Lead Singers Who 'Only Sing'

[Lee Knight]

I think it is pretty common for musicians to resent singers. It isn't always, but frequently tied to ego. So...

 

The bouncer and the bar back.

 

They make the same small paycheck. The same. The bar back is learning to make drinks, he keeps the bartender moving and flowing, he restock's the shelves with liquor, he taps the kegs, he charms the chicks and strokes the guy's egos. He's got skills.

 

The bouncer stands there and looks mean. This one bouncer in particular is a dunderhead. The bar back is studying Econ at the local State College fer Christ sakes. He runs around doing everything and anything to get er done. The bouncer was born big. He doesn't even work out. He's fat really and looks scary as {censored}. How hard is that?

 

And the bar needs both of them equally to reach their goals.

[rangefinder]

 

i don't see how assessing someone's potential value is 'personal' or 'irrelevant' or 'bizarre'.

 

 

Because, as others are saying also, you don't seem to be assessing that value in the proper context. Your original post was drenched in haterade, which is why I didn't even bother to write up a "real" response at the time.

 

For example, you seem to be all caught up in the fact that maybe the singer isn't contributing EVERY SINGLE SECOND. But so what? To flip things around a bit, let's look at somebody like the late, great Clarence Clemons. I saw Springsteen and the E Street Band on tour once, and while Bruce spent four straight hours singing his lungs out, Clarence was chilling in the back, playing a two-minute sax solo once in a while, and shaking a shaker or tamming a tambourine otherwise, essentially irrelevant activity meant to keep him looking somewhat busy. Did that mean he wasn't worth having in the band?

[stevesherbert]

 

That's what I was asking. This thread is at a dead-end as long as the OP wants to talk about the potential value of adding another singer to the band but refuses to fill us in on where the band is now and what they are trying to achieve.

 

 

well i thought that the OP covered it, but... the goal of the cover band is to gig and make $$$ (do cover bands ever have any other purpose in mind?). the original plan was to be a 3-piece, with the guitarist and myself roughly splitting vocal duties, but with the door open for a 4th member, either a player who sings or a dedicated lead singer.

[stevesherbert]

 

Because, as others are saying also, you don't seem to be assessing that value in the proper context. Your original post was drenched in haterade, which is why I didn't even bother to write up a "real" response at the time. For example, you seem to be all caught up in the fact that maybe the singer isn't contributing EVERY SINGLE SECOND. But so what? To flip things around a bit, let's look at somebody like the late, great Clarence Clemons. I saw Springsteen and the E Street Band on tour once, and while Bruce spent four straight hours singing his lungs out, Clarence was chilling in the back, playing a two-minute sax solo once in a while, and shaking a shaker or tamming a tambourine otherwise, essentially irrelevant activity meant to keep him looking somewhat busy. Did that mean he wasn't worth having in the band?

 

 

aside from the obvious 'cool story bro' response, did bruce have the sax player around when he was just starting out? (i admit i don't follow springsteen) i am sure that the sax player doesn't have the same weight in band matters or the same paycheque as bruce does, which is another important difference. it's funny that you mention context, but then you give an example that doesn't seem to make sense AT ALL in the context of this discussion.

 

and i don't see how criticizing a person's skills (or lack thereof) counts as 'haterade'. i've mentioned absolutely NOTHING personal about anyone in this discussion. all of my judgements have been based solely upon what people bring to the table, i.e., what they can and cannot do. my disappointment with 'singers who only sing' has nothing to do with their person and everything to do with what they do. by your logic, it would count as 'haterade' to say 'i don't like people who steal'. i do not subscribe to your brand of politically correct bull{censored}.

[rangefinder]

it's funny that you mention context, but then you give an example that doesn't seem to make sense AT ALL in the context of this discussion.

 

It's called an "analogy", a concept that is apparently beyond your comprehension level.

 

and i don't see how criticizing a person's skills (or lack thereof) counts as 'haterade'. i've mentioned absolutely NOTHING personal about anyone in this discussion.

 

Go back and read your first post. If you STILL can't see the hate that suffuses it, I feel sorry for you.

 

i do not subscribe to your brand of politically correct bull{censored}.

 

Thanks for helping to prove my point.

 

Since this discussion is going nowhere until you stop being a clueless asshole, which seems unlikely, I see no point in continuing, and no interest in further interactions with you.

 

Plonk.

