Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: GUEST,Les B
Date: 24 Aug 00 - 05:21 PM

Soddy - Thanks for the info on the Rode NT 1 & 2 - I just happened to have an audio catalog open to their page when your thread came up. They're pricey little devils !! $300 to $500 + ! We can easily experiment with the SM57, a la "Hot Rize" - will probably do so within the next week.

Alice - I'm looking forward to hearing your group. Sometime this Fall, hopefully !?

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: GUEST,Alex
Date: 24 Aug 00 - 03:30 AM

Having played in bands for many years, my experience is that the band will stay together longer if all the players have the opportunity to shine but you have only one lead player (or one lead vocalist and one lead instrumentalist). A group can have only one vocal flower (and/or one instrumental flower) but needs side players (the gardeners) to nourish the flower(s). One flower and two gardeners works best = trio. (Stan Rogers touring band had guitar, bass, fiddle/flute and three vocals) It is usually best for the longevity of the band that they all be of the same gender & persuasion. You often end up sleeping in small spaces, the van, one room, somebody's sink, etc. Several guys and a lesser number of women (or vice versa) on the road for any length of time tends to lead to hanky panky - then a big bust-up, then you've either lost a band member or there's a real tense situation happening, either one of which is the death-knell of the band. The rest of you have to decide who gets kicked out and now it's a lot of work to bring someone new on board with the existing cliques that person has to merge into. My recommendation: 1)Decide what it is you want to play 2) Figure out the minimum number of people it will take to accomplish the sound you want to achieve. Choose the best musicians you know and know their good and bad points, both musically and in personality. 3) Work with the minimum number of people - If some piece sounds weak or needs more help, decide if it needs to be in your repertoire. 4) Find out of you have enough good material to play a concert (90 minutes) and that you are happy with the sound of EVERY piece with your current line-up. 5) Only after exhausting 2,3 and 4, consider adding another member.

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: Jim Krause
Date: 23 Aug 00 - 04:39 PM

Les B, If you want to experiment with the 1 mic set up, find a music store that will rent you what you need, practice with it, then take it to the gig. Allow plenty of set up time. Even with one mic, we were trying to figure out which end was up. There are several high quality mics that will work, the Rode NT1 is good, another group from hereabouts uses the NT2. I think there are also good mics by AKG. Also, do you remember the bluegrass band Hot Rize? They simply cranked up a Shure SM57, shut down the monitors, and made some great music. Good luck. You might get real spoiled. I have.

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: GUEST, Banjo Johnny
Date: 23 Aug 00 - 02:12 AM

If your band travels, a regular 4-door car will just about carry a TRIO with instruments, amps, etc. == Johnny

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: Les B
Date: 23 Aug 00 - 12:24 AM

Alice - thanks for the MP3 recording, made me think of the great time with Allan & Bill.

Our group has one person who has young kids. We make sure we rehearse at someone else's house! We have identified our free evenings and have established a standard time to start and end. We write a set list for each new gig and go through it several times, ultimately working on the rough spots. We've concluded that sheer repetition goes a long way to make up for raw talent, and can get your fingers in an "auto-pilot" mode that will get you through those tense moments when your mind seems to have gone for a long lunch !

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: Alice
Date: 22 Aug 00 - 11:49 PM

Yes, this is a good thread. I've been trying to get together with other musicians to form a group, and a big part of the problem is just the time involved to coordinate practice when people have kids, jobs, travel, ....

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: Chicky
Date: 22 Aug 00 - 09:46 PM

I'm with Callie - being in a trio is fab. I initially preferred the idea of being in a quartet, but I'm loving our little trio. Apart from the personal joys of singing with my best girlfriend and my best boyfriend, it's just so much easier to hear and adjust the vocal blend when you can hear one voice in each ear!

As far as gender in groups goes... whether to mix or not - I prefer the mixed-gender thing both as a performer and as an audient. I think the male and female voices together make for a more colourful mix.

One advantage of our particular setup is that Callie's voice extends across the Alto and much of the Tenor range, while the Critter can sing much of the normal Alto range but can also reach down into some Bass parts - so we can play games with the male-female vocal blend anyway.

