PA Recommendations

[Al Krow]

1 hour ago, Dan Dare said:

 

I didn't say the other instruments were completely unimportant. I said that if the vocals and drums aren't right, it doesn't matter how good the rest of the band is. Leaving aside instrumental jazz combos and similar. most bands play songs. Ergo, the vocals are of primary importance, followed by the drums. Provided the rest of the band is competent, all will be well (there's a lot of truth in the saying 'good drummer = good band, poor drummer = poor band').

 

If the vocals or timing is suspect, it's pretty much game over. Most audiences won't care that the guitar or keyboard players are wizards if the singer is inaudible or out of tune or if the drummer is destroying the groove (try dancing to that).

 

Your last question is a little silly. Neither is a band.

 

Hmmm not sure about that at all!

 

Basically you're saying if vocalist or drums are crap, the band is. True.

 

But that equally applies to the guitarist, in my experience. 

 

Happy to disagree with you on this one. I don't regard any of my bandmates as being more or less important to our sound. We all need to be getting it right. 

[Nail Soup]

On 28/07/2022 at 10:11, Happy Jack said:

That's right up there with "Queen Tribute seeks Freddie Mercury".

 

On 28/07/2022 at 10:23, Woodinblack said:

I saw a "Bowie tribute seeks a new Bowie", which I thought was amusing.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't find those particularly weird or amusing. Those tributes are like a show or business that takes a lot of managing, organising, musical directing and so on.... none of which is necessarily done by the 'star'. The Bowie/Freddie is just a (albeit key) performance that goes on top - acting.

Similar to if a lead actor leaves a theatrical production, they'll just be replaced and the show will go on.

It's not like they need to be like the real David/Freddie who where adding creativity and invention.

[lemmywinks]

19 minutes ago, Nail Soup said:

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't find those particularly weird or amusing. Those tributes are like a show or business that takes a lot of managing, organising, musical directing and so on.... none of which is necessarily done by the 'star'. The Bowie/Freddie is just a (albeit key) performance that goes on top - acting.

Similar to if a lead actor leaves a theatrical production, they'll just be replaced and the show will go on.

It's not like they need to be like the real David/Freddie who where adding creativity and invention.

 

This is true. A drummer we used for deps was in a very successul Queen tribute, their Freddie stepped down to concentrate on the management side (it was his project to begin with) and they just replaced him with another extremely good Freddie in no time at all. Good tribute acts are on the sort of money that makes replacing members a breeze, there's more people capable and willing to step in than there are opportunities join a working outfit with a full diary.

[Dan Dare]

2 hours ago, Al Krow said:

 

Hmmm not sure about that at all!

 

Basically you're saying if vocalist or drums are crap, the band is. True.

 

But that equally applies to the guitarist, in my experience. 

 

Happy to disagree with you on this one. I don't regard any of my bandmates as being more or less important to our sound. We all need to be getting it right. 

 

I really don't know what to say. I typed "Provided the rest of the band is competent, all will be well". Not crap. Do you need spec's? I can't see how "crap" and competent" can possibly be mistaken for one another.

[Al Krow]

8 minutes ago, Dan Dare said:

 

I really don't know what to say. I typed "Provided the rest of the band is competent, all will be well". Not crap. Do you need spec's? I can't see how "crap" and competent" can possibly be mistaken for one another.

 

Ok let me rephrase:

You originally stated "Like it or not, the most important things in any band are the vocals and drums."  It's this emphasis I am querying / disagreeing with.

Yeah sure, if the rest of the band is competent then, of course, you need vocals and drums to be decent. But surely it applies the other way around, too?

 

My viewpoint is that e.g. a guitarist will very often play an equally important role to a band's sound which is not less important than the vocals and drums. I've no issue with us having a difference of opinion on this, I'm just expressing mine.

[peteb]

5 hours ago, Al Krow said:

 

Ok let me rephrase:

You originally stated "Like it or not, the most important things in any band are the vocals and drums."  It's this emphasis I am querying / disagreeing with.

Yeah sure, if the rest of the band is competent then, of course, you need vocals and drums to be decent. But surely it applies the other way around, too?

 

My viewpoint is that e.g. a guitarist will very often play an equally important role to a band's sound which is not less important than the vocals and drums. I've no issue with us having a difference of opinion on this, I'm just expressing mine.