[SLScott86]

 

aside from the obvious 'cool story bro' response, did bruce have the sax player around when he was just starting out? (i admit i don't follow springsteen) i am sure that the sax player doesn't have the same weight in band matters or the same paycheque as bruce does, which is another important difference. it's funny that you mention context, but then you give an example that doesn't seem to make sense AT ALL in the context of this discussion. and i don't see how criticizing a person's skills (or lack thereof) counts as 'haterade'. i've mentioned absolutely NOTHING personal about anyone in this discussion. all of my judgements have been based solely upon what people bring to the table, i.e., what they can and cannot do. my disappointment with 'singers who only sing' has nothing to do with their person and everything to do with what they do. by your logic, it would count as 'haterade' to say 'i don't like people who steal'. i do not subscribe to your brand of politically correct bull{censored}.

 

 

My general problem here is your assumption that his exiting the stage was a selfish diva response, when A. You don't know why, and B. You never asked him to do anything else. And, you haven't seen him interact with a crowd yet, so there's really no way of knowing how big of an upgrade he could be.

[caeman]

I have watched a lot of concerts on PBS, and I often see musicians leave the stage during songs where they have no part.

[Lee Knight]

 

I have watched a lot of concerts on PBS, and I often see musicians leave the stage during songs where they have no part.

 

 

True. It totally works. Where it can get a little iffy though is when you have a cover situation where the basic line up tends to change a lot more song to song by the very nature of the beast. You're covering various lineups, then you have guys coming and going far too often. It's then no longer like that moment where there is an obvious change to the line up for a portions of the show, but it becomes more like a revolving door.

 

That can be distracting.

[flanc]

 

well i thought that the OP covered it, but... the goal of the cover band is to gig and make $$$ (do cover bands ever have any other purpose in mind?). the original plan was to be a 3-piece, with the guitarist and myself roughly splitting vocal duties, but with the door open for a 4th member, either a player who sings or a dedicated lead singer.

 

 

Well, as a guy who's been in the cover band scene for 15 years or so...there are certainly levels that you can shoot for and you'll need some positive combination of: youthful good looks, charisma, talent to play at the top levels. As someone has already pointed out, playing for gas money and bar tabs is a fine ambition and membership to that club is not nearly as rigorous.

 

Three things I've noticed to be common among short-lived, and generally unsuccessful bands are: poor leadership, lack of communication and disparate goals (which is really a bi-product of the first two). In the case of the OP, I'm not clear if band leadership is well-defined. He seems bitter/frustrated that his opinion is not being heard...or perhaps shared. Perhaps those that regard themselves to be leaders don't want or value his opinion OR they have different goals; maybe good-enough is OK for them?

 

If it were me and my concerns were significant enough that I would write them down on an internet forum, I'd want to raise them with my band mates in a way that quelled whatever inner angst I was feeling. If status quo isn't working you either fix it or move on.....my two cents.

[stevesherbert]

 

It's called an "analogy", a concept that is apparently beyond your comprehension level.

 

 

my point was that your 'analogy' doesn't fit with what we're talking about. we are not the e street band, out making boatloads of money every night, and the person in question is not the sax player, but the LEAD singer. your analogy is useless because you are talking about apples, but the discussion is about oranges.

[Vito Corleone]

 

well i thought that the OP covered it, but... the goal of the cover band is to gig and make $$$ (do cover bands ever have any other purpose in mind?). the original plan was to be a 3-piece, with the guitarist and myself roughly splitting vocal duties, but with the door open for a 4th member, either a player who sings or a dedicated lead singer.

 

 

Should I take this to mean that you guys haven't even gigged yet?

[stevesherbert]

 

Three things I've noticed to be common among short-lived, and generally unsuccessful bands are: poor leadership, lack of communication and disparate goals (which is really a bi-product of the first two). In the case of the OP, I'm not clear if band leadership is well-defined. He seems bitter/frustrated that his opinion is not being heard...or perhaps shared. Perhaps those that regard themselves to be leaders don't want or value his opinion OR they have different goals; maybe good-enough is OK for them?

 

 

useful points here! as an update, i sat down and talked to the band, and we have hopefully come to a resolution. i asked the guitarist if 'the plan' was indeed to go with this new guy. he said 'yes'. my response was, 'he's certainly NOT my first choice for a 4th member', for the reasons i've mentioned.

