharing the duties). Prior to the MTV era it was common for bands to have more than one lead singer. After that the record company mentality seemed to be "we need a visual focus and recognizable sound". There's certainly something to be said for this for band trying to establish themselves, IMO but, like you said, it shouldn't be written in stone. I've always loved the juxtaposition of different vocals like the way early Chicago did things. More bands should utilize that sort yin/yang vocal work . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.