Here Ya Go Tommy Shaw

[stabbim]

There are a MILLION guys that can play guitar. There is ONLY ONE VOICE!!!!

The guitar is for show, The vocals are for dough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are a million guys who can sing, too. Some are lucky enough to also be good writers or able to attach themselves to good writers. The rest is just marketing.

[7 Wishes]

This is a pointless board. DDY is NOT God, or god. He's just DDY. Tommy Shaw would have made it big regardless of whether or not Styx discovered him. He's an unbelievable performer, has one of the best voices in the world (especially live), is a fantastic songwriter, and an underrated guitarist as well. I will concede that Styx may have been big without him...but not to the degree that they were. They would have had a couple of big hits, and that's about it. TS needed DDY just as much as DDY needed TS. End of story.

[yogi]

I like em both. But........................................

Tommy IS a Star,

Dennis is a SUPERSTAR.

In my opinion if Glen Burtnik joins Styx for their Equinox tour and beyond Styx would have been EVERY bit as big.

Glens ONLY Styx album with Dennis did better than Tommy's first album did with Styx. Plus that was at a time when Styx was trying to make a comeback(Glen jpoining Styx) as opposed to when Tommy joined them because Styx then was an up an coming band

Dont take it the wrong way I agree they ALL need one another, and Tommy Shaw is GREAT, but Dennis Deyoung is the straw that stirs the drink that is know as Styx!!!

Ash put it best a few posts back.

[Zan]

There are a MILLION guys that can play guitar. There is ONLY ONE VOICE!!!!

The guitar is for show, The vocals are for dough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG, I couldn't agree LESS. God, this is why so many singers think they're god's gift to the world...Do you know that in the local band scene SINGERS are paid less than ANY OTHER BAND MEMBER? Why is that? Because they're a dime a dozen, that's why. EVERYONE is a singer. Some are better than others, sure, but the truth of the matter is, the ratio of singers to guitar players are 4 to 1. Even less for keyboard players & drummers. Not to belittle Steve P's worth, but...Just because Journey happened to find a great front man whose voice ultimately touched you personally (or that you now identify with the "sound" of Journey), doesn't make him the more valuable of the two. Good god, man. The discipline alone that goes into playing a guitar as well as Neil does is ten times greater than whatever Perry had as a vocalist. Period. (And I'm not saying that to impress NIG either)

Singers are abundant in this world. Truly talented guitar players are not.

Now, songwriting is another ball o' wax. Perry, I believe, was truly gifted in that catagory, which made him extremely valuable, but vocals alone? Never.

[Zan]

Tommy IS a Star,

Dennis is a SUPERSTAR.

In my opinion if Glen Burtnik joins Styx for their Equinox tour and beyond Styx would have been EVERY bit as big.

Glens ONLY Styx album with Dennis did better than Tommy's first album did with Styx. Plus that was at a time when Styx was trying to make a comeback(Glen jpoining Styx) as opposed to when Tommy joined them because Styx then was an up an coming band

Again, I couldn't agree less. Dennis and Tommy are both semi-stars. The average Joe on the street has likely never heard of either of them (although one could argue that Tommy's *is* more popular among these folks). PAUL MCCARTNEY IS A SUPERSTAR. MADONNA IS A SUPERSTAR. Dennis DeYoung? You have to be joking.

Let's please keep this in perspective, K? lol

As for Edge selling better than Crystal Ball, the Styx loving public was anxious for another Styx record after nearly 8 years of NOTHING - after a HUGE mega-selling career. Crystal ball was immediately after Styx's first moderately successful album, BEFORE they got huge.

Apples and oranges.

[yogi]

More like banannas and SOUR grapes.

Dennis DeYoung is a TOTAL superstar.

[gr8dane]

More like banannas and SOUR grapes.

Dennis DeYoung is a TOTAL superstar.

In Quebec.

[stabbim]

Let's please keep this in perspective, K? lol

You. Are. Adorable.

[brywool]

I've listened to Yes's version for years. I prefer the Shaw Blades version. To me, the whole ending bit Yes did might've been good for the time, but I prefer the new version. In fact, this album has really grown on me and I don't dig cover albums at all.

[froy]

This is a pointless board. DDY is NOT God, or god. He's just DDY.

