Members tshapiro Posted December 18, 2012 Members Share Posted December 18, 2012 Honestly, memorizing lyrics and performing is much more challenging than learning most musical parts. Therefore, try and find a singer who is passionate about performing songs in the style of songs that you would like to learn. It helps tremendously if you are the source of good steady high paying work. That's where the good singers drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flanc Posted December 18, 2012 Members Share Posted December 18, 2012 - Someone who craves the spotlight and whom the spotlight loves- Someone who can command a crowd...take them on a ride- A person who can put on a real show no matter how large or small the crowd - Someone not in the grasp of drugs, alcohol or habitually abusive relationships - A decent to good singing voice with the confidence and training (formal or hard knocks) to make it shine- A team player who does what's expected of them: learn parts ahead of practice, is punctual, easy to get along withNot too much to ask...huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jisatsu Posted December 18, 2012 Members Share Posted December 18, 2012 Has to be a chick, has to have tattoos, and has to be cute but not too cute that everyone wants to be with her. Most like average to slightly cute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted December 18, 2012 Members Share Posted December 18, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chevybusa Posted December 18, 2012 Members Share Posted December 18, 2012 Back when I was gigging and playing out in bands singers were always the hardest to find (well, GOOD singers anyways LOL)For me I think it's really important that they can sing well and have a decent range of styles they can cover, actually have a sense of pitch and dynamics, and as others have suggested actually have their {censored} together....Unfortunately these people are few and far between, and the good ones are almost always already in bands... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kramerguy Posted December 18, 2012 Members Share Posted December 18, 2012 Originally Posted by JimiRules This. I was in a band with a singer who was very talented, but his home life was a mess. Moved every few months, changed jobs just as often, was into drugs, you never knew if he was going to show up for practice, he didn't own any equipment and never helped with the set up or tear down for shows. The singer in the band that I'm in now isn't quite as talented (still a good singer though) has a stable home life and job, doesn't do drugs, is usually the first one to practice, owns his own equipment and is Johnny on the spot to help set up and tear down at shows. After dealing with the previous singer I've learned that I'd rather have somebody who isn't quite as talented but is dependable over someone who is extremely talented but is a flake. My issue with that is simply that the "good enough" singer usually isn't flamboyant enough to truly engage and entertain the crowd to the level that the band would see high-reaching success. I'm a firm believer that in cover bands, you need a focal point / front man who can woo the chick, make every dude wanna drink with them, and keep the booze flowing and the crowd engaged until last call. To ask for a singer who can successfully pull that off, and to ask the same singer to be a responsible and dependable bandmate is like asking for a winning powerball ticket.. it's 1 in millions. I hate to say it, but I'd rather have the flake in the frontman position, vs having a responsible, yet lesser equipped dude. For the rest of the band, I would agree with dependability over skill, but we're all easily replaced in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted December 19, 2012 Members Share Posted December 19, 2012 Originally Posted by guido61 Yeah, like this chick! Has to be a chick, has to have tattoos, and has to be cute but not too cute that everyone wants to be with her. Most like average to slightly cute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted December 19, 2012 Members Share Posted December 19, 2012 Originally Posted by tlbonehead Yeah, like this chick! Has to be a chick, has to have tattoos, and has to be cute but not too cute that everyone wants to be with her. Most like average to slightly cute. He might be a bit too cute, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mstreck Posted December 19, 2012 Members Share Posted December 19, 2012 Originally Posted by flanc - Someone who craves the spotlight and whom the spotlight loves - Someone who can command a crowd...take them on a ride - A person who can put on a real show no matter how large or small the crowd - Someone not in the grasp of drugs, alcohol or habitually abusive relationships - A decent to good singing voice with the confidence and training (formal or hard knocks) to make it shine - A team player who does what's expected of them: learn parts ahead of practice, is punctual, easy to get along with Not too much to ask...huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JimiRules Posted December 19, 2012 Members Share Posted December 19, 2012 Originally Posted by Kramerguy My issue with that is simply that the "good enough" singer usually isn't flamboyant enough to truly engage and entertain the crowd to the level that the band would see high-reaching success. I'm a firm believer that in cover bands, you need a focal point / front man who can woo the chick, make every dude wanna drink with them, and keep the booze flowing and the crowd engaged until last call. To ask for a singer who can successfully pull that off, and to ask the same singer to be a responsible and dependable bandmate is like asking for a winning powerball ticket.. it's 1 in millions. I hate to say it, but I'd rather have the flake in the frontman position, vs having a responsible, yet lesser equipped dude. For the rest of the band, I would agree with dependability over skill, but we're all easily replaced in the end. The singer I have now is probably actually more flamboyant than what the more talented singer was and has all those other qualities that you mentioned. He just doesn't quite have the range that the more talented singer had, but he can still sing well. I used to put up with the flaky singer because he had talent, but I just got sick of having my time wasted due to all his no call no shows. Plus we really didn't progress as a band. By him not showing up it just made us spin our wheels without actually getting anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members timrocker Posted December 29, 2012 Members Share Posted December 29, 2012 Me, personally, I'd rather find a lead singer who can do a few things really well, than one who can do a wide range of styles. I know that from a business standpoint, bands need to cover some ground, but if you're in this for the creative reward, you'd probably get a lot more mileage out of declaring your identity/style and having a lead singer who does that. Variety is one of the most over-rated things in the industry currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.