|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 13, 2021 19:50:11 GMT
You must have some questions about the history or present of music. I know almost every day I seem to find myself wondering why more bands don't..., why this band never..., why why why. Tell me why!
It's one of my long-spouted rants that bands with multiple singers and songwriters tend to fare better than those with one. Even if that one is a truly unique talent, the lack of creative tension, editing, and even just diversity/texture to the music often hurts. So my question is, even though many great ones over the years have done exactly that, why don't more bands use multiple singers and songwriters?
If you want to comment on my question, great. If you have your own questions to throw into the pot, go for it.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jul 14, 2021 5:12:56 GMT
You must have some questions about the history or present of music. I know almost every day I seem to find myself wondering why more bands don't..., why this band never..., why why why. Tell me why!
It's one of my long-spouted rants that bands with multiple singers and songwriters tend to fare better than those with one. Even if that one is a truly unique talent, the lack of creative tension, editing, and even just diversity/texture to the music often hurts. So my question is, even though many great ones over the years have done exactly that, why don't more bands use multiple singers and songwriters?
If you want to comment on my question, great. If you have your own questions to throw into the pot, go for it.
Funny you should ask; on my drive home tonight, I was listening to Mardi Gras by Creedence.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 14, 2021 15:50:21 GMT
To take a stab at answering my own question, I think the reason is a very human one: people very often look to live their lives to serve their (and their family's) best interests, to seek their own satisfaction, more than they do to be a part of the best possible [whatever].
Think of a great backup quarterback or point guard in pro sports. He shows his skills, the fans love him--he wants to be the star! He believes in himself, thinks he can lead a great team. And so when his contract is up, or whenever he can engineer a trade, he does so. Sometimes he was right; most often he's wrong. And rather than contributing to a great team by being a high-level contributor in his role, he's a good-but-not-great featured player on his new team; and his backup isn't as good as he himself was as a backup, to be sure.
George Harrison was the best "third fiddle" in the history of popular music, most likely. But even though his solo career had moments of greatness, would anyone truly say that (were they personally invested in it) the Beatles in the '70s wouldn't have been superior to each Beatle's solo careers? And it should go without saying most people in this category were no George Harrison!
I'm not blaming the individuals, because as I said, we all live our lives as we see fit. We try to do what we think is best. But what is best for us isn't always what produces the best outcomes--or even if it might be, it's hard to see it that way in the moment. Is it hard to understand why being a low-salary backup on a great team isn't as attractive as being a highly paid star on a mediocre one?
My second guess as to this relates to something we talked about not so long ago when discussing the dearth of rock bands: people make music (and live generally) more individually, independently, than ever before. And individual expression or fulfillment is probably more praised than it has ever been before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2021 23:15:52 GMT
You must have some questions about the history or present of music. I know almost every day I seem to find myself wondering why more bands don't..., why this band never..., why why why. Tell me why!
It's one of my long-spouted rants that bands with multiple singers and songwriters tend to fare better than those with one. Even if that one is a truly unique talent, the lack of creative tension, editing, and even just diversity/texture to the music often hurts. So my question is, even though many great ones over the years have done exactly that, why don't more bands use multiple singers and songwriters?
If you want to comment on my question, great. If you have your own questions to throw into the pot, go for it.