Nobody said he was god
He was the voice of STYX stop trying to discredit him

Tommy Shaw would have made it big regardless of whether or not Styx discovered him.

Not so sure about that
Look how big he is now without Dennis in the band
He's a copycat singing the same STYX songs over and over again to make a living
Heck his best cd 7 zens and he's afraid to promote it
Why ?
Ill tell ya why the name Tommy Shaw is not a big draw
You think he could sell out a 50 piece symp show with the name Tommy Shaw?
No way not even close,
Dennis DeYoung did no problem at all
That should tell ya something right there.

He's an unbelievable performer, has one of the best voices in the world (especially live),

Oh come on
Stop licking his boots
He a great singer a great showman but not a houshold name
He's not the best in the world at anything but doing cover cds and Blue Collar Man.

I will concede that Styx may have been big without him...but not to the degree that they were.

How can you say that
They were huge because of Dennis DeYoung penned hits
Tommy Shaw brought in the girls who swooned over him and they still do today
Without Shaw Styx today would not even sell 100 seats

They would have had a couple of big hits, and that's about it.

Are you really this blind?
Seriously

TS needed DDY just as much as DDY needed TS. End of story.

I dont think anyone will back thsi up

[Zan]

More like banannas and SOUR grapes.

Dennis DeYoung is a TOTAL superstar.

Oh. OK. You win. He's a total superstar.

[Zan]

Let's please keep this in perspective, K? lol

You. Are. Adorable.

Was I being silly again? *smack*

[froy]

I've listened to Yes's version for years. I prefer the Shaw Blades version. To me, the whole ending bit Yes did might've been good for the time, but I prefer the new version. In fact, this album has really grown on me and I don't dig cover albums at all.

This comming from a guy who say's hunchback is horible
Go back in vacation will ya.

[Monker]

More like banannas and SOUR grapes.

Dennis DeYoung is a TOTAL superstar.

Oh. OK. You win. He's a total superstar.

Yeah, Shamu loves him.

[brywool]

There are a MILLION guys that can play guitar. There is ONLY ONE VOICE!!!!

The guitar is for show, The vocals are for dough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG, I couldn't agree LESS. God, this is why so many singers think they're god's gift to the world...Do you know that in the local band scene SINGERS are paid less than ANY OTHER BAND MEMBER? Why is that? Because they're a dime a dozen, that's why. EVERYONE is a singer. Some are better than others, sure, but the truth of the matter is, the ratio of singers to guitar players are 4 to 1. Even less for keyboard players & drummers. Not to belittle Steve P's worth, but...Just because Journey happened to find a great front man whose voice ultimately touched you personally (or that you now identify with the "sound" of Journey), doesn't make him the more valuable of the two. Good god, man. The discipline alone that goes into playing a guitar as well as Neil does is ten times greater than whatever Perry had as a vocalist. Period. (And I'm not saying that to impress NIG either)

Singers are abundant in this world. Truly talented guitar players are not.

Now, songwriting is another ball o' wax. Perry, I believe, was truly gifted in that catagory, which made him extremely valuable, but vocals alone? Never.

This is the first of Zan's posts that I totally don't agree with. Just because people can sing, doesn't mean they can sing well OR front a band. If the in your "local scene" singers are paid less, they better move to a new scene. Guitarists are a dime a dozen. QUALITY singers are absolutely not.

[brywool]

I've listened to Yes's version for years. I prefer the Shaw Blades version. To me, the whole ending bit Yes did might've been good for the time, but I prefer the new version. In fact, this album has really grown on me and I don't dig cover albums at all.

This comming from a guy who say's hunchback is horible
Go back in vacation will ya.

FROY- you SERIOUSLY CAN'T think that hunchback is great can you??? After Grand Illusion, Castle Walls, hell, even Babe- how can you (or anyone else) think the Hunchback is worthy of anything else but a curiosity in the DDY catalog of songs? It's the most low budget, shitty recording of boring songs (save JY) anybody in the Styx camp has put out. Absolute shite. It's terrible and amateurish in every way.
Also, the album should've been called "Ego Trip". It could've been a double album with "Kilroy" as the other disc. It sucks.

