Lead singers who play instruments vs those who don't

[yoda313]

Hi,

So do you think there's any difference between lead singers who actively play instruments during songs versus just singing????

I don't think so on the radio/cd. But it does impact live perfomances sometimes. I can't say which is better but do you notice any differences at all????

Kevin

[smearbrick1]

One of the most annoying things about a band is a lead singer that only sings. I say this because I have been in several cover bands that have had a lead singer that couldn't play another instrument. You fell almost ripped off at the end of the night when you are dividing up the money between band members. I just think that playing an instrument and singing at the same time (as I do) is much more work and deserves more money than merely singing.

As far as professionals (the guys/women you see on the road) there is usually no difference in their performances. They are so heavily rehearsed that singing and playing at the same time is like second nature. A perfect example would be James Hetfield from Metallica. Just listen to some of the rhythm guitar parts he is playing while singing. (Creeping Death, King Nothing, Blitzkrieg, Through The Never). Another great example is Les Claypool of Primus. The guy is playing a 6-string bass (two hand tapping w/ double taps) and can still sing "DMV" without missing a beat. If can find it, check out a live version of "My Name Is Mud". Check out how he slaps the sixtuplet (2 sixteenth note triplets) rhythm while singing... Talent...pure talent.

Other example I just thought of:

Derek and The Dominoes - "Layla" - The chorus riff is pretty difficult to nail while singing the lead. Wasn't a problem for Eric Clapton.

[offline]

Only when they can't play, pretend, but can't be
bothered to do it decently OR much worse - they
can play and make sure you know it by adding
unnecessary chords and complications to a decent
song.

If you don't have a musical bone in your body
stick to RAP

[Cole]

Then of course there was Freddy Mercury. He sometimes played the Piano, but most of the time his antics while singing made the performance.

[yoda313]

Hi,

Yeah I think sometimes "singing only" performers are a tad tame on stage. Though of course there's the madonnas and britney spears who are up there shaking there booty and nothing else

But artists like Clapton, Phil Collins, and others that play and sing are more interesting on stage.

Kevin

[SquirrelDip]

I saw a stripper once that played a recorder...

nudge-nudge-wink-wink

[Stingray]

Hi,

Yeah I think sometimes "singing only" performers are a tad tame on stage. Though of course there's the madonnas and britney spears who are up there shaking there booty and nothing else

But artists like Clapton, Phil Collins, and others that play and sing are more interesting on stage.

Kevin

I think I remember Madonna playing guitar during a performance once...

[yoda313]

Hi,

Yeah but I don't think thats what she's remembered for

Kevin

(and probably dubbed anyway )

[CuCuy]

Hi,

Yeah but I don't think thats what she's remembered for

Right. She's better known for playing with herself. Not sure if that counts as an instrument...

If the singer is truly good, it doesn't matter much to me if he/she doesn't play an instrument, such as the case of No Doubt, though I'm sure many of you would disagree that they're a good band or that Gwen is a good singer. On the flip side, though, look at a band like Foo Fighters. Dave Grohl isn't that great of a singer(IMHO), but he more than makes up for it with his other musical abilities.

[JohnnyCNote]

I play guitar and did vocals for my band. The main reason I didn't want a separate singer was because it would have been an extra ego to deal with. It just wouldn't have worked in Last Rites, which was always intended to be a "power trio"....

[hech54]

The WORST thing is when idiots like Madonna do commercials for organizations called "Musicians For Life" or something like that.
Singers are singers....NOT musicians.
Rappers are not musicians...they talk and steal riffs from other people's hard work, stick it in a computer and call it music.....I think NOT.
I am VERY into "singers" myself...I have much respect for a genuinely talented singer....hell even Celine Dion is technically a great singer....it is WHAT she sings that turns me off.
I don't mind a singer in a band or a solo performer (singer) at all as long as they have talent and don't feel the need to swear on every other word.

[stiltman]

I think David Lee Roth made and broke Vanhalen and he was basically just a singer.


BTW, He's going to be doing a radio show in replace of Stern's

[CuCuy]

The WORST thing is when idiots like Madonna do commercials for organizations called "Musicians For Life" or something like that.
Singers are singers....NOT musicians.

I agree with what you're saying to an extent, but there are often times when a singer is also a songwriter. To me that qualifies them as a musician.

I think David Lee Roth made and broke Vanhalen and he was basically just a singer.


BTW, He's going to be doing a radio show in replace of Stern's

Nothing against Roth, but I think Hagar is a better singer by far. I love both incarnations of Van Halen, I'm just a little more partial to the Sammy years. As for Roth replacing Stern, it hasn't been confirmed yet, so technically it's just a rumor.

[Lucifers_Ghost]

I'll chime in.

Being a musician and having been in a few bands, there is a difference, but only sometimes.

Singers are widely considered to be the "leader" of the band. You rarely hear a drummer say anything for example. So given that, many singers develop over inflated ego's. Not all, but quite a few. Of course, other band people do as well. It comes with fame I think.

Besides that fact, I have no preference for either side. I think a singer who plays something is definately more talented. I can do both but on the occasional song, you have to concentrate a little more than others. Besides, usually bands that have a singer that only sings, there is only one guitar player. I prefer two. Sounds more "full." You have a rhythum playing over solos. You can harmonize. So much more diversity.

However, typically, a singer who only sings, tends to be a little more "animated" on stage. They run around a lot more and play up the crowd. Mick Jagger is a PERFECT example of that. The guy is an animal on stage (and this is coming from someone who doesnt like them all that much). If he played guitar lets say, it wouldnt be the same. He would be much more stationary.

So they both have their advantages and disadvantages to me.

LG

[yoda313]

Hi,

So they both have their advantages and disadvantages to me.

I guess thats all I was trying to say in my first post. Some are more active than others depending on there personallity. But it does take more energy/talent to sing and play at the same time. However that doesn't necessarily make one better than the other. Just different.

Kevin

[Lucifers_Ghost]

Hi,

So they both have their advantages and disadvantages to me.

I guess thats all I was trying to say in my first post. Some are more active than others depending on there personallity. But it does take more energy/talent to sing and play at the same time. However that doesn't necessarily make one better than the other. Just different.

Kevin

Depends on what kind of "energy" you are talking about. I would stagger a guess and say that Mick Jagger (singer only) is WAAAAY more tired than David Gilmour (singer/player) at the end of a concert lol Different personality mind you. Gilmour lets his voice and guitar move FOR him .. but its hard tell if he is even alive on stage lol

More talent? Definately!!!