• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Deciding between two singers, thoughts?

themacinator

themacinator

Always looking for the perfect gig
Oct 8, 2009
1,511
138
8,385 feet in the Colorado Rockies
Disclosures
Endorsing Artist: Babicz FCH Hardware
#1
So here is our dilemma. We've auditioned various people to fill in where our singer departed. We play current and classic rock covers, no metal though.

Singer #1 PROS -- Big voice, good appearance, learned 10-12 songs in about a month. Has steadily improved each jam.

Singer #1 CONS -- Past personal issues are a bit troublesome, a couple band members are getting a bad "vibe" about him, feedback has not be 'stay away' but more like 'I'd be cautious'. Only one band member knew him prior to auditioning.

Singer #2 PROS -- Vocals are not near as strong but show promise, has fronted bands in our area previously, very enthusiastic about the opportunity, steady job. Good frontman appearance. Strong, positive history with two of the band members.

Singer #2 CONS -- Only had two jams but timing issues have been bad, dynamics are weak, has not learned at the same pace, job is not M-F 8-5. Alternates night and weekends making for odd practice schedules and weekend gigs might conflict with work.

Has anyone had a similar dilemma and if so what criteria ultimately made up your decision?

Thanks
 
#2
If the priority is the band, go with #1, but past personal issues is rather broad. What were they? What are the vibes? Are they criminal vibes or?

I've not been in that situation but if gigging is key, then #2 is out for lack of regular rehearsal options and also gigging options.
 
#3
Gotta go with your gut on decisions like this.. IMO, it sounds like neither is a good fit for your situation.. sorry for the bad news but if you have reservations and someone has a rep where people are telling you to "be careful", pass.. if the other guy is enthusiastic but both unavailable and not up to the level you need, pass.. why waste your/their time forcing a square peg in a round hole?
 
#6
Overall, gut feel is the most important. Having said so:

#1 deserves a chance, if you can work out the 'issues', based upon your description. I'd discuss these concerns with him openly, to see what he says (at a minimum he deserves a chance to defend himself if the issues are based upon rumors or other vagueness), before I'd offer him the gig. It might not be necessary to get personal-there are rules in a band, and everybody should adhere to those. So if this a drug free band, for example, is he going to be a drug free person in the band?
#2 might serve as plan B (or backup), if that works for him-you could point out he will also have more time to learn the material and sharpen his act.
 
#7
Musicianship has to come first. If someone simply doesn't have the requisite chops, it's a non-starter. For this reason alone, Singer #2 is out of the question. Period.

That said, you have to be able to co-exist - harmoniously - with the new member as a human being. For this reason, the choice should be between Singer #1, and someone you haven't met yet.

I also think the "cons" for Singer #1, as you've expressed them, are very vague. What kinds of personal issues do you mean? On what basis do the other members have a "bad vibe" about him? What exactly are you getting at? :eyebrow:

If the guy has a serious personality disorder, one that prevents him from playing nicely with others, then I would pass. And quickly.

But if he's simply recovering from some rough times, it might be better to cut him some slack. At least for now.

Only you can decide... :hmm:

MM
 
#8
If you've got gigs on the books and you need to get someone on board in a hurry, I'd go with #1... but keep #2's number handy in case #1 flakes and you need a backup.

OTOH... intuition and "chemistry" count for a lot, so the bad vibe a couple of your guys are getting off #1 can't be totally discounted. If you have the luxury of time to keep looking for a 3rd option, that's what I'd recommend.
 
#10
The "bad vibes" or personal matters are not music or band related. Maybe a bit of "Bobby Fuller Four" going on...if you all get my drift. Now that is in the past but it still raises concerns. I think it is also that nobody really knows this person but me. And even my level of familiarity is not great.

The chemistry with the rest of the band is not being taken lightly. It's big with us. We spend almost as much time socializing with mutual friends and going to support other local bands together as we do playing together.

So the "fitting in" with us is a significant factor. We have had singer #1 out three times with one more scheduled for early next week.

Singer #2 has been out only twice and has had about half the time to learn some of our songs. We feel that give him a bit of a disadvantage. He is coming out later this week for his final time.

We've committed to make a #1, #2, or Neither decision by Tuesday or Wed.
 
#12
Sartori said:
After three lead singers, my band decided not to have lead singers anymore and handle the vocal duties ourselves.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm dead set against paying anyone in my band who can't play an instrument (and I don't mean a tambourine!). My experience has been that singers are more of a PITA than they're worth. Many have a poor sense of timing, and very little understanding of theory (either formal or intuitive). Ego issues often arise, too. In our five piece country band EVERY member has the ability to play multiple instruments, and sing (good) lead vocals. All can sing harmony vocals. A fortunate situation, for sure!
 
#14
I would agree that having a strong lead singer (or two) who also play instruments full-time vs. "just" a lead singer is preferable from a financial perspective. For the same reason I have lost out on a few gigs because I "just" play bass vs. bass and vocals.

OTOH, from a crowd interaction perspective I do think you lose something not having a dedicated "frontman". I went from a band that had two guitarists splitting lead vocal / frontman duties to a band where we have a true frontman who only straps on an acoustic guitar for a few songs a night, and the band I'm in now does far better at engaging crowds than my last band did.

That being said... having no frontman is better than having a frontman who is bad at the job and/or doesn't pull his/her weight off stage.
 
#15
jaywa said:
OTOH, from a crowd interaction perspective I do think you lose something not having a dedicated "frontman". I went from a band that had two guitarists splitting lead vocal / frontman duties to a band where we have a true frontman who only straps on an acoustic guitar for a few songs a night, and the band I'm in now does far better at engaging crowds than my last band did.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't disagree. Our rhythm guitarist is our front man, and it's his band, and mostly, his crowd ... he's been doing this since the early 60's!
 
#16
My take is no one's perfect, but if I have to choose between the person who's more challenging to work with musically or the one who's more challenging to work with personally, if find it to be a no-brainer to go with guy who just needs to spruce his chops up a bit.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back