Okay, I just wondered before, but now you've proven it- you have MUST be related to DeYoung or something. There's no rock music fan that could hold that album up as a great album. I bet you like "Hip Hop Hypocrazy" too.
Hey, somebody trace Froy's IP address. It's either coming from Dennis Deyoung's house or some sanitarium in Loonyville.

Regarding Your Move- I prefer Tommy's vocals to Andersons. Anderson's got that weird, almost falsetto, wimpy voice. Shaw's has a lot of colour and power to it. Of course, I prefered the Rabin stuff to any of the non-Rabin stuff and other than his era, was never a Yes fan.

[Zan]

This is the first of Zan's posts that I totally don't agree with. Just because people can sing, doesn't mean they can sing well OR front a band. If the in your "local scene" singers are paid less, they better move to a new scene. Guitarists are a dime a dozen. QUALITY singers are absolutely not.

Neither are quality guitarists - just because someone knows how to play guitar, doesn't make them qualified to be a lead guitarist - or even fit to be IN a band. And regardless of how many "singers" can sing WELL, the fact remains that they are a dime a dozen, and much less discipline and $ is invested with singers as opposed to actual musicians.

[brywool]

This is the first of Zan's posts that I totally don't agree with. Just because people can sing, doesn't mean they can sing well OR front a band. If the in your "local scene" singers are paid less, they better move to a new scene. Guitarists are a dime a dozen. QUALITY singers are absolutely not.

Neither are quality guitarists - just because someone knows how to play guitar, doesn't make them qualified to be a lead guitarist - or even fit to be IN a band. And regardless of how many "singers" can sing WELL, the fact remains that they are a dime a dozen, and much less discipline and $ is invested with singers as opposed to actual musicians.

Again, I don't agree. There are SOME out there who can sing great naturally (Deyoung). There are others that invest heavily in lessons (Tyler, Augeri, Reznik, Perry, Shaw, etc.).
A guitarist can know 3 chords and get in a band as a rhythm guitarist. A singer can't hide the fact he sucks.

I can name more pro bands that've made it with lame guitarists than lame singers.
Example- The Beatles (and I'm THE hugest Beatles fan).
Lennon was NOT a great guitarist when they started.
Harrison was NOT a great guitarist when they started.

It was their voices and their songwriting that sold that band, yet they were the biggest
band in the world. Maybe had they recorded the Hunchback album, they could've achieved God Status...
We'll have to agree to disagree.

[NealIsGod]

Again, I don't agree. There are SOME out there who can sing great naturally (Deyoung). There are others that invest heavily in lessons (Tyler, Augeri, Reznik, Perry, Shaw, etc.).

Excuse me? Perry had an incredible gift from God for a voice. He may have taken lessons sometime, but he was just a great singer from day one.

[brywool]

Again, I don't agree. There are SOME out there who can sing great naturally (Deyoung). There are others that invest heavily in lessons (Tyler, Augeri, Reznik, Perry, Shaw, etc.).

Excuse me? Perry had an incredible gift from God for a voice. He may have taken lessons sometime, but he was just a great singer from day one.

Could be, but he DID take some vocal coaching to keep himself in shape. More accurately, he had Sam Cooke's gift from God for a voice. Every lick Perry had, he ripped from Sam and improved on it. Don't get me wrong, Perry is the all time best singer in rock in my opinion, but he did invest in his craft. That was the point of my post that singers also invest dough in their art.

[Zan]

Again, I don't agree. There are SOME out there who can sing great naturally (Deyoung). There are others that invest heavily in lessons (Tyler, Augeri, Reznik, Perry, Shaw, etc.).
A guitarist can know 3 chords and get in a band as a rhythm guitarist. A singer can't hide the fact he sucks.

ALL vocalists need to work at being good, regardless of whether their gift is natural or not (I also disagree that you can be TAUGHT to have a good singing voice, you can only fine-tune it, so to speak). My point is that lessons or not, investment or not, musicians require more discipline and practice than singers, period - I never said singers don't invest ANYTHING, I said they invest LESS. It's just the way it is. Unless, of course, these musicians (guitarists, keyboard players, drummers) want to settle for mediocrity, and I won't argue that there are enough singers and guitarist in that catagory to go around.

Have you heard of Britney Spears? Her voice is unmistakable too, and she sucks. Funny thing is, she has more money & fame than Perry and DeYoung combined. Where is the great value there???

