Members Vito Corleone Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 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. I think your rig looks awesome. If I was playing just a single board, I'd certainly look for something like that! I'm planning on picking up a keytar when and if Alesis even finally realizes that affordable one they've been advertising for months now because, while I don't sing lead much, I HATE doing it from behind the keys. When I see people in the crowd looking around trying to figure out who is singing the song, I figure we're missing a "connection" moment. I come out from when I'm playing guitar and singing. Yeah, the keytars have a cheezy stigma, but since I sing mostly cheezy 80s tunes anyway, my hope is that the extra level of cheese will actually ADD to the performance. Otherwise, I'll have to put the thing up for sale on Ebay minus a discount for the tomato stains, I suppose.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members New Trail Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Prior to the MTV era it was common for bands to have more than one lead singer.....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 . Yeah, there was a band called "The Beatles" that used more than one lead singer! However, to be fair, the so-called boy bands like "One Direction" still use multiple lead singers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SLScott86 Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Yeah, the keytars have a cheezy stigma, but since I sing mostly cheezy 80s tunes anyway, my hope is that the extra level of cheese will actually ADD to the performance.Otherwise, I'll have to put the thing up for sale on Ebay minus a discount for the tomato stains, I suppose.... I agree completely. If you are playing party music or power metal, they're amazing. The crowd might not notice how much it opens things up, but they'll chuckle at the cheese factor and you'll put on a better show. It doesn't fit with our presentation, unfortunately. But I would say it does for most bands here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dan88z Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 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 like this approach, and this is how our band does it. Our female singer will sing harmonies when she's not singing lead. There are 2 songs that she leaves the stage for, neither have any backup vocals. She lets the drummer have the spotlight on those as he's singing lead. I still can't get a handle on what the OP is trying to get at. A singer who does nothing but sing is a valuable asset to a lot of situations. My band has some fine players, but it's the singer that people remember. If they are not as good of a singer as someone else in the band, then find one who is better. They are out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Originally Posted by dan88z I like this approach, and this is how our band does it. Our female singer will sing harmonies when she's not singing lead. There are 2 songs that she leaves the stage for, neither have any backup vocals. She lets the drummer have the spotlight on those as he's singing lead. Yeah, it's song and band dependent. In my band, the girls generally hang around on stage during the "guy" songs and do backups and continue to interact with the crowd. But on a couple of songs where they don't have much to do, I've told them to leave the stage and take a break because I think having them up there becomes a distraction from the vibe of the tune. I used to play in a band where the girl singer left the stage every song she didn't sing (which was about 1/3 of the set) and I thought it was fine for that band--it made her appear more "special" and set us apart as a rockin' 4-piece 'guy band' as well. It was almost like having 2 different bands up on stage which worked well. For that band.Similarly we do a couple of piano or guitar & singer only ballads and I like the rest of the band to exit the stage or hang way in the back so that the 'intimate' nature of those songs is highlighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevesherbert Posted October 5, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Originally Posted by rodclement 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. i don't want to be THE singer of the band; i DO want to be A singer in the band. ideally, everyone in the band would have a mic in front of them, and everyone in the band would be free to sing 'lead' on a couple of songs. this way, the band offers a variety of vocal styles and ranges, and if one person is sick or can't make it to a gig, the show goes on. in an original band, more vocalists means more vocal ideas to work with. it just seems like a no-brainer to me that more vocalists = better vocals! another aspect i like about this method is that the band can gradually tweak its set towards the vocalists (and the songs) that prove themselves to be the best, rather than having had that decision preordained, so to speak. put up or shut up!and of course a person doing only one thing (a dedicated 'front man') will probably be able to sing better than someone who is doing double duty playing bass and singing. but for every example of a classic vocals-only frontman you give, i can respond with a classic 'lead' singer who played AND sang. i'm sure guys like neil young, bob dylan, kurt cobain, lemmy, les claypool, et al heard the same thing: 'you need a lead singer'. and i'm not comparing myself to them, but can you imagine those bands with someone else out front? