Members New Trail Posted January 19, 2011 Members Share Posted January 19, 2011 Any truth to this: A friend of mine, who is a really good singer, says that most regular people (non-musicians) who go to hear bands listen to vocals first, then solo instruments, and then drums, bass, etc., and that a decent band with average singers may lose the crowd just because the vocals are not strong, but that the same band with one really good singer will hold the crowd. He says that people may leave and not even know why, but that something about the band doesn't sound right to them, almost subconsciously. Thoughts?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted January 19, 2011 Members Share Posted January 19, 2011 Agreed, but I'd take it step further and say the lead singer needs to be a front person and be able to captivate the audience, either through vocal ability or other talents. Put a Mick Jagger in front of the band and he'll probably hold the crowd, even though all us musos know the guy can't actually sing his way out of a paper bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SeniorBlues Posted January 19, 2011 Members Share Posted January 19, 2011 Any truth to this: listen to vocals first, then solo instruments, and then drums, bass, etc., Vocals, then drums . . . . sometimes in reverse order. I've played in two bands where the drummer was largely responsible for the band's success.Everything else has to be competent, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted January 19, 2011 Members Share Posted January 19, 2011 Vocals, then drums . . . . sometimes in reverse order. I've played in two bands where the drummer was largely responsible for the band's success.Everything else has to be competent, of course. Good point. A great drummer can keep a dance floor packed all on his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rangefinder Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 Vocals is first, of course. (Including the entire presentation, not just technical ability.) The rest is debatable, depending on the exact crowd. But guitar wankery is far down the list these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jealouscreature Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 One time I heard Chris Cornell sing "Fell on Black Days" without drums and it was EXCRUCIATING. I kept waiting for the drums to kick in. That's when I realized that I put such a high priority on the sound of the drums in a band. I have a hard time listening to Latin music because the drums just don't sound big enough to me. So I would say that the vocalist is pretty important, but that the drums are seriously important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tim_7string Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 Answer to topic: sometimes. I will usually enjoy seeing exceptional musicians playing not-so-exceptional song choices or sometimes have a boring stage show. Depends on how good they are and where they can take me with their music. Sometimes it works. Sometimes not. The two things I notice in a band are always vocals first (especially good harmony vocals), then drums. To me, if a band doesn't have a good or great singer and a really good drummer, they are just sort of 'meh' to me. If they have one or the other, I might stick around for a while, but if they have both, I'll check out at least a set or two. Drums are visually exciting to watch and the pounding frequencies just do something to me. That's probably why I don't like the idea of playing live to a drum machine, although I did it a couple of years ago (hated it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Austincowbell Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 I'll go a level further.. I think a decent band that puts on a great show will go MUCH further than a great band who puts on a boring show. The reason: People paid money to be entertained, not impressed with a guitar solo or some other technical ability. Granted, if a singer is the second coming of Aretha Franklin there is an exception but as a whole there is a reason we call it "a show". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SpaceNorman Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 If a band has great vocals - their position in the food chain is theirs to blow. A marginal playlist, weak showmanship and/or poor work ethic (i.e., late starts, long breaks, tons of dead air between tunes, etc.) - will all help knock the shine off of great vocals. "Great vocals" doesn't necessarily mean one "great vocalist". A band with several competent singers who can do multipart harmonies can go a long way without having a single outstanding individual vocalist. After vocals - the rest of the instruments are a wash. Personally, I'll stay to listen to a competent sax player pretty much any time - whereas it would take a monster guitar player, keyboard player or bass player to truly hold my attention. Drummers ... meh . A bad drummer has the ability to drive off a crowd - but if it's between a competent drummer and a great drummer - I don't see there being that big of a impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TrickyBoy Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 By far, the least important instrument in a cover band is a guitarist, followed by any other "solo instrument". A band with a solid rhythm section and really good vocals could have Mr. McGoo playing guitar and do very well. And the reason I practice my guitar every day is????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Austincowbell Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 And the reason I practice my guitar every day is????? you said it yourself... you can be replaced with Mr. Magoo (or whomever is hit with the dead cat I'm swinging around my head) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TrickyBoy Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 you said it yourself... you can be replaced with Mr. Magoo (or whomever is hit with the dead cat I'm swinging around my head) At least I'm self aware Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mstreck Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 Vocals, then drums . . . . sometimes in reverse order. I've played in two bands where the drummer was largely responsible for the band's success.Everything else has to be competent, of course. Yep. IME - vocals, drums, bass, guitar. I've seen SUPER talented bands that bored people to tears because they played an average songlist and had an average show. Those bands didn't last long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wardjames Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 By far, the least important instrument in a cover band is a guitarist, followed by any other "solo instrument". A band with a solid rhythm section and really good vocals could have Mr. McGoo playing guitar and do very well. And the reason I practice my guitar every day is????? I think