I can name more pro bands that've made it with lame guitarists than lame singers.
Example- The Beatles (and I'm THE hugest Beatles fan).
Lennon was NOT a great guitarist when they started.
Harrison was NOT a great guitarist when they started.

It was their voices and their songwriting that sold that band, yet they were the biggest
band in the world.

Neither Lennon or Harrison were GREAT singers, and one could argue that is was the Beatles' WRITING that made them what they were more than playing or singing combined. Look at Dylan for petes sake..

Also, you'll notice I said LEAD guitarist, not rhythm guitarist. If we're comparing apples to apples, I could say anyone who could carry a tune could sing backup or harmony just as easily as your semi-talented guitarist could play rhythm and "get by."

[brywool]

Again, I don't agree. There are SOME out there who can sing great naturally (Deyoung). There are others that invest heavily in lessons (Tyler, Augeri, Reznik, Perry, Shaw, etc.).
A guitarist can know 3 chords and get in a band as a rhythm guitarist. A singer can't hide the fact he sucks.

ALL vocalists need to work at being good, regardless of whether their gift is natural or not (I also disagree that you can be TAUGHT to have a good singing voice, you can only fine-tune it, so to speak). My point is that lessons or not, investment or not, musicians require more discipline and practice than singers, period. It's just the way it is. Unless, of course, they want to settle for mediocrity, and I won't argue that there are enough singers and guitarist in that catagory to go around.

Have you heard of Britney Spears? Her voice is unmistakable too, and she sucks. Funny thing is, she has more money & fame than Perry and DeYoung combined. Where is the great value there???

I said SINGERS not whatever she is. Singers are musicians, by the way. Speaking of discipline, does a guitarist have to warm up for sometimes hours to be able to play? No. Do they have to do anything after the gig to get their playing chops back? No. A singer that's working has to constantly keep their instrument in shape or they have no voice. Guitarist can basically play the gig and go home, practice or not. If a singer wants to be able to do consecutive gigs, most of them HAVE to go through a daily regimen to retain their voices. Not so a guitarist. I'm a guitarist as well, and once I know know my parts, I don't have to relearn them. I can play them upside down. As a singer though, it's a constant battle to make sure my voice is in shape. If I do 2 4.5 hour gigs in a row (2 nights in a club), I need to spend most of the next day working through my swollen throat to get it back into shape for that night's gig. That requires more discipline than a guitarist who catches a buzz and goes to jam. I also do think that a singer can start out really sucky and with lessons, become a way better singer. If we're talking about guitarists vs singers that's one thing. If we're talking celloists vs singers, that's another.
Also, if Spears was around in Styx's heyday, she'd NOT be what she is today. She'd be Tiffany. But I guess now, being a teenybopper is the goal for a lot of entertainers rather than being good. I know why I like Britney and it ain't her voice! ;P

I can name more pro bands that've made it with lame guitarists than lame singers.
Example- The Beatles (and I'm THE hugest Beatles fan).
Lennon was NOT a great guitarist when they started.
Harrison was NOT a great guitarist when they started.

It was their voices and their songwriting that sold that band, yet they were the biggest
band in the world.

Neither Lennon or Harrison were GREAT singers, and one could argue that is was the Beatles' WRITING that made them what they were more than playing or singing combined. Look at Dylan for petes sake..

LENNON NOT A GREAT SINGER??? I think you're way wrong and I think that many singers (including DeYoung and your boy Glen (Glenn? Glennnn?) would disagree with you. He was a great singer. It was the songwriting that created the Beatles longevity, but I think it was their voices that made them break through at first. Their songs at first, weren't that great as George Martin has said a million times. And YES DYLAN SUCKS ALWAYS HAS.

Also, you'll notice I said LEAD guitarist, not rhythm guitarist. If we're comparing apples to apples, I could say anyone who could carry a tune could sing backup or harmony just as easily as your semi-talented guitarist could play rhythm and "get by."[/b]

A 'lead guitarist' could learn a blues scale and make it work for him for years. Look at BB King. He doesn't even know how to play chords. Watch the scene with him in U2s Rattle and Hum (the film). He says "I don't know chords".

