Clarence

I hate when singers think they own the band. I understand that as the singer you're the voice of the band, and the prime source of connection with the audience but too often they think that they're the boss. Don't mean to rant, I just read that the Arctic Monkey's singer kicked the bassist out of the band despite the news on the site that he was tired. That's bs. Frank Black will never be as great as the Pixies. Billy Corgan has had a sad solo career. Morrissey will never ever outlive the Smiths. Led Zeppelin? Hello?

boo boo

The major problem with your assumption is by making examples of Billy Corgan and Frank Black, who were the primary songwriters in their respective bands, so they are a extremely important part of a band, they did own the band, in a way..

Bassists and drummers are a important part of a band, but rarely are they not replacable, a bands primary songwriter isn't replacable.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

KissMeDeadly

I do agree with you to an extent. But that guy ( i cant see the post anymore and i have a terrbile memory) is correct... The songwriters are an integral part of a bands success. While the musicians themselves are the ones the put in the umph to perform and make it a succes, the songwriters and in billy corgans case, the singers are chiefly behind it all... and musicians are replaceable.. they may not be as good... but they are.

i dont know i went off on a tangent that doesnt make sense

Imonlydancing

haha, nowadays it's just the way things are. notice in music video's its always focusing on the front man? i rate it's cos that's what people want, and the record companies want people to like the band, maybe because of how ATTRACTIVE the singer is or something.
although, some of the lead singers/guitarists are brilliant songwriters, so they deserve it. I agree with KissMeDeadly, that musicians are replaceable.
Think about red hot chilli peppers, frusticante left, and was replaced by nevarro, and then came back, and i don't think that affected them at all, where as if anotony klitsidis...(i duno if that's his surname, honestly can't remember) had left, it would have made a huge impact.
Also, Rage are so much different to Audioslave and they had a change in front man, same with New Order and Joy division, a lot different.

I think i just wrote so much crap, sorry ! made some sense in my head


EDIT: yer that didn't really stick to the thread title...

DontRunMeOver

I'd say that the above statement depends on the quality of the bassist and drummers (and guitarists). In certain cases (as with Led Zeppelin) the instrumentalists are so extremely good that the music sells itself largely on the strength of the instrumentation and arrangements. In this case, the lead singer/songwriter might actually be expendable as the band will bring to life whatever song they're playing. Bands this good are very few and few between, so usually the selling point of a band is its songwriting and the voice of the lead singer. Once again, to have this sellable voice and/or songwriting ability is a rare talent... so it tends to give talented singers and songwriters a leverage and power which other band members don't have.

Even if the other band members don't appreciate it, band management and record companies etc. realise that the singer is usually what sells the band, so they also tend to get the extra support from companies which instrumentalists don't get. Even if the singer and the entire band wanted to go seperate ways, chances are the record company would try to keep the singer with them and leave the entire rest of band out in the cold.

__________________

IndiElectronica

the songwriter(s) and singer(s) are what make a band mostly. They are the hardest to replace by a long-mile. period.

next subject!

__________________
Check out my Radio Station at:
http://www.indielectronicaonline.com

DontRunMeOver

I hate the way that (in the UK) most people who go to small-scale gigs just stand, with their arms crossed, watching the band play on stage with blank expressions. Not dancing, not knocking back shots, not pulling, not pushing, not fighting, not doing anything much really. Most bands play music that you can dance to in one way or another, so why don't they dance? Why bother going out if you don't intend to enjoy it?

__________________

Stone Magnet

Some people enjoy just standing and watching bands play.

__________________
Lock to field screen, row the ocean onto sentient ground.
New rites of a Vedic sun to attend the blue horizon.
Prevails flight resplendent, sails the shrine effulgent windship.
Stillness breathes apex supreme - I walk toward the mountain.

Crowns the sovereic rite to freedom.
Shored the origin forms to a ground accede.
Axiom core of the light shrine flight to shining.
Glows serene to attenuate the space and time.

Imonlydancing

Surely it depends what kinda music it is.
If people were standing still during horse the band or zebrahead, then they're a bit stupid.
If they were moving jumping around to Death Cab for Cutie, they're also stupid.
so yer.

Uglycasanova

I went to the Vans Tour and saw Anti-Flag, and I was trying to decide between staying farther out in the crowd and just standing, or going into the circle pit and nearly being killed, there is not middle ground anymore.