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators BATCAT Posted October 5, 2012 Moderators Share Posted October 5, 2012 Originally Posted by stevesherbert and of course a person doing only one thing (a dedicated 'front man') will probably be able to sing better than someone who is doing double duty playing bass and singing. but for every example of a classic vocals-only frontman you give, i can respond with a classic 'lead' singer who played AND sang. i'm sure guys like neil young, bob dylan, kurt cobain, lemmy, les claypool, et al heard the same thing: 'you need a lead singer'. and i'm not comparing myself to them, but can you imagine those bands with someone else out front? The thing is that there's no "right" way to do it- only what works. It sounds like you guy haven't figured out which kind of band you are yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SLScott86 Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Originally Posted by stevesherbert i don't want to be THE singer of the band; i DO want to be A singer in the band. ideally, everyone in the band would have a mic in front of them, and everyone in the band would be free to sing 'lead' on a couple of songs. this way, the band offers a variety of vocal styles and ranges, and if one person is sick or can't make it to a gig, the show goes on. in an original band, more vocalists means more vocal ideas to work with. it just seems like a no-brainer to me that more vocalists = better vocals!and of course a person doing only one thing (a dedicated 'front man') will probably be able to sing better than someone who is doing double duty playing bass and singing. but for every example of a classic vocals-only frontman you give, i can respond with a classic 'lead' singer who played AND sang. i'm sure guys like neil young, bob dylan, kurt cobain, lemmy, les claypool, et al heard the same thing: 'you need a lead singer'. and i'm not comparing myself to them, but can you imagine those bands with someone else out front? You just named a bunch of people who were iconic frontmen who played instruments. All of whom are larger than life personalities. Instrument or not, the personality is what you want fronting the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Originally Posted by stevesherbert i don't want to be THE singer of the band; i DO want to be A singer in the band. ideally, everyone in the band would have a mic in front of them, and everyone in the band would be free to sing 'lead' on a couple of songs. this way, the band offers a variety of vocal styles and ranges, and if one person is sick or can't make it to a gig, the show goes on. in an original band, more vocalists means more vocal ideas to work with. it just seems like a no-brainer to me that more vocalists = better vocals! I'm all for having a lot of different lead singers--especially in a cover band situation that runs 3-4 sets a night. It gets boring to just listen to one voice all night long. But I don't like having people sing lead just for the sake of giving them a song to do. If they've got the best voice for singing a particular song, then they should do it. Otherwise, it's just annoying to have to sit through some lesser singer struggle through a song. and of course a person doing only one thing (a dedicated 'front man') will probably be able to sing better than someone who is doing double duty playing bass and singing. but for every example of a classic vocals-only frontman you give, i can respond with a classic 'lead' singer who played AND sang. i'm sure guys like neil young, bob dylan, kurt cobain, lemmy, les claypool, et al heard the same thing: 'you need a lead singer'. and i'm not comparing myself to them, but can you imagine those bands with someone else out front? I also can't imagine those bands without the songs those guys wrote. Yes, Neil Young's voice ends up being perfect for his songs because they are his songs. And great for him that he could write such great songs because nobody would ever hire him to be the lead singer of their band otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevesherbert Posted October 5, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Originally Posted by SLScott86 Instrument or not, the personality is what you want fronting the band. precisely! it seems to me like vocal virtuosity is HIGHLY overrated. none of those guys are great singers from a technical standpoint, and imo mick jagger is perhaps the worst sounding 'vocals only' guy out there. what he brings to the table is personality, not technique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevesherbert Posted October 5, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Originally Posted by guido61 But I don't like having people sing lead just for the sake of giving them a song to do. If they've got the best voice for singing a particular song, then they should do it. Otherwise, it's just annoying to have to sit through some lesser singer struggle through a song. i agree with you, that there shouldn't be a designated # of songs for each singer in the band, but this has never been my suggestion. i think with a more organically-determined vocal lineup, the weaker singers (if they are good teammates of course) will tend to step back and allow the stronger singers to take the lead. what i like about this is that no one ever has to point to some person and say, 'you suck at singing' (or the passive-aggressive but equally pointy version of this), and the options remain open for that sucky singer to improve themselves and (perhaps) find a song that they CAN sing well. i'm the kind of person who likes to make decisions AFTER seeing/hearing the results of an experiment, not before!what i don't like about the 'i'm a lead singer who only sings' mindset is that it creates the impression that each band member is limited to a particular static role within the band, and that there is one (and only one) person in the band