 

i then said that i would be willing to go along with this guy, but then the band would no longer be 'my' band, which would be fine, but then of course i would no longer be making decisions, getting gigs, etc.. you tell me the songs to play, and i play them, and you pay me. i am 100% fine with being an employee. just don't pretend like you are going to take my opinion into consideration if you really aren't.

 

the problem really turned out to be surprise, surprise, a leadership issue. when i was approached to play in the band, the idea was that both the guitarist and i would share lead vocal duties and be 'partners' in the band. we sat down and had a good discussion about sharing vocal duties, and perhaps bringing in a 4th member on a few songs, until we could find a permanent 4th.

 

this all changed as soon as the one guy took it upon himself to add his friend to the band. things are ok, no one's feelings are hurt (except perhaps all those lead singers who 'only sing' whose feelings were hurt in this discussion), and we are playing together. it's just disappointing when 1) people explicitly agree to one thing and then do another and 2) when those other things don't seem to be very good choices.

[stevesherbert]

 

Should I take this to mean that you guys haven't even gigged yet?

 

 

i'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but no, we haven't gigged yet.

[Vito Corleone]

 

i'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but no, we haven't gigged yet.

 

 

It has to do with understanding where the band is, where you're trying go, and how best to get there which would all involve the reasons why it would be good to add a new member or not.

 

If you haven't even gigged yet, can I presume that the reason the band is looking for a lead singer is that they've determined the present lineup isn't even really gig ready?

 

A lot of your posts read to me as if you guys are getting way ahead of yourselves. And/or need to get out there and gig so you're not spending so much time sweating over "behind the scenes" details when the fact is you haven't fully defined your "scene" to get behind yet.

 

All this stuff about who's the leader, who's getting gigs, picking songlists, etc. seems a bit cart-before-the-horse for a band whose goal is simply to gig and make some money. And now you say that since it seems your co-leadership role has been stepped on, you're now going to step back and just "show up and do what your told and you pay me". Which reads a bit like you're being a bit of a baby about it and will only serve to make things worse rather than better.

 

Seems like the situation might be one where none of you guys really get along well enough to play in the same band in the first place. But presuming you CAN, then you need to sit down and get this leadership/direction stuff worked out so that you're not showing up to every rehearsal in a bit of a snit and everyone else isn't always walking around on egg shells around you. That sort of passive/aggressive attitude isn't going to accomplish anything for either you or the band.

 

Just getting out and gigging can solve a lot of this stuff: your direction will become more defined more quickly, and some good gigs will inject the 'fun' element into the band which is the main reason you're doing this.

[stevesherbert]

woah there guido! you accuse me of being passive-aggressive when in fact i have been 100% up front about my expectations and opinions. like i've said since the OP, i don't mind bringing in another person to sing, and i don't mind taking a less-than-leader role, as long as the person leading or lead singing doesn't suck!

 

i'm not upset about my co-leadership role being stepped on, i'm upset about the relationship changing from a partnership (where my opinion is taken into consideration) to something else entirely (where i am not even consulted on MAJOR band decisions) without my knowledge. if the guitarist had been up front about his intentions, then this confusion would have been avoided.

 

and i certainly don't think that i am putting the 'cart before the horse'. it seems to me like these basic-level type of issues, such as 'what is the protocol for adding new members?', should be sorted out as soon as possible, especially before money gets involved! if anything, I'VE been the one 'walking on eggshells', trying not to call attention to the elephant in the room (at least while he's IN the room), i.e., this 4th band member who the rest of us just found out existed! my MO has been to get everything relevant out onto the table BEFORE the bull{censored} happens.

 

and i don't understand why you think me accepting a defined role in the band means that i am 'being a baby'. it seems like there are only 2 choices for any band's leadership: 1) a partnership, or 2) a leader/follower situation. if my opinions DON'T matter, then clearly this isn't a partnership, and it would be stupid and counter-productive to pretend otherwise. in that case, you are the leader and i am the follower, and i am more than willing to go along with that! of course, YOU being the leader means that YOU make the tough decisions, e.g., personnel choices, not me! if anything, it seems like i am taking the more mature route by being 100% upfront about what i expect from the band and what the band can expect from me.