@kapitan, I have two possible answers based on my own personal experience with local bands. The first one probably goes along with your follow up post. One word: EGOS. It is extremely rare to get together with other musicians where there isn't some sort of pride and superiority among one or two of the lead players and/or lead singer. It seems to be part of the personality of perhaps a particularly outgoing individual who can really work an audience. For the last several months I've been trying to assemble a local performing band with a mix of rock covers and originals. I sing lead vocals on roughly half the tunes, and I am attempting to recruit a lead guitar player who is willing to do lead vocals on the other half of the songs. I just don't have the pipes or stamina to sing a full set these days. Recently I auditioned a fellow who was quite a bit younger than me, and he filled all the requirements and fit in really well with the band. We liked him, and he seemed comfortable with the whole project. I sent him home with chord and lyric sheets, but a few days later his enthusiasm seemed to have completely dropped. He said, "I decided I don't want to just part-time it on lead vocals. It's got to be all or nothing. No offense, but I don't want to back up another lead singer on half the songs." The second possible answer is another one-worder: BRANDING. This is especially important when a group breaks into "the big time". Branding is all about the signature sound of the band. Some bands seem ok with multiple lead singers. The Who is a prime example with Roger doing the most, and Pete doing a fair share of leads. And occasionally you had an entry fronted by John or Keith. But what about Led Zeppelin, where Robert's lead vocals were a huge part of the trademark sound. I can't imagine another lead singer stepping in (with the exception of "Battle of Evermore").
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jul 15, 2021 3:01:10 GMT
Actually, Creedence is a good example here - Mardi Gras aside. In the very beginning, as the Blue Velvets, John, Doug and Stu were simply the band backing lead singer Tommy Fogerty. Then they became the Golliwogs and the vocals (and songwriting) were shared between Tom and John. Then they become CCR - suddenly, all of the singing (backgrounds, too) and writing is done by John. No question that John was the most talented singer and writer in the group, but why wasn't Tom allowed to sing a couple songs per album? He had a good voice, a lot like John's, but softer. Answer: EGO. John's ego still won't allow him to admit that his bandmates were talented guys. According to John, he had to teach them how to play their instruments - but he wishes he could have had Booker T. and the MG's as his backup band. When I listen to CCR, I hear a group that is the definition of GROOVE. By the time John did finally allow input from the other guys, Tom had left, and Stu and Doug were forced to come up with 3 songs each for an album. The public found out that Doug had a pleasant voice, and Stu had a horrible voice! That leads me to another thread that we can follow here, or start elsewhere: what happens when groups that were dominated by one man attempt a more democratic approach? In the case of CCR, it was disaster (even though I like much of the music on that album; but imagine buying that album new in 1972, and hearing one John Fogerty song, followed by 3 by Stu and Doug...."this don't sound like Creedence!"). Wings At the Speed of Sound was a huge hit back in 1976, among the top 10 albums of the year, but these days, everyone complains there's not enough Paul on it, too much Lindadennyjimmyjoe. My take on it is, back in 1976, with the band enjoying great prominence due to the Wings Over America tour, people were accepting of hearing what the other band members could do. These days, though, it's like "Wings who?" Paul does all he can to erase the memories of the band, and even when doing a documentary supposedly about the band, Wingspan, it ends up being mostly about Paul and Linda. "Denny who? Jimmy who?" So a latter day fan exploring the Wings catalog probably has no clue who the other band members are, they just know Paul McCartney, and when half of the songs on an album are sung by these "anonymous session men", it makes no sense to them. And then we have the case of poor Dave Davies - working forever in the shadow of his flamboyant older brother Ray. It's quite an accomplishment for Dave to get three songs on their 1968 release, Something Else by the Kinks. No matter that this is one of the group's most highly regarded releases; this kind of thing could not continue as long as Ray was leading the band. "Dave? My little brother? Singing and writing? Surely you must be joking! I'm the songwriter here, I'm the lead singer!" Even as a solo artist for the last 20 years, Dave's concerts are mostly singalongs of the songs big brother wrote back in the 70's. You would think with the success the Beatles and Beach Boys had featuring multiple lead singers, that the industry would have picked up on that as a new trend, but I can think of only one example where that was attempted: the Monkees. And even then, the singles were strictly the domain of Micky (Last Train to Clarksville, I'm a Believer, Pleasant Valley Sunday, D.W. Washburn) and Davy (A Little Bit Me, A Little Bit You, Daydream Believer, Valleri). By the time Papa Nez finally got an A side, the records had stopped selling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2021 23:04:58 GMT
