Singers in bands Do they make a difference

What's Hot
tonyrathtonyrath Frets: 51

I ask because as a singing teacher I will get someone from time time who wants to improve their voice and than cannot understand it when I say ! You are choking yourself singing like that  2 Drinking that much wrecks your singing 3 Smoking. just no 4 Cannot hear you over the guitar 

I am interested because based on posts here I wonder singers are trouble than they're worth or the public don't care that much. Latest guy is in a covers band who are now getting paid gigs. 
0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
«1

Comments

  • not_the_djnot_the_dj Frets: 7306

    They can certainly make a huge difference. But a lot of it is stage presence and confidence/interaction with the audiance rather than just their singing ability.

     

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • spacecadetspacecadet Frets: 671

    They can certainly make a huge difference. But a lot of it is stage presence and confidence/interaction with the audiance rather than just their singing ability.

     

    This! I have seen and played with singers who are world class but just stand there and sing. No charisma whatsoeva! Then played with guys (and gals) who sound like they are being anally molested with a rusty umbrella but fill the stage with showmanship.

    I have to say though, I smoke like a very smokey thing thats smoking while it smokes and you can most certainly hear me over the guitar. I'm also pretty sure that Richie Sambora smokes like 600 a day and he is a monster singist.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • tonyrathtonyrath Frets: 51

    Thanks I had someone who could not be heard over an acoustic and had not sung for more than 30 minutes. I pointed out to him that if the band takes off - they will be doing longer sets and that he needs more projection. He was a sound hole sucker ie singer guitarist who does not engage with the audience. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • digitalscreamdigitalscream Frets: 26453
    A good singer certainly makes a huge difference. I've just started a rock band with a truly amazing female singer, and the difference between the sound of this one and the sound of previous bands is astonishing, purely because her voice adds to the song instead of just going along with it.
    <space for hire>
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • monquixotemonquixote Frets: 17485
    tFB Trader
    People on here won't like me saying it, but having a good singer (in which I include charisma/stage craft) is far more important than having a good guitarist. 

    Watch the crowd next time you gig. Everyone is looking at the singer. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • People on here won't like me saying it, but having a good singer (in which I include charisma/stage craft) is far more important than having a good guitarist. 

    Watch the crowd next time you gig. Everyone is looking at the singer. 
    except me (unless she's a bit of all right), I'm watching the guitarist(s)
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • JalapenoJalapeno Frets: 6378
    Vital - and having the vocalists loud enough (and the rest quiet enough) is also key.
    Imagine something sharp and witty here ......

    Feedback
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • I nearly got lynched once for saying that the vocals were the wasted space between the guitar solos ;)
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • IanSavageIanSavage Frets: 1319
    Each to their own, personally I tend to prefer singers who like a bit of a drink and a smoke (see: Tom Waits/Bon Scott/Chris Cornell/Lemmy/Freddie Mercury/Janice Joplin/Nick Cave/Marvin Gaye/Ginger Wildheart/Pink/Keith Richards/James Dean Bradfield before the Manics went crap/pretty much all of the 'original' blues guys through well into the 60s). I think it's kinda short-sighted to say that a singer shouldn't drink or smoke full-stop, as so very many singers who sound great do kind of abuse themselves in such a way (and debatably sound all the better for it). 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Drew_TNBDDrew_TNBD Frets: 22445
    There are no rules. Plenty of progressive rock out there without vocals, and plenty of people who enjoy that kind of thing. Unless your aim is to appeal to ...

    Lowest common denominator

    Fuck that quite frankly. I want to make art, not a product. No, the two aren't mutually exclusive, but there is certainly a correlation between doing something to please yourself as a musician and the resulting being an artistic expression, and then doing something to please the audience and the output being something that isn't entirely true to yourself. Balls to the audience. Most of the time they don't know what they're talking about.