I dunno, I think you're wrong. But I still like ya!

[Zan]

I said SINGERS not whatever she is. Singers are musicians, by the way.

I disagree. Singers are singers. I'm a singer, not a musician.

Speaking of discipline, does a guitarist have to warm up for sometimes hours to be able to play? No. Do they have to do anything after the gig to get their playing chops back? No. A singer that's working has to constantly keep their instrument in shape or they have no voice. Guitarist can basically play the gig and go home, practice or not. If a singer wants to be able to do consecutive gigs, most of them HAVE to go through a daily regimen to retain their voices. Not so a guitarist. I'm a guitarist as well, and once I know know my parts, I don't have to relearn them. I can play them upside down. As a singer though, it's a constant battle to make sure my voice is in shape. If I do 2 4.5 hour gigs in a row (2 nights in a club), I need to spend most of the next day working through my swollen throat to get it back into shape for that night's gig. That requires more discipline than a guitarist who catches a buzz and goes to jam. I also do think that a singer can start out really sucky and with lessons, become a way better singer. If we're talking about guitarists vs singers that's one thing. If we're talking celloists vs singers, that's another.

Maybe not, but a guitarist has to spend YEARS of his or her life getting familiar with the instrument and learning how to play it. It's a very technical thing. Singers inherantly KNOW how to sing from the get-go. But they may require additional teaching to bring the ability to a certain level. Same with guitarists.

As far as "knowing the part once you've learned it," the same holds true for a singer. I don't have to keep "relearning" a song once I've learned it either. Do you? No. You know it or you don't. If you haven't sung a song in a long time, you might have to go back and resing it a few times to make sure you nail the parts, but the same holds true for a guitarist that hasn't played a tune an awhile. The only thing a singer needs to do is take care of his voice in between gigs. On the same note, a singer can still sing with arthrytis. A guitarist, keyboardist, violinist can't.

I know you are making a generalization here, but a "guitarist catching a buzz" and going on can be just as sloppy as a hammered singer, if not moreso depending on the person, and I'll ignore that there may have been a small blanket statement that guitar players tend to drink more...nah, I won't go there.

Another thing musicians invest more in is equipment. They tend to have five times the gear a singer has.


NOW, I WILL say that as a singer, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT we are so common, it is ESSENTIAL that any singer who wishes to stay important makes his or her self invaluable to the people he or she plays with. I do not, however, think being a good singer automatically makes you invaluable. I think being invaluable makes you invaluable, whether it be by writing, getting gigs, improving one's self vocally, etc. Perhaps that's what Perry did. But as a whole, singers, good or not, are much more common.

Also, if Spears was around in Styx's heyday, she'd NOT be what she is today. She'd be Tiffany.

Ah, but she ISN'T in Styx's heyday, is she? (and neither is Styx or Journey for that matter)

I can name more pro bands that've made it with lame guitarists than lame singers.
Example- The Beatles (and I'm THE hugest Beatles fan).
Lennon was NOT a great guitarist when they started.
Harrison was NOT a great guitarist when they started.

It was their voices and their songwriting that sold that band, yet they were the biggest
band in the world.

Neither Lennon or Harrison were GREAT singers, and one could argue that is was the Beatles' WRITING that made them what they were more than playing or singing combined. Look at Dylan for petes sake..

LENNON NOT A GREAT SINGER??? I think you're way wrong and I think that many singers (including DeYoung) would disagree with you. He was a great singer. It was the songwriting that created the Beatles longevity, but I think it was their voices that made them break through at first. Their songs at first, weren't that great as George Martin has said a million times.[/quote]



[color=magenta]No, he wasn't, and he was the FIRST to admit that. John knew he wasn't a powerful singer, and even had to double-up his recordings to make him sound "fuller." He was under no delusions about his voice.

Also, you'll notice I said LEAD guitarist, not rhythm guitarist. If we're comparing apples to apples, I could say anyone who could carry a tune could sing backup or harmony just as easily as your semi-talented guitarist could play rhythm and "get by."[/color][/b]

A 'lead guitarist' could learn a blues scale and make it work for him for years. Look at BB King. He doesn't even know how to play chords. Watch the scene with him in U2s Rattle and Hum (the film). He says "I don't know chords".

I dunno, I think you're wrong.