And then we have the case of poor Dave Davies - working forever in the shadow of his flamboyant older brother Ray. It's quite an accomplishment for Dave to get three songs on their 1968 release, Something Else by the Kinks. No matter that this is one of the group's most highly regarded releases; this kind of thing could not continue as long as Ray was leading the band. "Dave? My little brother? Singing and writing? Surely you must be joking! I'm the songwriter here, I'm the lead singer!" Even as a solo artist for the last 20 years, Dave's concerts are mostly singalongs of the songs big brother wrote back in the 70's. Interesting you mention Kinks. That's a prime example. I love a large portion of the Kinks' music, and Ray was a hellova writer and singer. But there's something about Dave's writing and lead vocals in that era that really stands out. Honestly I think Dave's contributions to Something Else are the most intriguing tracks. They are certainly darkly amusing....or amusingly dark! "Death of a Clown" and "Funny Face" are disturbing and amazing. And, let's face it, he had more of a "rock" voice than Ray. The standalone single "Susanah's Still Alive" has him hollering out some powerful vocals.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jul 15, 2021 23:18:56 GMT
And then we have the case of poor Dave Davies - working forever in the shadow of his flamboyant older brother Ray. It's quite an accomplishment for Dave to get three songs on their 1968 release, Something Else by the Kinks. No matter that this is one of the group's most highly regarded releases; this kind of thing could not continue as long as Ray was leading the band. "Dave? My little brother? Singing and writing? Surely you must be joking! I'm the songwriter here, I'm the lead singer!" Even as a solo artist for the last 20 years, Dave's concerts are mostly singalongs of the songs big brother wrote back in the 70's. Interesting you mention Kinks. That's a prime example. I love a large portion of the Kinks' music, and Ray was a hellova writer and singer. But there's something about Dave's writing and lead vocals in that era that really stands out. Honestly I think Dave's contributions to Something Else are the most intriguing tracks. They are certainly darkly amusing....or amusingly dark! "Death of a Clown" and "Funny Face" are disturbing and amazing. And, let's face it, he had more of a "rock" voice than Ray. The standalone single "Susanah's Still Alive" has him hollering out some powerful vocals. In his autobiography, Dave says that the majority of the songs he wrote in the late 60's were about the girl he got pregnant as a teenager. The family was outraged at the actions of the two teenagers, and separated them. It was decades before Dave ever got to meet his daughter. That's why there's a strong melancholy streak through all those songs - Funny Face, Susannah's Still Alive, Hold My Hand, This Man He Weeps Tonight, Love Me Till the Sun Shines.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jul 16, 2021 6:30:17 GMT
Now on the flip side of things, Badfinger was a great band that had three strong lead singers and writers. And even the drummer, Mike Gibbins, turned out to be a very good songwriter (check out their final album on WB, Wish You Were Here). There are people on the internet who single out Pete Ham for praise, as if he was the only talented guy in the band. They say 'he wrote all the hits'. Well, it's true he wrote No Matter What, Baby Blue, and Day After Day, but it's not like they had a long string of hit singles, and the albums had just as many songs from Joey Molland and Tom Evans. I think record companies have a lot to do with the idea of pushing one guy to the fore as "the voice of the band". I think that's what happened with Daryl Hall and John Oates. Chicago started off sharing the leads between Robert Lamm, Peter Cetera and Terry Kath, but somewhere along the way, it seemed like all the singles had to have a Cetera lead. I know that's what happened with Bread - Elektra decided that David Gates was the voice of the band, even though James Griffin sang half of the songs on the albums. Gee, imagine if Capitol had decided way back when that all the Beach Boys singles had to have a Mike Love lead....so Mike gets the lead on Do You Wanna Dance, Help Me Rhonda, Good Vibrations, Surfer Girl, Don't Worry Baby....
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 19, 2021 17:36:08 GMT
Tell me why Blue Oyster Cult were not a bigger band.
