• 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.

Singers who don't play an instrument?

#43
JohnMCA72 said:
There's a lot more to singing than just singing.

It can be useful sometimes (but not essential) to have a singer "play" an instrument, even if it's basically only a prop.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

When i started learning fretless bass my teacher at the time told me to listen to really good vocalists - like Sinatra - and try to emulate them. Their phrasing, use of dynamics etc.

I took some vocal lessons years ago because I wanted to be able to handle some background singing. guess what we worked on. Scales, intervals and the like.

The voice is an instrument just like any other.
 
#44
I like when all the members sing a little if needed, no matter if you have the talent in right places all of "your" voices could be used in my opinion. Its about communication and having fun.

I am trying to get into singing besides my bass playing - im just stepping out of novicehood and starting to be able to "Play". So I suspect it will be awhile before I will be able to sing and play bass simultaneously- lots of passion though I really feel I want to "push" myself and get out there. Just thinking about being able to sing & play makes me shiver with joy (kind of introverted here so its scary as hell aswell).

Answer to the question: I like if they can play but they should feel "right" if either is compromised then I would rather have a singer that sings well or an instrumentalist who plays well - there are few who arent "special" at either but when they combine the two they become "AWESOME".
 
#45
I'm a lead vocalist and front person for our original rock band. I have a working knowledge of guitar (plus 2 years of piano as a kid) and basic theory, but I rarely play. I write all of the lyrics and melodies for our material, yet I couldn't tell you what key most of our songs are in. I do it all by ear. The music itself is initially created either by our guitarist or bass player, and then all band members contribute to the development and arrangements for each song. When auditioning a singer for an original band, I would make it clear up front that you're looking for someone who can also contribute to the writing process. Yes, it's good if they have some basic music theory because music is a language unto itself and it helps if everyone has a basic understanding. But if someone has a natural talent for songwriting , sings well and is a strong performer, I wouldn't turn them down because their knowledge of theory is weak.

It's true that there's a lot more to fronting a band than just being a good singer. It's quite a workout, actually. I never stop movin' and groovin' on stage. It's all about putting on an engaging, high-energy show. Plus, it's a public relations position. The lead singer often ends up representing the band to the public, and sure enough, people tend to make a bee-line for me when we get off stage. I'm always happy to help load in and out wherever I can (I'm female with a slight build, so I can't do some of the heavier lifting), but my fellow band members have made it quite clear that after a show, I am to leave the gear schlepping to them and go greet the crowd. Making personal connections with audience members, however brief they may be, boosts the band's image all round, IMO. I'm sure we've all seen bands that were great musicians, but were then put right off when they turned out to be antisocial, egotistical or snobbish.
 
#48
Honestly, unless you're listening to jazz, most people go out to see a band and hear the vocals. You lose an audience, for the most part, with poor vocals or no vocals. Vocals bring it all together. You can have fantastic musicians, but with crappy singing a lot of people won't think the band is that good. And to a lot of people, the singer IS THE BAND. For those of us who play instruments, and play them well, we don't like to face that fact. But IME, that's the truth.

I do some singing, mostly backup, but I sing a couple songs. I'm not that good. Actually, I'm terrible. I'd be more than happy to hand that off to someone else and concentrate on my bass playing.

With that being said, I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM with a singer who doesn't play an instrument. They are bringing an instrument.....one that I can't play.....which is their voice. If they are hardworking and willing to be part of the band and contribute.....I say go for it. Your band only gets better with strong vocals......and if you have an opportunity to perform better with a dedicated vocalist....seems like a good idea to me. I wish we had a vocalist in our band.....'cause while we are all good with our instruments.....our singing sucks and we would be a lot better with good vocals......
 
#49
I've met some really great singers who sang in church choir. Not sure, but I don't think many of them knew much about any instruments, but they could sight read, understood a bit about music theory and could improvise melodies. And sadly, none of them were remotely interested in being in a band. Go fig.

But I'd pick any of them over most of the singer songwriter guitarists I meet.
 
#50
Well you could ask the guys in Journey how far they'd have gotten without Steve Perry. Or maybe Aerosmith without Steven Tyler. And I think there's this English band that has a dude by the name of Jagger or something like that?????

Since when is the voice NOT a musical instrument?
 
#51
BayStateBass said:
Honestly, unless you're listening to jazz, most people go out to see a band and hear the vocals. You lose an audience, for the most part, with poor vocals or no vocals. Vocals bring it all together. You can have fantastic musicians, but with crappy singing a lot of people won't think the band is that good. And to a lot of people, the singer IS THE BAND. For those of us who play instruments, and play them well, we don't like to face that fact. But IME, that's the truth.