 

He does have a bit of a point. The vocals define what the band is about to a large measure and while the drummer doesn't necessarily have to be great, he at least has to be solid. That is not to say that, generally, a guitarist isn't more important to the sound of a band, but there are many times when you have seen a band get a more experienced drummer once they got a record or management deal, because the old guy couldn't immediately cut it at the higher level they were going to play at. You can carry a mediocre guitarist or bass player to an extent, but not a drummer.

 

[TimR]

Definitly need a monitor for the vocals. You can set the main speakers up behind the band but really need the vocalist to have a different and adjustable level to what the audience is hearing.

[Norris]

Our PA is vocals only (pub trio, 3 singists) and we use a pair of Mackie SRM450s, 16 channel mixer and a powered monitor wedge.

 

The monitor wedge is useful not only for hearing yourself, but also for keeping the dancing punters from tripping over foot pedals, knocking mic stands, etc. We have a strip of hazard warning tape across the top to make it more visible

[Owen]

1 hour ago, TimR said:

You can set the main speakers up behind the band 

Possibly, if the system is one of those mini tower jobbies. Otherwise, no. 

[Al Krow]

On 30/07/2022 at 22:40, peteb said:

 

He does have a bit of a point. The vocals define what the band is about to a large measure and while the drummer doesn't necessarily have to be great, he at least has to be solid. That is not to say that, generally, a guitarist isn't more important to the sound of a band, but there are many times when you have seen a band get a more experienced drummer once they got a record or management deal, because the old guy couldn't immediately cut it at the higher level they were going to play at. You can carry a mediocre guitarist or bass player to an extent, but not a drummer.

 

Funniest thing Pete, is that on this premier bass forum we are discussing which of vox, guitar and drums are key to a band's sound. And not one of us is jumping in to say that the bass should be included 😆

[peteb]

On 30/07/2022 at 14:46, Al Krow said:

 

Hmmm not sure about that at all!

 

Basically you're saying if vocalist or drums are crap, the band is. True.

 

But that equally applies to the guitarist, in my experience. 

 

Happy to disagree with you on this one. I don't regard any of my bandmates as being more or less important to our sound. We all need to be getting it right. 

 

It depends on the genre a bit, so if you're playing reggae or funk the bass might be a bit more to the fore. Generally, the bass player is playing the bottom line to an invisible (usually) score. You miss us if we're not there, but unless you are a virtuoso or have a strong stage presence, you won't necessarily grab the attention. 

 

At least we aren't as easily replaceable as the drummer...! 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by peteb

[Al Krow]

1 hour ago, peteb said:

 

It depends on the genre a bit, so if you're playing reggae or funk the bass might be a bit more to the fore. Generally, the bass player is playing the bottom line to an invisible (usually) score. You miss us if we're not there, but unless you are a virtuoso or have a strong stage presence, you won't necessarily grab the attention. 

 

At least we aren't as easily replaceable as the drummer...! 

 

I think that's all spot on, Pete.

 

Bass is what I describe (probably inaccurately, haha!) as a "subversive" instrument - the moment it's not there it will be missed. I mean if rock bands could work without a bass instrument (be it on bass or keys) then frankly it would already have happened. It hasn't for a very good reason and any great sounding pop / rock band will typically always have the core elements of drums, bass, guitar (and/or keys) and vox. Which is why I was making the point that I personally wouldn't say that any one or two core element(s) of the band are more important for the band's overall "sound" - they are all of equal importance IMO. 

[peteb]

23 hours ago, Al Krow said:

Which is why I was making the point that I personally wouldn't say that any one or two core element(s) of the band are more important for the band's overall "sound" - they are all of equal importance IMO. 

 

That depends and it can vary from band to band. 

 

Generally, the most important members of a band are the frontman and the songwriters. Occasionally there might be a star guitarist / instrumentalist who makes the cut. Usually, the rest of the band are considered to be hired hands and replaceable if need be. For your old school rock / funk / pop band that gets a record contract, that might not have been the case when they were on the way up playing the clubs, but that is what tends to happen once they start getting money and management / record companies behind them. The hired hands might be on a wage, or they might be on a wage plus points, but usually they won't be getting the same deal as the principals. Some bands might be more democratic, but most aren't, especially once they start to get a glimpse of success. 