Sure, they have their big three songs - (Don't Fear) The Reaper, Godzilla, and Burnin' For You that were very popular, and still get a ton of play on CR radio. But, across their catalog, in their prime years, they have a ton of hook laden songs with great melodies and vocal harmonies.
They were often called the American Black Sabbath, but they were always less heavy, and a little more melodic. Maybe the lyrics were too "out there" for them to ever really get huge. As I posted in another thread (can't recall which), but fantasy, sci-fi lyrics just never seem to go over real big, particularly in the States. \
Perhaps, I've answered my own question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2021 22:41:27 GMT
Tell me why Blue Oyster Cult were not a bigger band. Sure, they have their big three songs - (Don't Fear) The Reaper, Godzilla, and Burnin' For You that were very popular, and still get a ton of play on CR radio. But, across their catalog, in their prime years, they have a ton of hook laden songs with great melodies and vocal harmonies. They were often called the American Black Sabbath, but they were always less heavy, and a little more melodic. Maybe the lyrics were too "out there" for them to ever really get huge. As I posted in another thread (can't recall which), but fantasy, sci-fi lyrics just never seem to go over real big, particularly in the States. \ Perhaps, I've answered my own question. That's a very valid question. Their music always had a nice polished sound, but it rocked hard. (Don't Fear) The Reaper and Burnin' For You were FM radio staples for decades (and Godzilla to some extent, surprisingly since it's hard to take seriously with that "sci-fi" element), but yeah, what about some of their other stuff? E.T.I. is incredible, with some great guitar work and vocals, and it should have gotten out on the airwaves more. I feel like in this case the "sci-fi" element held it back somehow. Who's to say?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 20, 2021 16:06:37 GMT
Tell me why Blue Oyster Cult were not a bigger band. Sure, they have their big three songs - (Don't Fear) The Reaper, Godzilla, and Burnin' For You that were very popular, and still get a ton of play on CR radio. But, across their catalog, in their prime years, they have a ton of hook laden songs with great melodies and vocal harmonies. They were often called the American Black Sabbath, but they were always less heavy, and a little more melodic. Maybe the lyrics were too "out there" for them to ever really get huge. As I posted in another thread (can't recall which), but fantasy, sci-fi lyrics just never seem to go over real big, particularly in the States. \ Perhaps, I've answered my own question. That's a very valid question. Their music always had a nice polished sound, but it rocked hard. (Don't Fear) The Reaper and Burnin' For You were FM radio staples for decades (and Godzilla to some extent, surprisingly since it's hard to take seriously with that "sci-fi" element), but yeah, what about some of their other stuff? E.T.I. is incredible, with some great guitar work and vocals, and it should have gotten out on the airwaves more. I feel like in this case the "sci-fi" element held it back somehow. Who's to say? When BOC had some success on radio with the Agents of Fortune and Spectres albums, they really leaned into the curve with their Mirrors album, which contained In Thee, a very polished late 70s, AOR-ish song that didn't contain any of the fantasy, horror, or sci fi lyrics. On ETI, I recall reading in Martin Popoff's book on BOC that there was something about Eric Bloom's voice that the single buying public and radio programmers just didn't like. The band were convinced that Veteran of the Psychic Wars would be a huge hit, but it never really went anywhere
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 21, 2021 19:37:42 GMT
You must have some questions about the history or present of music. I know almost every day I seem to find myself wondering why more bands don't..., why this band never..., why why why. Tell me why!
It's one of my long-spouted rants that bands with multiple singers and songwriters tend to fare better than those with one. Even if that one is a truly unique talent, the lack of creative tension, editing, and even just diversity/texture to the music often hurts. So my question is, even though many great ones over the years have done exactly that, why don't more bands use multiple singers and songwriters?
If you want to comment on my question, great. If you have your own questions to throw into the pot, go for it.
That's actually a really good question. My guess is that, in some cases, other members just weren't very good singers (although that never stopped Keith Richards).
|
|