I do some singing, mostly backup, but I sing a couple songs. I'm not that good. Actually, I'm terrible. I'd be more than happy to hand that off to someone else and concentrate on my bass playing.

With that being said, I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM with a singer who doesn't play an instrument. They are bringing an instrument.....one that I can't play.....which is their voice. If they are hardworking and willing to be part of the band and contribute.....I say go for it. Your band only gets better with strong vocals......and if you have an opportunity to perform better with a dedicated vocalist....seems like a good idea to me. I wish we had a vocalist in our band.....'cause while we are all good with our instruments.....our singing sucks and we would be a lot better with good vocals......
Click to expand...

soulman969 said:
Well you could ask the guys in Journey how far they'd have gotten without Steve Perry. Or maybe Aerosmith without Steven Tyler. And I think there's this English band that has a dude by the name of Jagger or something like that?????

Since when is the voice NOT a musical instrument?
Click to expand...

Thank you, gentlemen. Not only is a voice an instrument, but it is a UNIQUE instrument that you cannot buy at Guitar Center, or on eBay.

It has a character all its own, and when it's good, it is the "face" of the band.

All singers play an instrument, and many of them play an instrument that many other musicians couldn't even DREAM of mastering!
 
#52
im sorry to resurrect this old thread, but i was just browsing the topic on google and found the topic interesting.. and couldn't help but notice the one idiot in this thread. So i signed up and was going to post what an idiot he is. That's all. Peace
 
#53
From an audience perspective, I think it's much more entertaining to see a band with a singer who plays guitar rather than vox alone. Non-instrumentalist singers remind me too much of boy bands like One Direction, etc. plus, though many can pull it off, a lotta people are kinda awkward up there with no instrument; they don't know what to do sit their body. A guitar gives them something to do
 
#54
For years I've played in 3 and 4 pieces and resisted having a singer only frontperson after being worn out dealing with divas in the past. Recently though, my trio act has been getting pretty stale and we have been looking to add a fourth member, ideally someone who can sing high leads and harmonies and plays some guitar or keys. Well we didn't find a singer player but we did find a friend of our drummer, a 27 year old burlesque dancer with a great voice. No musical training, no experience except some backup singing in the burlesque show and karaoke.

Okay so at first mention from my drummer about auditioning her I had all the red flags come up but c'mon, I had to check her out. So we audition her and she's got a great voice and a good natural ear and is VERY hot and knows how to use the stage. No previous band experience and anxious to learn and very personable and down to earth and so far very un-divalike. Kinda funny on the first song we were working on I said "That's where you come in, after the turnaround after the lead when the key changes" and I don't think she had a clue what a turnaround is and I know she had no clue what key the song starts in or finishes in but she came in on cue and on key!

So against all my better senses I am seeing $$$$. Here's a beautiful untrained vocalist who knows how to move and is ours to mold into the ultimate femme fatale frontperson. Two practices and a half dozen songs worked up and more on the way. Rather than just adding her to our current trio we are creating whole new setlists and will debute this act soon with a different name. Could be a fun ride and the commercial potential is huge or it could be a bum trip. Time will tell but it's not my only project so I'm gonna give it a whirl.
 
#55
Probably the biggest reason I'm aiming to be a bassist and a singer with my band (that got pushed back to next school year thanks to various events that I would never take back) is that I'm leery of a singer who doesn't play an instrument in a band, and I would rather take it up myself than impose on someone else/be stuck with a great musician who sucks at singing.

As to why I'm leery...it just seems like a lot of drama stems from that. Maybe it's because around the time I was thinking about this, the drama with Queensrÿche went down in force (for the unfamiliar, the singer of the band was fired for being an immature a__hat, and started his own version of the band, claiming he owns the right to the name). I wanted to avoid that. Also, I feel bad for singers like James LaBrie, who have nothing to do on stage when there's a long instrumental passage (when I saw them he actually left the stage for those parts!).
 
#56
My take is this: IF the singer is as good at his vocal instrument as the rest of the band is on their instruments then I am all for it. Jon Anderson is a good example of this. His voice is as good an instrument within the music of YES as are any of the stringed instruments, keyboards or drums. Paul Rodgers is another great voice that I look upon as an instrument in the band. but the list is short...very short.
If your singer is capable of adding a vocal signature to the band, and is a showman as well, then by all means, let him concentrate on singing.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back