    We played The Willow Festival this year. With the best will in the world, your average punter at those kind of places does not care about the music regardless of whether you have a vocalist or not, and regardless of whether the music is actually any good. Most people want to hear the same old shit - Led Zeppelin, The Stones, Oasis... whatever it is that they were listening to from their youth. They want to hear a passable version of it, and they want to drink beer. They don't care if you're pouring your heart out, or coming up with lofty concept albums, or even writing music about your dead dog that you really really miss.

    So given that, we quite simply don't make music for those people. They are absolutely not on our radar. Consequently, playing TWF - whilst a very enjoyable experience - was completely pointless financially and exposure-wise for us, and I doubt we'll do it again.

    We did our first album instrumental. Not really out of choice, but because we couldn't find a vocalist we liked. Our second album had vocals on it for three tracks, because they were the ones that actually needed and benefited from vocals.

    The general malaise about live music in the UK has nothing to do with talent, nothing to do with not enough vocalists, and nothing to do with not enough venues. It's all tracable to peoples choices and the things they choose to prioritize in their lives.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ESBlondeESBlonde Frets: 3576
    Saying that a good singer adds to a song is totally missing the point. A good song is only about the singer, the audience (largely) doesn't go home saying what a wonderful chord progression that was or humming the drum beat!

    Now stage craft and entertainment value matter which is why many modern 'acts' put on head mics and dance with their stage dancers and have big screen projections whilst miming, it's all the same stuff but a different colour. 

    In it's purest form a singer is a singer whether stood unaccompanied in your living room or at the albert hall with a full choir and orchestra accompanying them. The voice of some singers is not what you might call mainstream or conventional (Dylan, N. Young) but they are all about the song and the band are only there to accompany them. The minuet the band think they are more important is the moment things begin to fall apart.

    I get the thing about taking care of your voice and resting with proper warm up/cool down sessions, allegedly Mick Jagger avoided talking days before Glasto (I'd clam up for that money though). Again his singing voice is not in anyway conventional but it too is commercial!

    Just using a voice as an effect (shouty or grungy type things) wears thin quick with me ( I am boring I guess) and leads to a creative and trends dead end.

    Wish I'd taken more care of my voice, buggered it up a few years ago (fags and performing lots of covers in the original keys). 




    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Drew_TNBDDrew_TNBD Frets: 22445
    You honestly think that a good song is only about the singer? That is a preposterously short-sighted statement.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • monquixotemonquixote Frets: 17485
    tFB Trader
    Drew_fx said:
    You honestly think that a good song is only about the singer? That is a preposterously short-sighted statement.
    As far as 90% of punters are concerned the answer is yes. 
    It all depends on if you are trying to create art, or entertain drunk people. I spend much more time doing the latter. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Drew_TNBDDrew_TNBD Frets: 22445
    So majority rules, is that it?

    I'd rather have 10% of the people who see us be blown away by the sound we create, and buy a CD on the way out, than I would 90% of them go "oh wow... that singer was great, he could really swing those hips" and then head to the bar for another bacardi and coke.

    In any case, I don't think it is anywhere near 90% of punters. It probably is a majority of them that are uncultured bafoons that just lap up any old shit that is given to them. But I'd say it's closer to 60%.

    People respond to sound, and it doesn't have to be a human voice for them to get it or enjoy it. People don't go clubbing because they want to hear vocal trance. They go clubbing because they want to experience the massive thump of an 808 bass drum, and the squiggy feeling they get in their chests when the bass drops.

    Maybe you guys just go to way too many crap gigs??? When I go see a band, I am way more interested in the music than I am any sort of frontman antics.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ragingbenragingben Frets: 106
    I agree a good singer makes the difference, in some genres more than others, but by 'good' I agree with others in this expanding past their voice.