who is allowed to represent the image, ideas, and vocal style of the band. imo, the best teams are those that foster growth among its members, not those that foster limitations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rodclement Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Originally Posted by stevesherbert i don't want to be THE singer of the band; i DO want to be A singer in the band. ideally, everyone in the band would have a mic in front of them, and everyone in the band would be free to sing 'lead' on a couple of songs. this way, the band offers a variety of vocal styles and ranges, and if one person is sick or can't make it to a gig, the show goes on. in an original band, more vocalists means more vocal ideas to work with. it just seems like a no-brainer to me that more vocalists = better vocals! another aspect i like about this method is that the band can gradually tweak its set towards the vocalists (and the songs) that prove themselves to be the best, rather than having had that decision preordained, so to speak. put up or shut up!and of course a person doing only one thing (a dedicated 'front man') will probably be able to sing better than someone who is doing double duty playing bass and singing. but for every example of a classic vocals-only frontman you give, i can respond with a classic 'lead' singer who played AND sang. i'm sure guys like neil young, bob dylan, kurt cobain, lemmy, les claypool, et al heard the same thing: 'you need a lead singer'. and i'm not comparing myself to them, but can you imagine those bands with someone else out front? Well I didn't give any examples but my point is that, if you are not in synch with what your bandmates want, maybe this is not the band for you.You want a band like "The Eagles" where everyone sings and plays, they (seem to) want a band with a frontman, nothing wrong with either format, just different strokes.Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevesherbert Posted October 5, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Originally Posted by rodclement Well I didn't give any examples but my point is that, if you are not in synch with what your bandmates want, maybe this is not the band for you. i agree that the band might not be the best fit for me. what i'm trying to determine is whether my perspective on how to create strong vocals in a band makes sense or not, and whether or not i should try to sell my band on 1) a group approach to vocals, and/or 2) a slightly different skill set for a prospective 4th member of the band. i'd like to at least attempt to communicate my ideas (which really aren't as radical as a lot of people make them out to be) before walking away from a group of people that i enjoy personally and musically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 What sort of band are we talking about here anyway? Covers? Originals? What sort of gigs are you playing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators BATCAT Posted October 5, 2012 Moderators Share Posted October 5, 2012 Originally Posted by stevesherbert i agree that the band might not be the best fit for me. what i'm trying to determine is whether my perspective on how to create strong vocals in a band makes sense or not, and whether or not i should try to sell my band on a group approach to vocals. It's a perfectly valid way to go. It's just a question of whether the band as a whole has the inclination and motivation to go in this direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rodclement Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Originally Posted by stevesherbert i agree that the band might not be the best fit for me. what i'm trying to determine is whether my perspective on how to create strong vocals in a band makes sense or not, and whether or not i should try to sell my band on a group approach to vocals. i'd like to at least attempt to communicate my idea before walking away. Your approach is doable and valid but your original premise that singers are not musicians just isn't correct. Some are, some aren't. Just like some guitar players are hacks and some drummers play to loud, see what I am getting at?Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevesherbert Posted October 5, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 ...and the reason i am asking on BSWTB is twofold: 1) the guys and girls on here can give me their honest opinions outside the political sphere of a band relationship, and 2) my data set (the few bands i've been in over the years) is insufficient for me to make a truly informed opinion about the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dan88z Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Personally, if I had an original project, I wouldn't want a bunch of people singing. You want the band to be identifyable, and having 4 different lead singers makes that more difficult. Nothing wrong with everyone singing to make some good vocal harmonies, but I'd want a single singer so that when you hear 10 seconds of a song somewhere, you recognize who it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevesherbert Posted October 5, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Originally Posted by rodclement Your approach is doable and valid but your original premise that singers are not musicians just isn't correct. Some are, some aren't. i never said that singers aren't musicians. i only said that a person who sings (or works in any field) for years but never bothers to learn the basics of their craft seems to either lack something important (ambition, work ethic, self-improvement?) or possess something in abundance (arrogance, laziness, perhaps immense natural talent?). i do think that it's fair to say that someone who sings AND plays an instrument is probably a better musician that someone who doesn't, in the same way that someone who speaks english AND french is likely a better linguist that someone who only speaks english. having said that, there are plenty of awesome lead singers who only sing, but of course those awesome singers would be even awesom-er if they played an instrument! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 3shiftgtr Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Originally Posted by tim_7string 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.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. I think it is in how it is presented. Remember, she could be perceived as a stage hog diva if she didn't sing, but stood up there with a tambourine or something. Some folks get tired of hearing the SAME vocal all night. Exceptionalism is of course the exception.Even in a feature situation. When the singer leaves the stage, it forces the focus on the other musicians which if done correctly, can SET UP the feature. Huey Lewis left the stage during instrumental parts; PINK leaves the stage and gives a spot to the band. The list goes on. It gives the audience a break. Now, if it is laziness, that's another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 There's no "one size fits all" answer here. At some point it becomes necessary to put it all into the context of who your band is, where you are and where you want to go. If you're playing the type of gigs you want and getting the audience response you want, then there's no need to add a singer. Especially if there is already a good chemistry within the band that adding another member might disrupt. But if the band has hit a wall and adding a singer would help you be able to take things to the next level, then doing so is probably essential. It seems that maybe your band is at a crossroads and you don't all want to move in the same direction? My band was at a similar point a couple of years ago. We had been a 5-piece with 4 lead singers for years. We had some diverse voices and good harmonies and we got a LOT of compliments on the variety of having 4 lead singers. But it wasn't enough to take the band where we wanted to go. People liked the 4-lead singer sound, but it wasn't really a marketable selling point. We needed a true front person. Not all of us wanted to go there. Most specifically the guy who was doing the bulk of the singing, but was also the least dymanic presence. He was the best singer of the group, but had the least abilities when it came to "fronting" the band. We added a singer/front person and he didn't survive the transistion. Too bad. I miss him being in the band and what he added to the band instrumentally and vocally, but it was no longer the band for him. Such is life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dan88z Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Originally Posted by stevesherbert i never said that singers aren't musicians. i only said that a person who sings (or works in any field) for years but never bothers to learn the basics of their craft seems to either lack something important (ambition, work ethic, self-improvement?) or possess something in abundance (arrogance, laziness, perhaps immense natural talent?). i do think that it's fair to say that someone who sings AND plays an instrument is probably a better musician that someone who doesn't, in the same way that someone who speaks english AND french is likely a better linguist that someone who only speaks english. having said that, there are plenty of awesome lead singers who only sing, but of course those awesome singers would be even awesom-er if they played an instrument! You make the assumption that someone who only sings doesn't really know what they are doing? I know plenty of singers who have solid music theory backgrounds, can read/sight sing, understand harmony and intervals, all of the basics that I put in as a keyboard player. A lot of them dabble on piano and things like that, but might not be good enough or comfortable enough to play that in a band setting. What about someone who only drums? Are they less of a musician because while they understand rhythm, they don't understand harmony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevesherbert Posted October 5, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 i don't consider someone who knows music theory and has a basic understanding of the keyboard to 'only sing'. and yes, i would say that someone who only plays drums is a lesser musician that someone who is an equally skilled drummer but also plays guitar. would anyone disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevesherbert Posted October 5, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 Originally Posted by guido61 It seems that maybe your band is at a crossroads and you don't all want to move in the same direction? my point is that there seems to be more than one direction that the band can go. and if we are smart, we should remain open to ALL of those options, not simply the first one that presents itself. i am more than willing to go with a lead singer who 'only sings', but only if that person offers something great to the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members caeman Posted October 5, 2012 Members Share Posted October 5, 2012 i don't consider someone who knows music theory and has a basic understanding of the keyboard to 'only sing'. and yes, i would say that someone who only plays drums is a lesser musician that someone who is an equally skilled drummer but also plays guitar. would anyone disagree? I'm am certain that Rick Allen would disagree with you on that second statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.