Re: When 2 are better than 1...
posted at 10/17/2011 3:03 AM EDT
In Response to When 2 are better than 1...
[QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]
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.