When 2 are better than 1...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    When 2 are better than 1...

    I've been reflecting on how many of the bands I really enjoy tend to employ two musicians on the same/similar instruments in order to flesh out and add further dimension to their sounds.  Some of the obvious: Allman Bros., Grateful Dead,
    Pearl Jam, Stones.

    The variation between one- and two-guitar lineups seems stark, but it's a tough call.  Cream pulled a robust sound out of a trio; same with Rush, albeit later with keys. 

    Even more interesting is how bands use two different lead vocalists yet still retain their core dynamic.  The Beatles were the clear early and best example of this, but so was The Byrds, The Who and then CSN.  More vocal sharings include The Cars (Orr/Ocasek), Guster - (Adam/Ryan), Gomez - [Ben/Ian/Tom (3 leads!)]

    Lastly, it's a lot of fun to see musicians jump around and play different parts live.  The multi-instrumental aspect is a bit symbolic to me of a band's cohesion and maturity.  For instance, during They Might Be Giants at Berklee last week, John L. played a bass clarinet, of which I didn't know existed and he was equally self-deprecating.

    Sorry for the monologue...please share your thoughts.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    Santana used two percussion instruments, I really like that.

    The cool thing about the MKIII lineup of Deep Purple was that Coverdale and Hughes would alternate on vocals, this gave the band a new dynamic. One of my favorite songs 'Burn' is a great example.

    The Outlaws had what they referred to as a "guitar army" , I don't know for sure but I think they had as many as 4 guitars at times...possibly counting the bass guitar, though.

    However when Jimi Hendrix played he was the entire show and any additional singer or guitarist would be totally unnecessary. I feel the same about Clapton although I've seen him paired with Robert Cray and it was really great.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    One of my favorite bands of the Seventies was 10CC.  There were four guys in the band and they all did lead vocals as well as harmonizing.  Two of them had high voices, Eric Stewart and Lol Creme, and two had low voices, Graham Gouldman and Kevin Godley.

    What was funny was that when the band split up, it was like an amoeba splitting, as Godley and Creme became a new unit with one high voice and one low voice, and Stewart and Gouldman continued as 10CC with one high voice and one low voice.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    The Rumour were a great band which had two guitarists in Martin Belmont and Brinsley Schwarz.

    The members of The Band could jump around a bit playing different instruments and were masterful at sharing vocals.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    Hey . . .  if two is good, five must be better, right?


     




     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    Sure, why not...!

    I've noticed a lot of jam bands take this approach - which would seem to be essential when emphasizing a lot of instrumental passages.

    I especially like the poly-rhythmic effect of more than one percussionist...love that #$*&...!!

    What other bands had large lineups?  Skynyrd?  Southern/country bands?   Broken Social Scene comes to mind too.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from phsmith8. Show phsmith8's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    Radiohead often plays with an extra percussionist and nigel godrich as well on keys/synth i believe...that would make seven?

    the thom/jonny/ed guitar trio is the best around, perfectly blended, all with different roles. can't get enough of seeing it live (5 and counting), i really hope they come around again soon.  best time was 10 rows back from jonny and it was the best night of my life (maybe...damn close)
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    I would imagine that many bands need larger lineups to properly render studio recordings live.

    Pink Floyd also comes to mind for that reason, so it's no surprise that I see lot of their experimentalism in Radiohead
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    In Response to Re: When 2 are better than 1...:
    The Rumour were a great band which had two guitarists in Martin Belmont and Brinsley Schwarz. The members of The Band could jump around a bit playing different instruments and were masterful at sharing vocals.
    Posted by devildavid


    I love listening to the Rumour. They are one of my all time favorite backup bands. Elvis Costello's Attractions were quite good too. But that is irrelevant to the subject, I know.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    This is far and away a different take on this topic -- but in highly skilled and talented A cappella groups, they do amazing switch-ups in terms of a changing front "man" and also in the way they render backup and instrumentals.  Vocalists also do instrumentals, depending on the song.  

    It's totally out of sight seeing what they can do.   

    Also want to mention, based on that "Sly is down and out" story, that I heard a group cover "Everyday People" in the A cappella program that's underway lately, and it was so amazing (pure energy and ridiculous fun) -- that Ben Folds said he completely forgot they were using their voices instead of musical instruments, it was that awesome.  


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from phsmith8. Show phsmith8's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    In Response to Re: When 2 are better than 1...:
    This is far and away a different take on this topic -- but in highly skilled and talented A cappella groups, they do amazing switch-ups in terms of a changing front "man" and also in the way they render backup and instrumentals.  Vocalists also do instrumentals, depending on the song.   It's totally out of sight seeing what they can do.    Also want to mention, based on that "Sly is down and out" story, that I heard a group cover "Everyday People" in the A cappella program that's underway lately, and it was so amazing (pure energy and ridiculous fun) -- that Ben Folds said he completely forgot they were using their voices instead of musical instruments, it was that awesome.  
    Posted by yogafriend

    I watched that show last night, and I loved it...I wish I was in an a capella group
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from AGUY1. Show AGUY1's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN42uzNFVmQ

    On a serious note. Not a big fan but Thin Lizzy is worth mentioning. They seem to have more of a two lead guitar player thing then a lot of bands with just two guitars. The Stones for example had a more "one lead, one rhythm" thing, at least during the Taylor era. These days they are much more blended together.