everyone is operating under the assumption that the lead instruments are competent, which is probably incorrect in a lot of really bad bands. There's nothing that kills a song like a guitar player who screws up a famous intro lick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 And the reason I practice my guitar every day is????? So that the rhythm section and hot lead singer don't fire your ass? :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TrickyBoy Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 I think everyone is operating under the assumption that the lead instruments are competent, which is probably incorrect in a lot of really bad bands. There's nothing that kills a song like a guitar player who screws up a famous intro lick. I don't disagree with you. You torch the intro to "Sweet Child O Mine" and everyone's gonna know. However, you could also creatively arrange around the intro completely, have the guitarist just strum chords and if your vocalist can pull off the song, the crowd will still go nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 I don't disagree with you. You torch the intro to "Sweet Child O Mine" and everyone's gonna know. However, you could also creatively arrange around the intro completely, have the guitarist just strum chords and if your vocalist can pull off the song, the crowd will still go nuts. Yeah, that goes back to a discussion we were having here a few weeks ago. Some stuff you've either got to play note-for-note (and nail the tone as well), or just leave out completely and come up with a whole 'nother arrangement. Certainly the intro to Sweet Child is one of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SeniorBlues Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 Yep. IME - vocals, drums, bass, guitar.I've seen SUPER talented bands that bored people to tears because they played an average songlist and had an average show. Those bands didn't last long. I'd like to see a video of such a group. . . . any links? I say that because it's hard to be SUPER good and not be "into it", which is an important part of any show. Does this fit in your category? [video=youtube;ul41zetEgww] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TIMKEYS Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 Vocals, then drums . . . . sometimes in reverse order. I've played in two bands where the drummer was largely responsible for the band's success.Everything else has to be competent, of course. Yup the drums are the glue that keeps a band tight.... vocals trump solos every day of the week. Great vocals with a tight rhythm section is a winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 These days you don't even need to solo. Bands could (and do) be VERY successful without ever playing a single solo the entire night. Nobody but other musicians care about great soloists, really. But EVERYBODY loves and recognizes and great singer and great vocals and a great frontman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jeff42 Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 A good singer will get noticed first yes, but he sould also be a good front man. IMO the main rule is The band must NOT be boring! I saw a "good" band one night a few months back that bored me to tears... The singer was really good and the rest of the band was solid but they just did nothing for me. Almost like they were just going through the motions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kramerguy Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 I've seen (and even been a member of) bands with mediocre to poor quality vocals (singing talent) yet, the "frontman" effect, the ability to run a crowd overrides the suck. OTOH, my current cover band, while we don't SUCK, we really aren't that good either; we have all the classic issues, foul ups, feedbacking, and even the classic botched notes on an intro... there's a lot of local bands that are certainly FAR better than us. Here's the killer - we are a party band. We bring the crowds and they party most bars into a stupor. I know of one local cover band specifically that has all the talent in the world, some of the best players I know, and they aren't bad on ANY level, but they just lack the friends/family ratio to get more than 10-15 people to show up to any given gig, and I know it totally eats them up that we get better bookings for more money, and pack the hell out of almost every place we play. Not that I think a sub-par performance is worth bragging about. Hell, our last gig was downright embarassing on a musical level (I really had a bad night for some unknown reason), but my point is that a great singer, great band, and even a great front-man/woman, drummer, guitar god, whatever, won't save any band that just can't get people to show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rangefinder Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 a great singer, great band, and even a great front-man/woman, drummer, guitar god, whatever, won't save any band that just can't get people to show up. Well, that's just basic economics. But the hard part is being a great band. If nothing else you can get some starving marketing major to fix up that side of things if necessary. I'd rather have chops and have to work on the marketing, than the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MusicalSchizo Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 Answering the OP: IMO, the show is the most important thing. Familiar songs help a lot, as does competence, but if you're fun and don't completely suck, you've got a shot. Speaking strictly of cover bands: Vocals > drums > bass > guitar and keys ...even if they screw up the leads. People simply don't really notice, in general. I've heard guitarists and keyboardists in bands completely screw the pooch on stuff that is iconic, and no one cared if the singer was good and they could dance. They were singing along and having fun...just heard it the other night, actually. My friends' band's lead guitarist played "Paradise City" ATROCIOUSLY, but since their girl singer sang it pretty well, and the drummer was grooving, no one cared a bit - they were smiling and dancing their asses off. Not a single "eew" face in view... Putting on a show is the most important thing. Good example is Austincowbell's band - the way they mash things up can sometimes be unfamiliar and strange (and quite "raga" if I'm being my brutally honest self), but since he's a good singer and they really make it fun, people LOVE them. It helps that the bassist and drummer are very solid, but that's not really the point. Brian V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tim_7string Posted January 20, 2011 Members Share Posted January 20, 2011 Speaking strictly of cover bands:Vocals > drums > bass > guitar and keys...even if they screw up the leads. This is exactly the same order that I listen for 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.