 

Unfortunately, the drummer, second guitar, keys or bass player can be replaced pretty easily. You might miss them if they aren't onstage, but not for long because there will be the new guy up there doing their job...! 

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by peteb

[TimR]

I heard a guy singing and playing an acoustic guitar once.

 

No bass player. No Drummer. Not even a PA.

[peteb]

4 minutes ago, TimR said:

I heard a guy singing and playing an acoustic guitar once.

 

No bass player. No Drummer. Not even a PA.

 

Thanks for that - very helpful 

[Nicko]

16 hours ago, peteb said:

 

That depends and it can vary from band to band. 

 

Generally, the most important members of a band are the frontman and the songwriters. Occasionally there might be a star guitarist / instrumentalist who makes the cut. Usually, the rest of the band are considered to be hired hands and replaceable if need be. For your old school rock / funk / pop band that gets a record contract, that might not have been the case when they were on the way up playing the clubs, but that is what tends to happen once they start getting money and management / record companies behind them. The hired hands might be on a wage, or they might be on a wage plus points, but usually they won't be getting the same deal as the principles. Some bands might be more democratic, but most aren't, especially once they start to get a glimpse of success. 

 

Unfortunately, the drummer, second guitar, keys or bass player can be replaced pretty easily. You might miss them if they aren't onstage, but not for long because there will be the new guy up there doing their job...! 

 

There are a number of examples that completely disprove this,

 

Iron Maiden

AC/DC

Black Sabbath

Deep Purple

Genesis

Pink Floyd

 

Maybe things are different now.

 

[blisters on my fingers]

I once had a glass of lemonade in a Temperance bar.

 

No Whisky. No Bourbon. No IPA.

[peteb]

6 hours ago, Nicko said:

There are a number of examples that completely disprove this,

 

Iron Maiden

AC/DC

Black Sabbath

Deep Purple

Genesis

Pink Floyd

 

Maybe things are different now.

 

 

WTF are you on about? You have just brought up several bands that illustrate what I was saying pretty well:

 

Iron Maiden: sacked their drummer as soon as they got a record deal

AC/DC: run as a vehicle for the Young brothers, with everyone else as hired hands (even the LV) and a constantly changing line-up, especially in the early years

Black Sabbath: originally run more as a democratic band, but with Iommi as the leader until they fell out with Dio with singers and drummers coming and going – when Ozzy came back for the reunions, obviously the dynamic changed, and he had the biggest say due to his commercial clout

Deep Purple: constantly changing singers & bass players, mainly due to the whim of Blackmore in their Mk 2 /Mk 3 heyday

Genesis: a more democratic set-up with people coming and going of their own volition

Pink Floyd: like Genesis until Waters started throwing his weight around – once he went the principals were Gilmour, Mason & Wright with Gilmour as the clear leader

 

You have obviously misunderstood what I was saying and picked out bands that changed the lead singer! Certainly, the LV tends to be the frontman and as such, often more difficult to replace, but the focal point / band leader in the acts you have mentioned was not the singer.

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by peteb

[Dan Dare]

11 minutes ago, peteb said:

 

WTF are you on about? You have just brought up several bands that illustrate what I was saying pretty well:

 

Iron Maiden: sacked their drummer as soon as they got a record deal

AC/DC: run as a vehicle for the Young brothers, with everyone else as hired hands (even the LV) and a constantly changing line-up, especially in the early years

Black Sabbath: originally run more as a democratic band, but with Iommi as the leader until they fell out with Dio with singers and drummers coming and going – when Ozzy came back for the reunions, obviously the dynamic changed, and he had the biggest say due to his commercial clout

Deep Purple: constantly changing singers & bass players, mainly due to the whim of Blackmore in their Mk 2 /Mk 3 heyday

Genesis: a more democratic set-up with people coming and going of their own volition

Pink Floyd: like Genesis until Waters started throwing his weight around – once he went the principles were Gilmour, Mason & Wright with Gilmour as the clear leader

 

You have obviously misunderstood what I was saying and picked out bands that changed the lead singer! Certainly, the LV tends to be the frontman and as such, often more difficult to replace, but the focal point / band leader in the acts you have mentioned was not the singer.

