How important is a lead singer?

toddcotham · #1 05-22-2006, 12:06 PM

Me and some buddies are getting a band together. All of us have some sort of previous band experience but we're pretty excited about this situation because we're all friends and we all have pretty much the same goals as far as what we want to do with this band. Both guitar players are very talented and would do equally well playing any leads, the drummer is also very good and I can hold my own on bass. The only place we're lacking is in lead vocals. All four of us have decent voices and can carry a tune for the most part but none of us stand out or would count singing as our musical forte. It won't take us long before we have a song list down good enough to start gigging but we have conflicting opinions on which direction to go as far as lead vocals. Option 1.) Allow one of the guitarists to take lead vocals on all or most of our songs in order to solidify our sound and make it easier for people to become familiar with us but sacrifice a little quality on songs his voice isn't suited for. Option 2.) Divide the lead singing duties among the members of the band depending on who's voice best fits the song. Option 3.) Try to add a lead singer which would also add another personality to the mix that might compromise the kind of unity we anticipate (which might be the best thing we have going for us at this point.) Anybody have any ideas on which way we should go?

Dkerwood · #2 05-22-2006, 12:26 PM

If you're a cover band and there's no obvious choice for leads, I see no reason why you couldn't hand the responsibility around a bit. It's fairly common.

Sure, people like to find one member to identify with, but with a small band like that, it's easily accomplished regardless of whether or not you dictate a "lead singer".

Don't compromise your unity unneccessarily. If you feel like you guys have a good groove going, go with it. Honestly, there's nothing wrong with sharing lead vocals and seeing if someone ENDS UP singing the majority of the tunes.

Personally, I like to see a band that's a little more unpredictable. I like wondering who might be singing the next tune. You'll inevitably have to have a member who talks most of the time, and that person will be seen as the "leader", but big deal. Actually, some of my favorite groups toss around the lead vocals during songs... treating it more like a vocal group with a band instead of a band with a lead singer.

Then it turns into a conversation in voices... which makes things very, very interesting.

I guess my final advice is to try it and see what happens. Worst case scenario, you don't like it and you change it. Best case scenario, it works well. Best of luck.

lilboo77 · #3 05-22-2006, 12:30 PM

http://www.drivebytruckers.com/

Three Guitarist - Three Song Writers - Three Singers

toddcotham · #4 05-22-2006, 12:32 PM

Sorry, I should have specified that we will start out playing mostly covers but will definately have the ability to crank out some originals eventually. Yeah, thats kind of the direction I was leaning towards but one of the guitar players won't come out and say it but I get the vibe he feels he should sing lead.

r6mile · #5 05-22-2006, 12:35 PM

I kind of have the same problem. Well, had. When we first started the band, we had a bass, a drummer, and 3 guitars. No vocals yet, so we got a friend of ours to sing, but he wasn't very good and he didn't like the kind of music we played, so he quit. After that, we got a keyboardist. In desperate need of a vocalist (and after looking for a vocalist for a really long time), I decided to take the lead vocals, and the keyboard the backup vocals. It worked pretty well, we played in a gig with 300+ people!
But in less than 1 month, the keyboardist and the lead guitar (the best guitarist of all 3) are leaving, so we are really ****ed. One of the guitarist would take the lead guitar, and the other do rythmic. Then we thought that I can continue singing until we find a real singer (so I can perform my bass duties much easily). We would also like to find another keyboardist, but it ain't easy over here...

P.S: Sorry for the Off-Topic...

seanm · #6 05-22-2006, 12:42 PM

The Beatles didn't have a name recognition problem with multiple singers

The lead singer is very important. So I would let the person who can sing the song best do it. This also gives the singers a chance to rest their voices and focus on their playing.

If it dosen't work out, then look for a lead singer. Like Dkerwood said, don't compromise the unity unless you have to. You might just stumble across somebody you all get along with who happens to be a singer.

invader3k · #7 05-22-2006, 01:22 PM

I don't know if I agree with what's been said about just having someone in the band already do it. If one of you is a fantastic vocalist, fine, but if everyone is just "OK", I would go about finding a dedicated lead singer with a good voice, and a good on-stage personality to match.

Our band went for the last five years with having our guitarist sing, and he was OK, but not great. Not much personality on stage, and playing guitar at the same time as singing didn't give him much leeway to really rock out. We recently decided to get a dedicated lead singer, and he's been really fantastic. Now, our guitarist is playing much better guitar parts, and feels much better about not worrying about the vocals. The lead singer is a natural frontman, so it's a win-win for us.

toddcotham · #8 05-22-2006, 03:54 PM

Thanks for the advice everyone. We can all carry a tune and have at least "ok" voices if not a little better than ok. The part I like about the idea of dividing up the leads among the group is that we all have different styles of voices so I think we could cover a broader range of music. Plus I think for this being the beginnings of a new band, 4 members is quite enough considering the chemistry that I anticipate the four of us having. I'm not worried in the least about us lacking personality on stage without a lead man because all four of us are pretty extroverted and feel very comfortable performing. I'm also not too worried about either of the guitarists having to sacrifice any showmanship in their guitar playing because both are equally suited to play lead or rhythm and whoever was singing could simply play the rhythm part. Can anyone else give me any benefits of adding a lead singer should we come across one that would fit our style? Or any reason not to add them for that matter?

mrpackerguy · #9 05-22-2006, 05:00 PM

A lead singer with even half way decent stage presence, as stated above, takes a lot of pressure of the instrumentalists to sing AND play. We have a great lead vocalist, comfortable with the audience. He and I are the bandleaders in different ways. I do more band management and direct traffic and call tunes during the show. I share the front with him and we both interact with our audiences, albeit I do to alessser extent. And we often play off each other's interactions with the crowd. I also do about 5 lead vocals and the drummer and keyboardist also do a few. I sing the virtues of having a lead vocalist. There's also more consitency for the audience.