And The Edge can't play notes, only chords. I guess they were made for each other. BB is a stylist. Some artists have managed to make a good name for themselves being stylists. Look at Joplin. Do you think Bono is a great singer? What about Bon Jovi? Bruce Springsteen? Clay Aiken? Bo Bice? What constitutes a good singer to YOU? is it more technical? Soul? Projection? Range? What? What it really comes down to is personal preference, just like everything. I know some people who think Dennis DeYoung has the greatest voice on earth. I know others who find him unbearable to listen to. Who is right? I hate Jimmy Hendrix. I love David Gilmour. JY would disagree. Do I think he's "wrong?" No.

I've auditioned enough vocalists and guitarists to know that talented, disciplined guitar players are far more difficult to come by than singers. That's been my experience, and the experience of everyone in the "local scene." Talent is talent.

[brywool]

we won't agree here. A guitarist can't play with arthritis, a singer can't sing with a bad throat from cancer, a cold, pneumonia, whatever.
I could refute each of the points you've made, but I won't.

By the way, I'm a lead singer in my band. Here's my gear list:

Sennheiser wireless 865 mic and receiver
Sennheiser wireless guitar pack and receiver
Vox Valvetronix 120 guitar amp
Gibson 78 Les Paul Custom
Fender Telecaster
Rickenbacker 360 12
Rickenbacker 610
Shure Wireless IEM PSM 600
Fender Strat
Guitar stands
Mic Stand
Shure E5 monitors
Ibanez Performance acoustic 12 string
Dean Lawrence pickup for said guitar
wireless unit for the acoustic
Chords
Marraccas (5)
Tamborine (1)

That's about my nightly gig list...


I've just never typed out my gear before, thought it'd be fun
I have the most shit of any singer I've ever met.

[Zan]

we won't agree here. A guitarist can't play with arthritis, a singer can't sing with a bad throat from cancer, a cold, pneumonia, whatever.

A singer can sing with a cold, if they are trained to - I did it just last night and will again tonight. I am also a lead singer in my band. LOL

I could refute each of the points you've made, but I won't.

By the way, I'm a lead singer in my band. Here's my gear list:

Sennheiser wireless 865 mic and receiver
Sennheiser wireless guitar pack and receiver
Vox Valvetronix 120 guitar amp
Gibson 78 Les Paul Custom
Fender Telecaster
Rickenbacker 360 12
Rickenbacker 610
Shure Wireless IEM PSM 600
Fender Strat
Guitar stands
Mic Stand
Shure E5 monitors
Ibanez Performance acoustic 12 string
Dean Lawrence pickup for said guitar
wireless unit for the acoustic
Chords
Marraccas (5)
Tamborine (1)

That's about my nightly gig list...


I've just never typed out my gear before, thought it'd be fun
I have the most shit of any singer I've ever met.

Half of that is from the guitar! LOL

(and percussion doesn't count either!) Cheater...

[brywool]

Oh I know, I just wanted to list it!



I DO think Bono's a good singer. I think Bonjovi stinks these days. MAJOR lip syncher.
They crucified Augeri, how come nobody goes after bonjovi?

[shaka]

This is the first of Zan's posts that I totally don't agree with. Just because people can sing, doesn't mean they can sing well OR front a band. If the in your "local scene" singers are paid less, they better move to a new scene. Guitarists are a dime a dozen. QUALITY singers are absolutely not.

I'll agree and disagree. I think good singers are extremely tough to find. There are a lot of mediocre singers out there that can fake it but a truly good singer is rare.

I disagree on guitar players. Just like singers there are a lot of mediocre guitar players. Guitar playing is more than being a virtuoso on the instrument. I've seen a bunch of guitar players that were technically decent but didn't have the slightest idea how to get up on stage and get their ability to translate in a live situation. I've also found that most guitar players do not have the slightest clue how to get a decent tone. Some even have the right amps and guitars yet still do not know how to adjust things to sound decent.

[Zan]

I disagree on guitar players. Just like singers there are a lot of mediocre guitar players. Guitar playing is more than being a virtuoso on the instrument. I've seen a bunch of guitar players that were technically decent but didn't have the slightest idea how to get up on stage and get their ability to translate in a live situation. I've also found that most guitar players do not have the slightest clue how to get a decent tone. Some even have the right amps and guitars yet still do not know how to adjust things to sound decent.