 

 

Exactly. There is a popular misconception that many classic rock bands started out as a bunch of school/college pals who slogged it out and made it. Good for promo' copy, but often not the reality. Several of the bands listed - DP and Genesis, for example - included established/session players in their line-ups, so the process of getting rid of anyone who wasn't up to it had already happened by the time they became famous.

[Nicko]

34 minutes ago, peteb said:

WTF are you on about? You have just brought up several bands that illustrate what I was saying pretty well:

I was simply responding to the suggestion that the frontman is the be all and end all of a band. In all the examples I gave the driving force isn't the frontman at all - with the possible exception of the AC/DC.

[peteb]

1 hour ago, Nicko said:

I was simply responding to the suggestion that the frontman is the be all and end all of a band. In all the examples I gave the driving force isn't the frontman at all - with the possible exception of the AC/DC.

 

I said that "Generally, the most important members of a band are the frontman and the songwriters". All you have done is pointed out the exceptions that prove the rule, mainly acts where the singer wasn't necessarily the main focus of the band. You might note that three of those bands reunited with the singer who fronted them when they became famous, once the subsequent version of the band ran out of steam. 

 

You are very literal, aren't you. Nuance is something that just happens to other people... 

 

[Nicko]

59 minutes ago, peteb said:

You are very literal, aren't you. Nuance is something that just happens to other people...

I'm not.  I read your post and it was clear you were basically talking about either the vocalist or - and I quote - occasionally there might be a star guitarist/instrumentalist.  Your suggestion was that the drummer, bass player and other band members were disposable. 

 

Nuance is the argument of someone who posts something that is utter nonsense.  Either post what you mean or accept that when someone points out the inconsistency suck it up.

[peteb]

1 hour ago, Nicko said:

I'm not.  I read your post and it was clear you were basically talking about either the vocalist or - and I quote - occasionally there might be a star guitarist/instrumentalist.  Your suggestion was that the drummer, bass player and other band members were disposable. 

 

Nuance is the argument of someone who posts something that is utter nonsense.  Either post what you mean or accept that when someone points out the inconsistency suck it up.

 

You're the guy who didn't think that there was a difference between a tax break for people buying a bike to ride to work and an offshore K2 tax avoidance scheme. Nuance is everything. 

 

I know that this something that you have no experience of, but FFS. The point is that it was a reply to Al about the relative importance of various members of a band i.e. the idea of the principal members and the more replaceable other members ('hired hands', sidemen or whatever you want to call them). Usually the principals tend to include the LV / frontperson, but there are exceptions. Obviously not all bands are the same, which is why I qualified my statements with terms like 'generally' and 'tends to be', etc. 

 

Anyway, enough of this nonsense - I'm sure that anyone who has a clue about (or is interested in) how bands above the pub circuit level tend to operate will be able to understand the point that I was making. 

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by peteb

[mikel]

4 hours ago, peteb said:

 

WTF are you on about? You have just brought up several bands that illustrate what I was saying pretty well:

 

Iron Maiden: sacked their drummer as soon as they got a record deal

AC/DC: run as a vehicle for the Young brothers, with everyone else as hired hands (even the LV) and a constantly changing line-up, especially in the early years

Black Sabbath: originally run more as a democratic band, but with Iommi as the leader until they fell out with Dio with singers and drummers coming and going – when Ozzy came back for the reunions, obviously the dynamic changed, and he had the biggest say due to his commercial clout

Deep Purple: constantly changing singers & bass players, mainly due to the whim of Blackmore in their Mk 2 /Mk 3 heyday

Genesis: a more democratic set-up with people coming and going of their own volition

Pink Floyd: like Genesis until Waters started throwing his weight around – once he went the principles were Gilmour, Mason & Wright with Gilmour as the clear leader

 

You have obviously misunderstood what I was saying and picked out bands that changed the lead singer! Certainly, the LV tends to be the frontman and as such, often more difficult to replace, but the focal point / band leader in the acts you have mentioned was not the singer.

 

Agreed. Purple without Ian Paice and Ian   Gillan????? Not the same band. 

[peteb]

5 minutes ago, mikel said:

Agreed. Purple without Ian Paice and Ian   Gillan????? Not the same band. 

 

Funnily enough, I preferred the Coverdale / Hughes version, especially the album with Tommy Bolin! Not the same band, but certainly more to my taste (not that I didn't like the classic Gillan / Glover line-up). 

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by peteb