So what is everyone's opinion? Is performance more effective if your singer can grab a mic and junp around a bit? Lance plays guitar AND sings, and I know that his stage presence might come out a bit if he wasn't strapped to his Ibanez. We're actively recruiting dude from Farmington(ok, we're trying to convince his wife) and we're really looking forward to being a four piece. So what do all you Squawker's think, in general? Would you rather hace a trio or a quar/quin-tet?

Honestly, I've never been a fan of someone who just sings without playing an instrument. That's just my personal taste, though. Being raised on Lennon/McCartney, Bob Dylan, and others, singing and playing always looked so natural to me. I mean, could you imagine Johnny Cash just singing?

I'm of two minds.

I guess it matters how much better you sound and look. It's hard to be hypothetical when you judge bands one by one anyway. At first glace I associate only-singers with manufactured bands slapped together as one person ego-vehicles (Ashlee Simpson), while I associate guitar player-singers with passion, skill, a good work ethic and a clear unspoiled vision.

One one hand, those bands mentioned by mc, plus Nirvana, Pixies, Talking Heads, any number of others-I got into those bands in part because they seemed so much more legitimate when the singer is also playing something. Adding another person to the band makes scheduling harder, personality conflicts bigger, another person to split the money with... (maybe I'm just projecting there). It's also hard to put down your instrument. If he's involved in songwriting..is he ever going to play guitar? He either will waste time practicing something that is not working toward the stage sound or he will get rusty on his instrument (it's a tough choice). There also might be conflicts with what the new guy is playing if you see it a certain way.

On the other hand, I hear you on being tied down to something. Singing and playing together is not as fun when you know you could be giving either one more if you were doing it by itself. Some bands where the singer does not or usually does not play an instrument: Led Zeppelin, The Who, Black Sabbath, Rolling Stones, The Doors, The Dead Kennedys, Van Halen. These examples are good, because I don't give these singers as much credit as I give the above examples (Beatles, etc.) Some of them can't even play an instrument but get all the attention. Singers have to be big personalities as well as be good singers to sell it.

I think the key factor is how the chemistry of the band works out that way. Personally, I think a 4th member to free up the vocals more and add more thunda to the performance would be pretty cool for you guys. You guys have a lot of sound as a 3-piece though.

To counter what someone else said, some metal bands off the top of my head that have a vox only vocalist-
Killswitch Engage, Mudvayne, Tool/APC, Korn, Slipknot, Fear Factory, Disturbed

sorry to agree with the latter, but as a third person, and having a brief stint with the real thought of having a "lead man" when we were way younger, i seriously just see complications.

It's hard for someone to not "get an ego" when they are front. Mind you there r some damn good local bands who can pull that shit off. Mind you also that a lot of them, they're lead plays an instrament to begin with. but as was said if there just up there w/out anything else in their background, it just starts to be a one man show.

the examples (beatles, etc.) are good, i mean unless you are the beach boys, but wait. . . their voices were their instraments. . . so all of them get mad probs for almost never picking up an instrament after California Girls. . .well practically

Lemmetellyasomething else related to this.... Whether or not your singer is tied down to an instrument or not, it should make eye contact with the audience. Learning to play without watching your fret hand and singing out of the corner of your mouth is pretty easy once you try it. Plus, it also looks pretty cool to people (well, me) when you can play your instrument without looking, so it is helpful if you are also tied down to pedals all the time and can't caper around the stage. This goes double for the singer sans-instrument. If you are looking at the cieling when you sing and at your feet between verses, you just lost me.

We have a lead singer but he doesn't consider him self the "Band Leader" at all. He just sees his instrument as his voice (he also can play the bass/guitar/drums). As for the whole keeping the audience compelled to stay and listen I almost never see him look away from the audience and he is very interactive with them. When ever I'm singing and playing I try to look out as much as I can but I don't sing to much (except for the great I Hate Country Music) which I sing by myself. Also, unless I'm looking at what I'm playing or thrashing around I never look away. So I guess you could say that I am a fan of the four piece but I have great respect for people who can play and sing entire songs and keep the audience interested. Also in a four peice with a lead singer you get to work the crowd more while you're playing.

originally a five peice band, we are now a four member army, our lead singer being our drummer. We fired our former drummer and our lead singer took over on drum duty. this is both good and bad. We do lose quite a bit of stage presence, but we now have a tighter faster drummer, who gets a little bit more credit for pulling double duties. personally i liked having a lead singer, but stage presence showmanship etc is no substitute for good sound/good music.

it makes no difference to me and it's too general of a question to be answered one way or the other. when people come together to make music there are so many variables involved and each situation is completely different form the next. it just depends on the chemistry of the players and what they are delivering.

i will say though that i think it takes a badass to be a singer/lead player at the same time (and be good at it)... be it drummer/singer, bass/singer or guitar player/singer.

Webmonkey's right. I wrote it pretty vaguely. As usual, the venerable Mr. Foodstamps makes some extremely good observations. I've struggled with becoming a four piece specifically because the drama doesn't just go up by 25%, it goes up exponentially. Not even bad drama, but scheduling practice becomes that much more difficult, etc., etc. We are trying like hell to get this other guitarist because we can see the potential of having 2 different guitar parts. I think it's just on like 2-3 tunes Lance wishes he could take his guitar off.

quote:

the drama doesn't just go up by 25%, it goes up exponentially

bad sign bro

SuperGiant is the first band i've been in where there is no egos, no whining, no conflict of musical styles, no flaking out and pretty much no BS whatsoever, were all bros and all on the same page. That is next to impossible to find, but when you find it, it's a beautiful thing.