    As well as charisma, stage presence, interaction, confidence etc a good singer also can adapt to the song each time you play it and this is vital. If you play it that bit faster and they go with it an sing it with bit more umph as well as the extra speed it can really spice things up. As a band you play a better more engaging set when your singer is dynamic enough to interact with how the rest of the band are playing each song that particular time, as opposed to a sung recital. Some of our best gigs are when our singers voice has been shot at the end of the night and he is really going for it - it rubs of on the rest of us guys and we put a better show on for it which in turn gets a better response from the audience.

    Having said that the ability to sing in key and hold a melody is priceless!


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • JalapenoJalapeno Frets: 6378
    Song and Singer based music - the vocalist is key.  totally relevant for Pub covers to The Stones.

    Drew - for instrumental stuff - knock yourself out.  More power to you, but I think you're in a different place to song based music.
    Imagine something sharp and witty here ......

    Feedback
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Drew_TNBDDrew_TNBD Frets: 22445
    edited August 2013
    It's not a case of this false dichotomy of instrumental versus non-instrumental. No-one listens to Slayer for the vocals; evidenced by the lack of "give a fuck" regarding their Nazi influences. No-one listened to Linkin Park for the vocals; evidenced by the the fact anyone listened to them at all. It was the music - the vocals were a part of the music. They are not separate.

    When the Stones came out, they sounded like nothing else out there. Part of it was Jagger and his vocals. But a bigger part of it was the sound of the band. The same can be said for bands like The Doors, Pearl Jam, and many others you could care to name.

    A song is comprised of multiple layers and often times if you take any of that away, it loses impact and interest. You could take Paint It Black and turn off the vocals, and it would indeed lose something. Likewise if you had just drums and bass, it would suck. Vocals can be important, but they are not the only reason to listen to music - which I feel is what is being implied here.

    And I don't accept that most people think like that. It's just that cognitively it is easier to recognise and explain what you like about vocals (ie; another human making a noise) than it is to explain what you like about something as otherworldy as electrons shooting down a cable, or vibrations coming off a drum skin.

    Equally, a god-awful vocalist can totally ruin a band. Where I think I can probably agree is that for a song to have any kind of interest or appeal, a "hook" is required, and most often in popular music that *is* the vocals. But it certainly doesn't have to be.

    As for "song based music" - lol. Thanks for the back handed slight there Jal!!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • bertiebertie Frets: 13564
    edited August 2013

    They can certainly make a huge difference. But a lot of it is stage presence and confidence/interaction with the audiance rather than just their singing ability.

     

    I agree in that they do need to be able to 'entertain' a bit not just stand, warble and look at their shoes,  but its a BIG as well as, not rather than.    

    just because you don't, doesn't mean you can't
     just because you do, doesn't mean you should.
    0reaction image LOL 1reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • tonyrathtonyrath Frets: 51

    Great feedback, thanks. My viewpoint on the not drinking to much and not smoking thing is not a moral point of view. I have done enough cigars and booze in the last 50 years not to point the finger. My point is this. If you are good at 30 minute sets with lots of vocals fine but supposing you are successful and you also write the lyrics and pretty good ones as well. I have heard the bands CD. THEN when someone says can you sustain two 50 minute slots or you are booked for 2 - 3 nights at a time over the weekend Can you step through that door and sustain a level of performance. I think not from hearing him 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • monquixotemonquixote Frets: 17485
    tFB Trader
    Drew_fx said:
    So majority rules, is that it?

    I'd rather have 10% of the people who see us be blown away by the sound we create, and buy a CD on the way out, than I would 90% of them go "oh wow... that singer was great, he could really swing those hips" and then head to the bar for another bacardi and coke.
    Yes because I play in a covers band and it's more important that 90% have a jolly time than 10% have a life changing experience. If you are playing in an art band then I'm sure the opposite is true, but both are equally valid way to create music. 

    In the vast bulk of popular music the vocal is the single most important thing and thus the singer is the most important member of your band. That's not to say instrumental music doesn't have it's place, or is less important  (I'm unusual in that I probably listen about 50/50), but it is somewhat niche. 

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.