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.
I used to do some singing while playing bass in different rock bands in the 1970's, then I retired from gigging for 28 years. When I returned to gigging in 2008 I made a decision to do no singing, and I've had no problem finding jobs in bands that already have enough vocal firepower. My reasons for not singing are:
1. I consider myself to be a better bassist than singer, and I choose to not dilute my brand by singing.
2. I find some songs difficult to play and sing simultaneously, and I'm not about to dumb down my playing just so I can sing.
3. I don't have to tote a mic stand.
I know that good vocals are hard to come by, but, honestly, I hear a lot of instrumentalists who also sing who I wish would simply stop singing, even if it means that the band does more instrumentals.
So, if you play but don't sing, what is your reason for doing so?
It's a sidebar to the topic, at best. I disagree with the implication that singing well is easy, or more easily attained than working at a different sort of instrument, but that's ok. I do think a lot of non-singers have not got a clue what it takes to do it well, and that's part of why so many in this thread are saying they don't do it well. Everyone concentrates in music on being good at something, and not all of us are singers, and that's ok.The bar is low probably caused some knee jerk reaction. What I was trying to say is if you put the work in, most anyone can be a competent singer and connect with audiences in a way that far exceeds the payout for the bajiliions of hours it takes to be Steve Vai, and there aren't but about 3 total spots in any given generation for virtuoso instrumentalist, who are pretty much only followed by a few hundred nerdy middle aged males.