Exactly. QUALITY guitarists are NOT a dime a dozen. All I was trying to say the whole time.

[Zan]

I DO think Bono's a good singer.

Well, that explains everything.

<--- much rather hear him talk than sing. *g*

[Rockwriter]

I said SINGERS not whatever she is. Singers are musicians, by the way.

I disagree. Singers are singers. I'm a singer, not a musician.

Speaking of discipline, does a guitarist have to warm up for sometimes hours to be able to play? No. Do they have to do anything after the gig to get their playing chops back? No. A singer that's working has to constantly keep their instrument in shape or they have no voice. Guitarist can basically play the gig and go home, practice or not. If a singer wants to be able to do consecutive gigs, most of them HAVE to go through a daily regimen to retain their voices. Not so a guitarist. I'm a guitarist as well, and once I know know my parts, I don't have to relearn them. I can play them upside down. As a singer though, it's a constant battle to make sure my voice is in shape. If I do 2 4.5 hour gigs in a row (2 nights in a club), I need to spend most of the next day working through my swollen throat to get it back into shape for that night's gig. That requires more discipline than a guitarist who catches a buzz and goes to jam. I also do think that a singer can start out really sucky and with lessons, become a way better singer. If we're talking about guitarists vs singers that's one thing. If we're talking celloists vs singers, that's another.

Maybe not, but a guitarist has to spend YEARS of his or her life getting familiar with the instrument and learning how to play it. It's a very technical thing. Singers inherantly KNOW how to sing from the get-go. But they may require additional teaching to bring the ability to a certain level. Same with guitarists.

As far as "knowing the part once you've learned it," the same holds true for a singer. I don't have to keep "relearning" a song once I've learned it either. Do you? No. You know it or you don't. If you haven't sung a song in a long time, you might have to go back and resing it a few times to make sure you nail the parts, but the same holds true for a guitarist that hasn't played a tune an awhile. The only thing a singer needs to do is take care of his voice in between gigs. On the same note, a singer can still sing with arthrytis. A guitarist, keyboardist, violinist can't.

I know you are making a generalization here, but a "guitarist catching a buzz" and going on can be just as sloppy as a hammered singer, if not moreso depending on the person, and I'll ignore that there may have been a small blanket statement that guitar players tend to drink more...nah, I won't go there.

Another thing musicians invest more in is equipment. They tend to have five times the gear a singer has.


NOW, I WILL say that as a singer, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT we are so common, it is ESSENTIAL that any singer who wishes to stay important makes his or her self invaluable to the people he or she plays with. I do not, however, think being a good singer automatically makes you invaluable. I think being invaluable makes you invaluable, whether it be by writing, getting gigs, improving one's self vocally, etc. Perhaps that's what Perry did. But as a whole, singers, good or not, are much more common.

Also, if Spears was around in Styx's heyday, she'd NOT be what she is today. She'd be Tiffany.

Ah, but she ISN'T in Styx's heyday, is she? (and neither is Styx or Journey for that matter)

I can name more pro bands that've made it with lame guitarists than lame singers.
Example- The Beatles (and I'm THE hugest Beatles fan).
Lennon was NOT a great guitarist when they started.
Harrison was NOT a great guitarist when they started.

It was their voices and their songwriting that sold that band, yet they were the biggest
band in the world.

Neither Lennon or Harrison were GREAT singers, and one could argue that is was the Beatles' WRITING that made them what they were more than playing or singing combined. Look at Dylan for petes sake..

LENNON NOT A GREAT SINGER??? I think you're way wrong and I think that many singers (including DeYoung) would disagree with you. He was a great singer. It was the songwriting that created the Beatles longevity, but I think it was their voices that made them break through at first. Their songs at first, weren't that great as George Martin has said a million times.

[color=magenta]No, he wasn't, and he was the FIRST to admit that. John knew he wasn't a powerful singer, and even had to double-up his recordings to make him sound "fuller." He was under no delusions about his voice.

