General Music Chat

c'mon guys...why all the hate for singers?

You know you can't live without us.






My advice is forgive the guy if he's any good. It's faster than finding another one.

Maybe put a sheet over his head and everyone beat him with sand-filled socks....give him an earful, and try to correct the "not calling" situation but the singer defines a band's sound more than anyone. It would be better (and maybe easier) to start another band than to replace a singer of an established band.

Agreed.

Why are singers the way they are? Cuz they 'can' be. (if they are good)
Either put up with it as much as ya can or hitch your wagon to a good singer that wants to lead and has his own vision.

It's like the oldthing: "why do IT guys all go to lunch at the same time?" (rather than in shifts to provide coverage)
Answer: because they can.

I don't put up with the sh!t, though. An 'established band' isn't going to be established for long if the singer doesn't show up for gigs on time.

Our singer in M I shows up early and helps with setup 90% of the time. He also stays until the last piece of gear is loaded into the trailers 100% of the time! He and I have had some disaggeements over the years but all in all he is a REAL Helpful and AWESOME singer. I love him like a brother! My problem, as is a lot of peoples problem is we expect eveyone to be perfect ALL the time. I really struggle with this. In reality PEOPLE are NOT perfect and if we are going to play in bands with PEOPLE we are going to have to except this!

c'mon guys...why all the hate for singers?

You know you can't live without us.






My advice is forgive the guy if he's any good. It's faster than finding another one.

Maybe put a sheet over his head and everyone beat him with sand-filled socks....give him an earful, and try to correct the "not calling" situation but the singer defines a band's sound more than anyone. It would be better (and maybe easier) to start another band than to replace a singer of an established band.

knowing that only makes me madder at them because many DO have the attitude that you won't be able to replace them, so they feel they can do whatever they want. I think they call it LSD (lead singer disease) on another board...

NOTHING defines a band more than the lead singer. Any other position is easier to replace than the human element of a singer's voice.

As a lead singer, I was the face of the band and the guy who got the gigs. I had to deal with guitar player egos, flaky drummers, and no-show bassists for 20 years before going solo.

I hated it at first but don't think I could ever go back now. The last time I tried putting a band together, couldn't get pro musicians being paid EXTREMELY WELL to all show up at the same time even once out of three PAID rehearsals.

So give this guy another break for working late hours at Walmart so he can afford to sing in your band.

Until it's paying the bills, you can't really expect everyone to have the same ambition...and will constantly be going through situations like this with every member eventually. Have grace toward each other or you'll be forming a new band every 3 months.

Maybe you can find a way to penalize a member for not giving advance notice when they can't show up...but anything more than that will only cost you as much as it costs them.









.

YOD,not poking at you in anyway, but the guy didnt call, or anything.

I appreciate all views and inputs in this matter. Like I said this is not the first time he has left us hanging, by my count it's 5 or 6. If it was just up to me I would have fired him after the third incident. I got a message on fb from him today, saying that he had messed up the day he thought we were supposed to rehearse. My question is, if four us can remember, why not him? I will keep him around and use him until I can replace him. End of story.

It's like the oldthing: "why do IT guys all go to lunch at the same time?" (rather than in shifts to provide coverage)
Answer: because they can.

I don't put up with the sh!t, though. An 'established band' isn't going to be established for long if the singer doesn't show up for gigs on time.

No, the late for gig or missing gig you have to draw the line.

NOTHING defines a band more than the lead singer. Any other position is easier to replace than the human element of a singer's voice.

As a lead singer, I was the face of the band and the guy who got the gigs. I had to deal with guitar player egos, flaky drummers, and no-show bassists for 20 years before going solo.

I hated it at first but don't think I could ever go back now. The last time I tried putting a band together, couldn't get pro musicians being paid EXTREMELY WELL to all show up at the same time even once out of three PAID rehearsals.

So give this guy another break for working late hours at Walmart so he can afford to sing in your band.

Until it's paying the bills, you can't really expect everyone to have the same ambition...and will constantly be going through situations like this with every member eventually. Have grace toward each other or you'll be forming a new band every 3 months.

Maybe you can find a way to penalize a member for not giving advance notice when they can't show up...but anything more than that will only cost you as much as it costs them.
.

We've all dealt with flaky, irresponsible people on every instrument, and don't think I'm giving them a pass either- I just don't see why I should give a singer extra latitude that I wouldn't give someone else, just because he/she is harder to replace.. that's not fair to anyone in the band, and you know that rule about giving people an inch and they take a mile...

I understand that they are harder to replace, but I'd rather do auditions for a year to find a better singer than go thru a year of BS and no-shows just because I'm afraid of losing them.

NOTHING defines a band more than the lead singer. Any other position is easier to replace than the human element of a singer's voice.

As a lead singer, I was the face of the band and the guy who got the gigs. I had to deal with guitar player egos, flaky drummers, and no-show bassists for 20 years before going solo.