Good thread!

Cheers
- Chicky

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: GUEST,Les B
Date: 22 Aug 00 - 04:31 PM

Soddy - your situation is very similar to ours, except that we have two men & two women. Whoever brings in a song gets to arrange it the way they want, with varying voice combos, or sometimes just one person singing lead.

We play a number of "heritage" venues without a sound set-up. Lately, however, we've needed a sound set-up, and luckily have access to a fairly decent system - bass and one guitar direct, banjo & other guitar miked, as are the voices - using SM58's & SM57's. We'd like to move to a single mike set-up, but haven't had time to experiment.

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: M.Ted
Date: 22 Aug 00 - 04:26 PM

Sorry, I said "more better", a grammatical mistake I hardly ever make. I will try to do more better next time.

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: Dee45
Date: 22 Aug 00 - 03:35 PM

Strength in numbers.

I've done them all. Soloist to 7/8 piece bands. The more musicians (hopefully good ones), the more infectious energy produced by the band members, and in feedback from the audience.

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: Jim Krause
Date: 22 Aug 00 - 03:16 PM

This is quite interesting. I play in a stringband called the Euphoria Stringband. We are really a quartet, having four pieces, bass, guitar, clawhammer banjo, and fiddle. The nice thing about our group is, we all sing. We are also a mixed gender group, three men, and a woman. We don't seem to have too much difficulty arranging material, if it works, good. If we have a train wreck, then it time to reexamine what we are trying to accomplish. Sometimes we "break up" the group into a vocal duo, or a trio. And we all take turns singing the lead. The rule of thumb there is whoever brings in the new number sings lead, unless otherwise specified. Sometimes three of us play instrumental back-up to the lead singer, if that seems to work best. I guess we're pretty lucky to have four people who feel comfortable, if not confident as singers. All this lends quite a variety to the performance of the band.

As for miking the group, we use a Rode NT1, run the bass direct, and sometimes we cheat a little and use a Shure SM57 to mic the banjo. Generally speaking we have had great success with the old fashioned concept of using one mic on stage. What makes this set-up work without egregious feedback problems is that we omit the stage monitors altogether, while we crank up the mic way up. Works pretty good, I think.

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: Jim Krause
Date: 22 Aug 00 - 03:12 PM

This is quite interesting. I play in a stringband called the Euphoria Stringband. We are really a quartet, having four pieces, bass, guitar, clawhammer banjo, and fiddle. The nice thing about our group is, we all sing. We are also a mixed gender group, three men, and a woman. We don't seem to have too much difficulty arranging material, if it works, good. If we have a train wreck, then it time to reexamine what we are trying to accomplish. Sometimes we "break up" the group into a vocal duo, or a trio. And we all take turns singing the lead. The rule of thumb there is whoever brings in the new number sings lead, unless otherwise specified. Sometimes three of us play instrumental back-up to the lead singer, if that seems to work best. I guess we're pretty lucky to have four people who feel comfortable, if not confident as singers. All this lends quite a variety to the performance of the band.

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: M.Ted
Date: 22 Aug 00 - 01:59 PM

Most of the bands that I know of, no matter what the size, are build around the interaction of two people--most rock and pop music can be constructed around the idea of two guitars, rhythm and lead, with additional instruments fleshing out the bass and rhythm and then adding soloists--

Most vocal arrangements start around the interplay of a melody and a harmony part(the second voice doesn't need to simple follow the melody a third away, and if it does, somebody better start studying music theory) with additional voices adding chordal depth and color.

The main thing is that the more instruments and voices that you use, the less there is for the other parts to do, and the more organized everything has to be to be in order to work.