IanStephenson · #10 05-22-2006, 06:18 PM

For 90% of the audience the singer IS the band. As long as the rest don't screw up then they won't even get noticed.

The singer doesn't have to be GREAT, but the audience does have to THINK he's great. That means going for it 100%

I'd say that you'll do fine splitting vocal duties on one condition. The guy thats singing the song is 100% the singer for that song. I'd go as far as sugguesting they don't play guitar on the songs they sing - if only to guage their reaction. If they freak out and insist on playing guitar on every song then it's just not going to work. If they're happy to put down the guitars (even if they end up picking them back up to play a few chords later) then it might work.

Ian

wwittman · #11 05-22-2006, 07:56 PM

The Beatles didn't have a single "frontman" but they had 3 strong singers, and two INCREDIBLE singers.
Plus 4 strong onstage personalities with monster charisma.

there's a difference between multiple lead singers and NO lead singer... know what I mean?

also, someone needs to be able to talk to the crowd...

You just need to decide if it's a case of multiple star potential, or just that you're lacking a star.

Jazzin' · #12 05-22-2006, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddcotham

Me and some buddies are getting a band together. All of us have some sort of previous band experience but we're pretty excited about this situation because we're all friends and we all have pretty much the same goals as far as what we want to do with this band. Both guitar players are very talented and would do equally well playing any leads, the drummer is also very good and I can hold my own on bass. The only place we're lacking is in lead vocals. All four of us have decent voices and can carry a tune for the most part but none of us stand out or would count singing as our musical forte. It won't take us long before we have a song list down good enough to start gigging but we have conflicting opinions on which direction to go as far as lead vocals. Option 1.) Allow one of the guitarists to take lead vocals on all or most of our songs in order to solidify our sound and make it easier for people to become familiar with us but sacrifice a little quality on songs his voice isn't suited for. Option 2.) Divide the lead singing duties among the members of the band depending on who's voice best fits the song. Option 3.) Try to add a lead singer which would also add another personality to the mix that might compromise the kind of unity we anticipate (which might be the best thing we have going for us at this point.) Anybody have any ideas on which way we should go?

I have exactly the same dilema with a group of friends and I that wish to start a blues band but don't have any vocalists. I think what we will do is put up an ad or something and do option #3.

Woodchuck · #13 05-22-2006, 09:02 PM

Very! The beer ain't gonna go get itself!

**cheezewiz** · #14 05-22-2006, 09:22 PM

A lead singer, regardless if he plays an instrument or not, is VITALLY important. You take the average joe non musician, and let him hear a band with FABULOUS musicians, and a below average singer, and 99.99999 percent of the time, he's response will be "they suck".

agreatheight · #15 05-22-2006, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheezewiz

A lead singer, regardless if he plays an instrument or not, is VITALLY important. You take the average joe non musician, and let him hear a band with FABULOUS musicians, and a below average singer, and 99.99999 percent of the time, he's response will be "they suck".

I disagree - I can think of a bunch highly respected and / or well paid artists who are at best mediocre singers. Here are the first 5 that come to the top of my head.

Bob Dylan
Randy Newman
Madonna
Tom Petty
Dave Mustaine

I could go on...

jwl · #16 05-22-2006, 11:27 PM

there have been successful acts with both a dedicated lead singer and otherwise. you should go with what feels natural to you and your band mates. i personally do not care about the tone of a singers voice. it can be unusual, as long as it is pleasing. i only really care that he/she sings in tune. as was stated, some singers are not all that great. but they sing in tune and have a quality that works with their music. peace, jeff

beyondhairy · #17 05-22-2006, 11:35 PM

how bout each member take a verse in a song?

my band is covering Schism now, and we dont have a singer, i can sing most of it myself while playing bass but the part where Maynard sings "and the poetry that comes formt he squaring off...." is a bit difficult for me to sing while playing so my guitar player does it.

keeps the crowd on their toes too lol

once in a while, we'll even switch instruments.. ill go on drums and my guitar player will take over my bass, and the drummer will take over guitar.. we usualy only do that for fairly simple songs thoug.. like Queen's Anotherone bites the dust

**cheezewiz** · #18 05-22-2006, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agreatheight

I disagree - I can think of a bunch highly respected and / or well paid artists who are at best mediocre singers. Here are the first 5 that come to the top of my head.

Bob Dylan
Randy Newman
Madonna
Tom Petty
Dave Mustaine

I could go on...

All of whom (except Madonna) are GREAT songwriters. We're not talking about national acts. We're talking about bar bands.
You go see a bar band, and to Joe public, if the vocals suck, the band sucks.

agreatheight · #19 05-23-2006, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheezewiz

All of whom (except Madonna) are GREAT songwriters. We're not talking about national acts. We're talking about bar bands.
You go see a bar band, and to Joe public, if the vocals suck, the band sucks.

OK, OK, I agree, it's not the same thing.

But really... when was the last time, honestly, you saw a great singer in a bar band? I can't remember the last time I went and saw a good singer in a bar band. When I go out to the bars to I am happy if the singers stay close to in key for most of the night.

I agree that a bad singer kills, but I think you certainly can get away with mediocre, especially if you pick the right songs. I mean, just play good songs written / sung by mediocre singers and you'll be fine, lol. I mean, I am at best, a B- singer and I sing a few songs with my cover band. I only pick songs in my range and I practice the crap out of them. And people clap and drink beer. All is good!

**cheezewiz** · #20 05-23-2006, 03:17 AM

Oh..I never said you had to have a great one. You just need one that doesn't suck.