I hated it at first but don't think I could ever go back now. The last time I tried putting a band together, couldn't get pro musicians being paid EXTREMELY WELL to all show up at the same time even once out of three PAID rehearsals.

So give this guy another break for working late hours at Walmart so he can afford to sing in your band.

Until it's paying the bills, you can't really expect everyone to have the same ambition...and will constantly be going through situations like this with every member eventually. Have grace toward each other or you'll be forming a new band every 3 months.

Maybe you can find a way to penalize a member for not giving advance notice when they can't show up...but anything more than that will only cost you as much as it costs them.
.

We've all dealt with flaky, irresponsible people on every instrument, and don't think I'm giving them a pass either- I just don't see why I should give a singer extra latitude that I wouldn't give someone else, just because he/she is harder to replace.. that's not fair to anyone in the band, and you know that rule about giving people an inch and they take a mile...

I understand that they are harder to replace, but I'd rather do auditions for a year to find a better singer than go thru a year of BS and no-shows just because I'm afraid of losing them.

I simply don't agree that a vocalist is harder to replace.
Players that fit the chemistry are hard to find. Instrument of choice irrelevant.
Losers are losers and like a turd in the punch bowl it will spoil the whole project.
You can pretend it's a BabyRuth and go on drinking it if you like.
But don't expect me to.

Fact: 'Talented' singers are harder to replace.
That's just the way of things, and life isn't fair.

JW and Haley live in the cover band wheelhouse, so I consider what they have to say, but outside of that, Yod has done the most out of any of us here, so I would pay attention to what he has to say about the biz

Fact: 'Talented' singers are harder to replace.
That's just the way of things, and life isn't fair.

JW and Haley live in the cover band wheelhouse, so I consider what they have to say, but outside of that, Yod has done the most out of any of us here, so I would pay attention to what he has to say about the biz

Perhaps . . . I have discovered that in life being that close to a problem restricts ones vision for options.
Music ( bands ) are no different than any other life endeavor that requires team work.
Therefore the challenges are essentially the same.
To limit one's self in any endeavor based on a preconception, is to accept defeat even before the battle.

We've all dealt with flaky, irresponsible people on every instrument, and don't think I'm giving them a pass either- I just don't see why I should give a singer extra latitude that I wouldn't give someone else, just because he/she is harder to replace.. that's not fair to anyone in the band, and you know that rule about giving people an inch and they take a mile...

I understand that they are harder to replace, but I'd rather do auditions for a year to find a better singer than go thru a year of BS and no-shows just because I'm afraid of losing them.

I agree they shouldn't feel like they get life tenure by virtue of being a vocalist. All I'm saying is you change a vocalist and it really is a new band, unlike changing out a drummer, bassist, or guitarist.

Did anyone see Paul Rodgers with Queen? He's a great singer...one of the best...but that wasn't Queen.

All I'm saying is changing a singer makes it a new band, and that usually means completely starting over with a new name, etc.

So once you've found the sound you're going for, it's going to much easier to work out behavioral differences (assuming they want to work it out) than to replace him/her. Every single person in the band is going to flake out for some reason eventually. If you replace this singer, you're just going to get a new set of problems so sometimes it's just easier and quicker to deal with existing flakes than to hire new ones.

If he's totally unreliable and doesn't show any signs of remorse then, yea, you have to give him the boot. My only point is that it might be quicker to whip his ass, wait for him to heal, and then hire him back.





.

We've all dealt with flaky, irresponsible people on every instrument, and don't think I'm giving them a pass either- I just don't see why I should give a singer extra latitude that I wouldn't give someone else, just because he/she is harder to replace.. that's not fair to anyone in the band, and you know that rule about giving people an inch and they take a mile...

I understand that they are harder to replace, but I'd rather do auditions for a year to find a better singer than go thru a year of BS and no-shows just because I'm afraid of losing them.

I agree they shouldn't feel like they get life tenure by virtue of being a vocalist. All I'm saying is you change a vocalist and it really is a new band, unlike changing out a drummer, bassist, or guitarist.

Did anyone see Paul Rodgers with Queen? He's a great singer...one of the best...but that wasn't Queen.

All I'm saying is changing a singer makes it a new band, and that usually means completely starting over with a new name, etc.

So once you've found the sound you're going for, it's going to much easier to work out behavioral differences (assuming they want to work it out) than to replace him/her. Every single person in the band is going to flake out for some reason eventually. If you replace this singer, you're just going to get a new set of problems so sometimes it's just easier and quicker to deal with existing flakes than to hire new ones.

If he's totally unreliable and doesn't show any signs of remorse then, yea, you have to give him the boot. My only point is that it might be quicker to whip his ass, wait for him to heal, and then hire him back.





.

Now that I can fully agree with . . .

The fact that most vocalist "instrument" is so unique that to change vocalist is essentially to begin anew is likely entirely accurate.

Yet, if that instrumental instrument is entirely undependable a new start is perhaps exactly what is needed.