Opinions on Live Performances

Me and my son caught some of the Supernova/American Idol wannabe show. I have tried to watch it but it just doesn't hold my interest.

Any way it brought up a discussion between us about Singers, Singing, and Bands.

I am not a singer, can carry a tune to save my life and have been in some bands.

The discusssion was about what do I consider most important when looking for a singer in a band.

My reply was how do they sound Live?

You could have an awesome voice and it can record well. But if your voice would sound like crap, strained etc. when performing live I would take that into consideration.

Just a thing that made me go HMMMM? Wonder what others think is important in a singer?

Being able to sing probably has to be number one objective... except in the reality TV world, you won't get the chance to record unless you can perform live.... or if you do it all youself...

Closely followed by - having a stage prescence and not having a face like a bag of spanners!

Creativity is, imo, way more important than being an excellent singer.

It's also worth mentioning that if nobody in the band likes a singer they've got to go. Any singer who compromises the integrity of a band or wastes a lot of time with stupid fights and arguments is worthless.

tone is mega important.

the tone of a singer's voice can make or break a song, in my opinion.
If a singer can change his tone to suit any song, that puts him way up in my book.

There are tons of things to consider when looking for any musician in a band. Singers since they front the band need stage presence, be able to stay in tune and timing among other things. For me I think vocal range is most important. To be able to pull off that low raspy blues ballad and then cover a screemin rock tune are the key to longevity in the music biz. Only examples I think of with these type of voices at the moment would be Robert Plant or Mick Jagger.

To me, the overall way the singer sounds is the only thing that matters. There are tons of famous singers that are technically not that good, but their voice is wonderful and fit the music perfectly. I would never (IN A MILLION YEARS! :eek: )put Clay Aiken as frontman of Judas Priest, even though Clay is arguably a better singer.

Unfortunatly nowdays, it come down to eye-candy and appearance instead of voice.

Originally Posted by: HammurabiCreativity is, imo, way more important than being an excellent singer.

It's also worth mentioning that if nobody in the band likes a singer they've got to go. Any singer who compromises the integrity of a band or wastes a lot of time with stupid fights and arguments is worthless.

My man... And who likes a lead singer?? Come on... ;)
In our band, we all sing. (Even the drummer, go figure). But it is acustomed here. When you split the money from gig, on fewer pieces you split the bunch, more is left to you... hehe. So we don"t have a guy (girl) that just sings. But if we had, I reckon I would go with somene who has good vocal range. Like someone posted before, from real low and soft to high and sharp. And, of course, being upfront, he should be a bit of a showman, not just stand in front of a mic like a logg. Tone matters, but not as much as range. At least I think so.

I think apart from basic technical ability and, as Reynold put it, having a face that bears minimal resemblance to a bag of spanners :D, the most important quality in a singer is an understanding of the band's vibe. If a singer is going to convey the emotions and dynamics of a song effectively, they've got to have a really good feel for the music and the lyrics, IMO. Which is why it's good to have a singer who writes some (or all, if they're really good) of the lyrics themselves.

I dont think anyone has yet mentioned a singer's ability to get the crowd pumped up, at least for my style of music. I feel like crowds often feed off a a frontman's energy.

Don't overlook attitude - I guess it kind of goes along with stage presence. For example, look at Lemmy - not a very good singer, face like a bag of spanners (??? :) ), but people love him...

In terms of voice... I think it's important to have a singer that has a voice that translates well from studio to the live shows... I'm always a little uneasy when I go see bands with singers that are more of the "singer" brand... or have a very distinct or harsh sound... ala Axel Rose. I saw Shinedown last summer... the guy actually sounded better live than on the recordings... I saw Alter Bridge live last spring... That guy was all over the place and didn't sound anything like the recordings... maybe it was a bad night?? But that's kind of what I mean... If you have an awesome voice for an hour or so... then it's shot... It doesn't mean much. I think a distinct tone to the voice is important as well... i hate hearing bands with good instrumentals but with a middle of the road... dime a dozen vocalist...