[Vito Corleone]

 

woah there guido! you accuse me of being passive-aggressive when in fact i have been 100% up front about my expectations and opinions. like i've said since the OP, i don't mind bringing in another person to sing, and i don't mind taking a less-than-leader role, as long as the person leading or lead singing doesn't suck! i'm not upset about my co-leadership role being stepped on, i'm upset about the relationship changing from a partnership (where my opinion is taken into consideration) to something else entirely (where i am not even consulted on MAJOR band decisions) without my knowledge. if the guitarist had been up front about his intentions, then this confusion would have been avoided. and i certainly don't think that i am putting the 'cart before the horse'. it seems to me like these basic-level type of issues, such as 'what is the protocol for adding new members?', should be sorted out as soon as possible, especially before money gets involved! if anything, I'VE been the one 'walking on eggshells', trying not to call attention to the elephant in the room (at least while he's IN the room), i.e., this 4th band member who the rest of us just found out existed! my MO has been to get everything relevant out onto the table BEFORE the bull{censored} happens. and i don't understand why you think me accepting a defined role in the band means that i am 'being a baby'. it seems like there are only 2 choices for any band's leadership: 1) a partnership, or 2) a leader/follower situation. if my opinions DON'T matter, then clearly this isn't a partnership, and it would be stupid and counter-productive to pretend otherwise. in that case, you are the leader and i am the follower, and i am more than willing to go along with that! of course, YOU being the leader means that YOU make the tough decisions, e.g., personnel choices, not me! if anything, it seems like i am taking the more mature route by being 100% upfront about what i expect from the band and what the band can expect from me.

 

 

Apologies to whatever degree I'm misreading your posts. It's hard to be 100% clear on such things in an internet forum.

 

I would just suggest that you and the guitarist sit down and really just iron all this stuff out between the two of you. You guys need to be on the same page--whatever that page might read like.

[stevesherbert]

don't get me wrong, i appreciate your input! it CAN be tough to get the whole story right on a discussion thread...

[wades_keys]

 

All this stuff about who's the leader, who's getting gigs, picking songlists, etc. seems a bit cart-before-the-horse for a band whose goal is simply to gig and make some money. And now you say that since it seems your co-leadership role has been stepped on, you're now going to step back and just "show up and do what your told and you pay me". Which reads a bit like you're being a bit of a baby about it and will only serve to make things worse rather than better.

 

^

THIS.

 

I've seen this kind of thing rear up before in bands and it's almost always fear-based. Fear of gigging. Fear of failure. Negative outlook on the future of the band beyond the rehearsal pad.

 

Just cook up some songs QUICKLY, spend LESS time talking and gabbing about dumb {censored} and MORE time getting gig ready with the SONGS and get your asses out there and gig would be my sincere advice.

[stevesherbert]

i couldn't agree more! i just want to know how to spend my time: should i spend extra time learning the bass parts AND the vocals if i'm not singing? should i think about what we are looking for in a 4th member if my opinions don't mean {censored}? this all boils down to: should i put in the work of a leader if i'm really an employee?

 

or should i just shut up and play, and collect paycheque? sign me up for that! i'm sick of the band discussions that are really less of a discussion and more of a information session regarding what decisions have already been made. just email me that stuff!

[wades_keys]

 

or should i just shut up and play, and collect paycheque? sign me up for that! i'm sick of the band discussions that are really less of a discussion and more of a information session regarding what decisions have already been made. just email me that stuff!

 

All of you all should, IMO, just shut up and play. {censored} a bunch of stupid band meetings. Y'all ain't even gigging! All you need is to agree on which songs to work up for next rehearsal. No meeting needed for that. Dial back the bureaucracy and ramp up the music.

 

Get your 4 hours of music gig-ready, make setlists, THEN have band meetings about promo, who books the gigs, pay, etc....

[wades_keys]

Steve, now is the time to take a good look at each of your bandmates.....HOw much gig experience do each have? How is their demeanor on stage? Any stage fright? Any fear of "getting things wrong"? Any SHOE GAZE, non-interactive stuff going on?

 

Weed out the CHICKEN {censored}S because they ARE OUT THERE. If you find one in your band, MOVE ON DOWN THE ROAD QUICKLY. Chicken Little will never, ever get out of the garage as it will never be "good enough".

 

The BEST THING I ever did musically was to get out of the "circle" of friends and people I already knew, and put myself out on the "open market" to play in bands. I'm not sure if that's where you are but keep that in mind too. There are other bands, other opportunities than just those that involve people you already know.

 

Bottom line is: get yourself on a stage with people who LOVE to be there. Make videos and watch for signs of Chicken {censored} in all members.....