You said in the first post that you're "trying to convince his wife" ..... This is a very bad sign bro and it will probably turn into a problem. If his lady its the one calling the shots, you better look for another player.

And I certainly make it sound more dramatic than it is. My bit about drama going up exponentially (again, not necessarily bad drama)is just because people are people. I wouldn't have an ego-prone individual in the band. The drama I was referring to is stuff like, scheduling, what about kids, what about spouses, scheduling, scheduling...I agree that we might be headed for disaster in terms of this dude's wife, but we'll see. The nice thing about this band is that we can totally get it done with three. That's a plus. I don't know that I would be able to deal with auditioning guitarists. This guy we're trying to get has been a member of the Plague Family for some time, so I think we're safe.

Power Trio! My bands a power trio and im playing and singing. Power trios are going to be cool if everyone in the band takes the time and puts out twice the energy. When we play (and do well) i and colin and AJ are all over the place going crazy-go-nuts. The audience watches only three people up there instead of four or five so the three duders or dudettes or dudes with dudettes have to be much more entertaining. Also adding another person to a group may just screw up the chemistry of the band. you might get a salt and water instead of CO2 and water. the end. hee hee

vocalists simply look better if they're playing, regardless of whether they sing well or write well.
that's just the way it is.

and if two vocalists can harmonize on the same mike, they've won me over

quote:

Originally posted by captain america:
vocalists simply look better if they're playing, regardless of whether they sing well or write well.
that's just the way it is.

If it sounds good it is good...who gives a fuck what it looks like??? Who cares if there is ten, two, three and a half with a dog, hell some bands have people who just stand on stage for presence...good music is good music no matter who is doing what!

[/QUOTE]If it sounds good it is good...who gives a fuck what it looks like??? Who cares if there is ten, two, three and a half with a dog, hell some bands have people who just stand on stage for presence...good music is good music no matter who is doing what![/QUOTE]

I have to agree with Rock Fock! Whatever sounds good to ya' then go with it! I saw you guys at rocksquawk awhile back and I thought you guys were awesome with that particular set-up!

--Third Hour
www.myspace.com/3rdhour

quote:

Originally posted by Duckturtle:
I have to agree with Rock Fock! Whatever sounds good to ya' then go with it! I saw you guys at rocksquawk awhile back and I thought you guys were awesome with that particular set-up!

Thank you for the compliment but i think you are thinking of someone else...

Sorry, I was speaking about Simfonik Plague! Did I spell that right?

quote:

Originally posted by Rock Fock:
If it sounds good it is good...who gives a fuck what it looks like???

i do. and many others do too.
if someone just gets up there and stares at their feet, doesn't move or doesn't look like they're having any fun, i have no reason to watch. and if i'm not watching, the band doesn't get my full attention.
i always prefer to be right up front by the stage, checking things out but if there's nothing to see, maybe i'll just go sit with my drink someplace.

i agree good music is still good music but there's a difference between a concert and a show.

rock and roll has always been the full package of sound and visuals whether it's the beach boys dressing alike, psychedelic light shows, new york dolls glam trash, p-funk excess or metal dudes wearing black on black.

quote:

Originally posted by captain america:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rock Fock:
If it sounds good it is good...who gives a fuck what it looks like???

i do. and many others do too.
if someone just gets up there and stares at their feet, doesn't move or doesn't look like they're having any fun, i have no reason to watch. and if i'm not watching, the band doesn't get my full attention.
i always prefer to be right up front by the stage, checking things out but if there's nothing to see, maybe i'll just go sit with my drink someplace.

i agree good music is still good music but there's a difference between a concert and a show.[QUOTE]

rock and roll has always been the full package of sound and visuals whether it's the beach boys dressing alike, psychedelic light shows, new york dolls glam trash, p-funk excess or metal dudes wearing black on black.[QUOTE]

Yes it is a show but to discount all vocalists or a band because he or she does not have an instrument in hand is a generalization with no real validity in my mind...singers have a built in instrument that requires no power but the power of the soul so there is an unmatched purity there... can you really discount all the vocalists who have played and played exceptionally well because they are not playing a harmonica or guitar or fiddle...UHHH???
I agree a concert is a concert and a show is a show...I would much rather see Rage Against the Machine in concert, a band who have no bullshit on stage no visuals but an upside down American flag, no distractions and feel them leave there love and soul on stage, then to watch the carefully orchestrated visual extravaganza and have sub par music and effort with no feeling there is a fine line between a show and a gimmick (ex. half the modern popular bands)...Visuals do not equate to a good show and neither does someone who moves...Adam Jones from Tool doesn't move an inch during their performance, it seems as though he is dead but there is more life in him and his guitar and music than 90% of the people playing today...From my standpoint there are many things to look at always in every show, if you have eyes then it is a constant, but I will reiterate that if it sounds good it is good...the best of the best often times have all the elements sound, presence, and visuals but the visuals come last with the ability to pay for them... in the same breath if you cannot recognize good music because someone doesn't appeal to your visual standards maybe you should close your eyes and listen? Appearance and clothes will always be the last factor determining the relevance of such a pure pastime that music is... it is always about the MUSIC!!!! Do you think when Jim Morrison took a shit on stage in San Francisco he was concerned with what the crowd was interpreting how about that for a visual?...He is widely regarded as a genius, never heard him play a lick...