Also, you'll notice I said LEAD guitarist, not rhythm guitarist. If we're comparing apples to apples, I could say anyone who could carry a tune could sing backup or harmony just as easily as your semi-talented guitarist could play rhythm and "get by."[/color][/b]

A 'lead guitarist' could learn a blues scale and make it work for him for years. Look at BB King. He doesn't even know how to play chords. Watch the scene with him in U2s Rattle and Hum (the film). He says "I don't know chords".

I dunno, I think you're wrong.

And The Edge can't play notes, only chords. I guess they were made for each other. BB is a stylist. Some artists have managed to make a good name for themselves being stylists. Look at Joplin. Do you think Bono is a great singer? What about Bon Jovi? Bruce Springsteen? Clay Aiken? Bo Bice? What constitutes a good singer to YOU? is it more technical? Soul? Projection? Range? What? What it really comes down to is personal preference, just like everything. I know some people who think Dennis DeYoung has the greatest voice on earth. I know others who find him unbearable to listen to. Who is right? I hate Jimmy Hendrix. I love David Gilmour. JY would disagree. Do I think he's "wrong?" No.

I've auditioned enough vocalists and guitarists to know that talented, disciplined guitar players are far more difficult to come by than singers. That's been my experience, and the experience of everyone in the "local scene." Talent is talent. [/quote]



Here's my two cents' . . . which probably isn't even worth two cents, LOL. But I am a singer/songwriter/guitarist, as well as a guy who both plays and writes about music for a living, so here goes.

I think singers are certainly more common than accomplished musicians, and on the local level it is surely true that a singer is not that hard to find/replace. That's because everyone wants to sing and everyone thinks they CAN sing, and it's not hard at all to replace singers in cover bands, or even unsuccessful original bands. BUT, I think that changes when a band goes national and become successful. At that point it really isn't a matter of whether the singer is technically accomplished or not . . . the fact of the matter is, the average non-musician who listens to a group on the radio grabs onto the singer first and foremost, whether that singer is a great, technically accomplished singer or not. Most people are almost completely unable to tell one drummer or bass player from another, but virtually everyone can tell singers apart. So in a commercially successful band, singers become one of the most important members. If that singer also happens to be a main writer, he can run the band however he likes. Let's face it, Tom Petty can't sing for shit as far as being a great technician . . . but if you take him out of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, what's left in terms of marketing? Not much. Replace him, the band is screwed. Let's not mistake that for him being a great singer, guitarist, or even a great writer for that matter. But he has something that fans grab onto that is not defined by any of those parameters. He has "IT", whatever that is. The same is true of Madonna . . . you can't make the claim that she is a great singer, she plays no instrument well, her writing is corny, BUT she's still a great musical entertainer. She connects. Same for Britney. Same goes for an awful lot of successful entertainers. It's not a talent show, where everyone sings and you choose the best singer. It's an entertainment show, and we choose the ones we like the best for whatever reason.

In terms of here in Nashville, I would submit that many of the major stars here are not great singers, writers or musicians. They connect. Shania Twain, Tim McGraw, Toby Keith, Kenny Chesney, Rascal Flatts . . . and on and on and on. Let me just say that I have seen all of the above live, and I can tell you without hesitation that if you sat ANY of them on a stool next to me, dressed in jeans and a t-shirt with no lights, no staging, no vocal tuning, I would kick their sorry asses all over the place. But put us in a stadium, with emphasis on performance, imaging and stage craft, and I would surely lose . . . because I am a real singer, musician and song writer, but not that focused on trying to make people like me no matter what it takes. That's the way it really works.

As far as Dennis and Tommy, I fall somewhere in the middle . . . if your definition of "superstar" is someone everyone knows, neither qualifies. If your definition is "CLASSIC ROCK superstar", I would submit that they are about as recognized as most in that genre, and I would also submit that they are the only two members of Styx with any great marquee value. Everyone else is imminently replaceable. And so are they to a degree, but when they are replaced, it damages the marquee value of the band, whereas replacing Glen, for instance, had no effect whatsoever. I would submit that from a sales/marketing perspective - NOT a musical one - you could fire and replace Todd, Gowan and Ricky all on the same day, and as long as you replaced them with someone competent, it would make virtually no difference in the ongoing business of Styx. But replace Tommy Shaw, and virtually every fan now wants his money back. That's the reality of singers vs. other players.

I hope all is well.



Sterling