    IMO though, the current lineup of Warren Haynes and Derrick Trucks is probably the best two guitar line up of all time. Clapton and Duane Allman was certainly one that had great potential.

    Someone had mentioned that Clapton doesn't really need a second guitar player. I disagree. I think he's a lot better when he feeds off of someone else. It seems to bring more out of him.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    Excellent point on Thin Lizzy...their two-lead attack was a template for heavy metal bands, plus Phil Lynott was practically a lead-style bassist.   The implications of two guitarists for metal/hard rock bands are pretty clear:

    Judas Priest
    Iron Maiden
    Scorpions
    AC/DC
    Metallica
    Megadeth
    Slayer
    Guns
    Def Leppard

    Add a personal fave: Crazy Horse (with Neil Young)

    Agreed that the Trucks/Haynes tandem is one of the best around, especially in a live setting.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    As far as I know, Blue Oyster Cult is the only band to ever take the multiple guitar concept to its extreme.  In their original lineup, they would do some stuff  with all five guys playing guitar.  Looks pretty Spinal Tap-py, doesn't it.  The one making the fashion statement with the shorts is the drummer, of course.



     
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    In Response to When 2 are better than 1...:
    I've been reflecting on how many of the bands I really enjoy tend to employ two musicians on the same/similar instruments in order to flesh out and add further dimension to their sounds.  Some of the obvious: Allman Bros., Grateful Dead, Pearl Jam, Stones. The variation between one- and two-guitar lineups seems stark, but it's a tough call.  Cream pulled a robust sound out of a trio; same with Rush, albeit later with keys.  Even more interesting is how bands use two different lead vocalists yet still retain their core dynamic.  The Beatles were the clear early and best example of this, but so was The Byrds, The Who and then CSN.  More vocal sharings include The Cars (Orr/Ocasek), Guster - (Adam/Ryan), Gomez - [Ben/Ian/Tom (3 leads!)] Lastly, it's a lot of fun to see musicians jump around and play different parts live.  The multi-instrumental aspect is a bit symbolic to me of a band's cohesion and maturity.  For instance, during They Might Be Giants at Berklee last week, John L. played a bass clarinet, of which I didn't know existed and he was equally self-deprecating. Sorry for the monologue...please share your thoughts.
    Posted by MattyScornD


    Good post, although I never thought as The Who as having different lead singers. Yeah, Townsend and Entwistle sang lead of a few songs, but to me, Daltry is the lead singer.

    As for other groups that benefitted from multiple lead singers:

    Pink Floyd -- I thought the respective strengths of Gilmore and Waters added more depth to the group than Floyd w/o Waters or Waters solos stuff had.

    Fleetwood Mac (classic lineup): The variety of voices from Nicks, Buckingham and Christine McVie was one of the things that made the group great.

    Moody Blues: Justin Hayward was the main lead, John Lodge, Mike Pinder and Ray Thomas also sang lead on songs, which added depth. That lineup was so much stronger than it became as first Pinder then Thomas left.


     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from AGUY1. Show AGUY1's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...


    It was interesting how Three Dog Night went with 3 singers.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    In Response to Re: When 2 are better than 1...:
    In Response to When 2 are better than 1... : Good post, although I never thought as The Who as having different lead singers. Yeah, Townsend and Entwistle sang lead of a few songs, but to me, Daltry is the lead singer. As for other groups that benefitted from multiple lead singers: Pink Floyd -- I thought the respective strengths of Gilmore and Waters added more depth to the group than Floyd w/o Waters or Waters solos stuff had. Fleetwood Mac (classic lineup): The variety of voices from Nicks, Buckingham and Christine McVie was one of the things that made the group great. Moody Blues: Justin Hayward was the main lead, John Lodge, Mike Pinder and Ray Thomas also sang lead on songs, which added depth. That lineup was so much stronger than it became as first Pinder then Thomas left.
    Posted by royf19


    Good points, all. 

    Floyd is an all-timer for me, so thanks for bringing them up (plus Richard Wright also sings on some tracks)...helpful for a band whose atmospheric quality makes the singer almost beside the point.

    The kicker is "Have A Cigar" - who's singing lead...David or Roger? 

    A: Neither.  It's Roy Harper...!!
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    The Monkees - they switched instruments like crazy Tongue out
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    In Response to Re: When 2 are better than 1...:
    The Monkees - they switched instruments like crazy
    Posted by jesseyeric


    They also had more than one lead singer. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    Queen had 3 lead singers, of course Freddie did about 90% of the songs.  But Roger Taylor did some good change-of-pace vocals, and Brian May got a few turns at the mike as well.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    I put Queen in the same category of The Who. Unlike other groups mentioned -- Fleetwood Mac, Pink Floyd -- they really had just one lead singer. Mercury is the lead singer for Queen and Daltry for The Who. That there were a few songs for each group that others sang lead on to me doesn't change that. It came across as that change of pace song, or in concert, to give the lead singer a rest.

    No big deal -- it's just how I look a it.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from jkjband. Show jkjband's posts

    Re: When 2 are better than 1...

    The Band had 3 who were legitimate lead vocalists (Danko, Helms, and Manual) ,  and everyone  (except Robbie Robertson) played a plethora of different instruments; sometimes going with a 2 drummer alignment.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share