 

What is your goal? To get the music "perfect" and sweat details of things that don't even matter at this time, or to get it together and get out there and gig? Ask this of yourself and your bandmates. Then, make sure you do ONLY THOSE THINGS which further that goal. Sweating gig pay when you don't even have gig ready sets is to me an example of what you DON"T want to do (not saying you're doing this, just giving an example)

[tim_7string]

I would address the partnership issue with the guitarist, just you and him. Talk to him about how you remember the original idea of trading off on vocals and let him know how you feel about the sudden (and not discussed beforehand) change.

 

I'm the bandleader in my group. I usually keep the guys pretty well informed about major decisions. During one of our breaks at the gig this weekend, I asked my cousin how he would feel about it if we were to add a fourth member (completely unrelated to your situation). I proposed either a keyboardist/rhythm guitarist/vocalist where we are all still doing the same thing, just making room for that person or a bass player/vocalist and he would switch to guitar and I would add keyboards to my list of duties, switching off as needed. I got the drummer's input as well. They both agreed that a bassist would probably be easier to find and work with. Also, my cousin said that if anyone else was going to play guitar, he wanted first crack at it.

 

Now, if I had simply decided that we were going to put a buddy in the band on guitar, and had him show up at the next practice or gig, that would have caused some tension.

 

Sometimes, these things need to be spelled out. Spell it out for him.

[tubetonez]

 

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 think it really depends more on the situation, for an original band doing one set showcases that's good advice, provided the singer is effectively communicating the material with passion/excitement/charisma.

 

To my knowledge, the Crue never played 4 hour bar gigs covering everything from Country to Rap. I saw them on their first tour opening for Ozzy, and have seen a few of their headline shows since. Vince's voice wouldn't hold up for 4 hours. On the GGG tour the Nasty Habits backup singers carried most of the choruses while Vince flailed around the stage. Robert Plant has never been able to hit the high notes live that he did in the studio.

 

If your band is the type of "live juke box" that most clubs hire, it can be grueling on the voice for one person to sing everything - not to mention that it's pretty much impossible to sing everything convincingly - or consistently. When you do find a rare talent, it's easy to overload them. I worked with a guy who can sound just like Steve Perry, Brad Delp, David Alan Coe, Bon Scott - just about any male singer except Brian Johnson, he could nail. But, he could only pull off so many Journey, Boston, Foreigner songs etc in a row, or set, or night - usually not much by the end of the night. It's helpful in this situation to give the guy a break, someone else sing a few songs so he can save it for the hard stuff.

 

FWIW he's a blazing good guitar player, good bass player too - but he can't play and do the lead singer bit. He can play and sing some lead, and harmonies. While he could pick up a guitar when another sings, IME this interrupts the flow for him and the audience. Maybe if you had a dedicated guitar tech to hand you the perfectly tuned guitar, ready to go.....but then you probably wouldn't be playing covers in a bar anyway. Personally I think keyboard is the ideal second instrument - no dedicated amp needed, no tuning, emulate a variety of instruments, singer can reach over with one hand and play a part any time.

 

I've worked with another guy who played rhythm & lead guitar, and sang everything. While his vocal chops weren't on par with the above mentioned singer, he had a "party guy" charisma - not "in your face" (i.e. MAKE SOME NOOOIIIZZEE!!! YOU READY TO RAWK???) , an indefinable something that when he was onstage, he was having a great time - and everyone else was too. Incidentally I made a lot more money working with this guy.

 

The other gifted singer guy had the vocal chops, but not so hot at working/reading the bar crowd - going overboard, pushing too hard. Now, if had my choice for an original project, playing showcases in appropriate venues, he would be the Lead Singer no question.

 

Bottom line, IMO there is no single tried and true formula that always works. You have to work with the personalities and talents that you have. If you're concerned about making the most money, vocal and/or instrumental prowess is only part of the equation. One of the best cover band front guy's I've ever seen had mediocre vocal ability, walked on crutches and sat on a stool due to his disability. But he could "sell the song" to the audience. I don't think this is something you can learn, you either have it or you don't.

[timrocker]

On the rare occasions when I've been able to gig with the classic The Who kind of lineup (guitar/bass/drums/frontman) it's been a real pleasure. I get a real kick out of being The Guitar Player and just letting The Singer go. It takes a better-than-ho-hum rhythm section to keep it sounding full during my solos, sure, but when it's right, by God, that lineup is right.

[stevesherbert]

by 'classic who lineup', do you mean the one with pete townsend singing half the parts?