It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
My preference by far is to play and sing completely unamplified, without a PA, but if needs be I have a Sunrise pickup for the guitar.
Many years ago I used to run a songwriters night. My experience was that most people who tried to introduce clever stuff like loop pedals and whatnot into their performances were usually interesting for about 30 seconds and then got boring really fast. The performers who did best were the ones with good songs and an engaging manner on stage.
One thing you really notice in this format is that any shortcomings in people's songwriting are exposed. When there's a band involved you might not notice that all the songs are in the same key, or at the same tempo, or using the same strumming pattern -- but that's really obvious when there's nothing else going on.
I think I have enough energy to try one more thing before I hang up my guitar for good and all that's left for me to try is the solo show....
Of course I'd been thinking of loopers, triggers, synths, keyboards etc.... but I suspected that what you wrote would be true. It's really, really hard to be good at live looping (which is why Ed should not be mocked in my opinion.) and I think people rely on it.
But 2 hrs of just me and a guitar would also be a challenge to listen too...
hmmm
Downside, you arrange all the gigs, you load and hump and set up all the gear, you do all the lead singing, you can't socialise with the band in that waiting to go on period, you can't remenis with your mates about gigs that went well/badly!
One other point is that in most small venues, even if there is a PA, a significant part of what the audience hears is actually the direct sound from the performer and guitar. This makes it harder to use some kinds of effect because the audience will always hear the 'dry' sound on top of it.
Probably the one-man-band approach will result in more gigs and better pay but it needs a lot more preparation time and has the disadvantage of lugging around loads of gear. I think that is where a duo works better as you can share the load.
As a 'troubadour' you travel light but it is harder to get decently paid gigs and you can find yourself performing with minimal amplification against background hubbub, depending on the venue.
For anyone who has played in bands for a long time going solo is very different - there's none of the camaraderie and banter that make bands fun to be in. Being alone in the spotlight and missing that power behind you of a band at full tilt can be unsettling at first. To do popular covers you need a good voice with decent range too. That's more important as a solo performer whereas a band can get away with an average singer but good musicianship to win over the audience.
The upside is that you get to choose all the material to suit you and have sole choice in what gigs you do. No unreliable band members or prima-donnas to suffer And usually better pay as there's no-one else to share it with. But it's something you have to really want to do as it is not an easy option.
Edit: no endless rehearsals either. Just sit down at home and work on your songs