The smaller the group, the more better each play needs to be, and the more opporunities there are to demonstrate musical virtuosity--the bigger the group, the greater the need for a strong leader, and ability to cooperate becomes more important than ability to play or sing--

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 22 Aug 00 - 01:02 PM

There are so many aspects to this question that it evades simple analysis. My first thought was that any number works as long as everyone is working toward the same end. But then I thought of groups in which totally disparate elements came together to create something truly unique. One example of this is McKendree Spring, which used elements of folk, jazz and electronic music to create something truly unique.
If you're not familiar with them (check them out!!), the band was led by Fran McKendree on rhythmic acoustic guitar and dynamic vocals. I don't remember the names of the other members, but they had electric bass, electric guitar and electric violin. They used a drummer at times, but didn't really need one because McKendree's guitar playing was so strong, and so rhythmic. The electric guitarist ws very jazz influenced. The violinist played theremin and added the electronic edge. Everything worked in support of the singer and the song. Very cool, interesting approach and dynamics.

I guess all I can say is that the ideal size of the group or ensemble depends on what it takes to achieve the sound that you hear in your head. Personally, I see two kinds of groups - for lack of a better description, those in which sounds blend and those in which sounds collide. The strength of a blending group lies in how each individual sound compliments the other. This type of group needs to be able to point every individual in the same direction, working toward a single sound. In a lot of cases, the members of this type of group don't need to be virtuosos; simple individual parts often work better in this context than complex ones.
On the other end of the spectrum are the groups that find strength in the clashing of elements and the resulting tension in the interplay of voices and instruments. The proper balance for this sort of group is often more difficult to attain and sustain. Consistency is hard to achieve in this context, in my experience. Individual virtuosity becomes extremely important - the more original each individual "voice" the more interesting the result.

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: Alice
Date: 22 Aug 00 - 12:51 PM

If you can hear MP3 files, there is one of Les B singing and playing banjo when Bill Sables and Allan were here. The other people in the recording are not from Les's band, just folks who were at Wayne's house for the evening.

I hope this works...click here

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: GUEST,Les B
Date: 22 Aug 00 - 11:28 AM

Chanteyranger - actually our group plays what we call Americana - everything from Civil War era songs to Hank Williams and newer. Our instrumentation tends toward bluegrass - banjo, guitars, mandolin, bass, and sometimes fiddle. We are working on adding autoharp and dobro.

Just as the above discussions indicate, our group has differing tastes and outlooks on music - I hold down the old time end and our female lead singer brings in the modern songs. We get along well and are just starting to get "tight" in terms of playing and singing. (But we've still got a lo-o-ong way to go !!)

Because all four of us sing in various configurations, we feel we have a fair amount of variety (with varying quality) and that the voices and song choices overcome fairly middle-of-the-road instrumental skills. We've been told we look like we have a good time playing, and we do. We're still working on getting "a bit O better banter" for those awkward pauses when someone changes instruments. All the above responses have given me food for thought.

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 22 Aug 00 - 01:36 AM

Good question, and I'm wondering what sort of music you play. Your thread suggests you play Bluegrass. Banjo, fiddle, mandolin, guitar, and bass is, as you probably know, the classic bluegrass quintet, but there are many duos, trios and quartets out there. I'm in two musical groups, and we greatly enjoy making music together. One is a sea music quartet, the other a group of 70 Scottish fiddlers! So, much of it depends on how much you enjoy working with each other, and what kind of sound you want. Many musicians perform with more than one group, so they can be able to express their musical ideas with group types and sizes that fit the varying ways they want to explore music. Sometimes two members of a band do some duo gigs on the side together, because they want to express their music in a way the band as a whole does not. So, if these alternate routes are not a problem with the others in the band you're in now, you might want to experiment with those ideas.

-chanteyranger

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: Les B
Date: 22 Aug 00 - 01:20 AM

Callie - actually I'm staying in the quartet, but may do a duo on the side. Jed - that's what I feel, a trio is just starting to get a "band" sound, instrumentally.

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: JedMarum
Date: 22 Aug 00 - 01:10 AM

Great question! I have tried many combinatins, and still play a few. I believe the more players you have, the more difficult it is to develop 'tight' music. It is true, that I think you acheive a real big advantage with thre quality singers (over two), and I think it true that three instruments begins to get you a real 'band' sound sound, if they are good players and they know the music.

So I would say three may be the optimum start of a good band. Personalities are also very important, and this is where the 'too many cooks' danger coems to play, so again, 3is probably the optimal start of a good band - add the fourth or fifth when the core is very settled, and all agree on the new member/role.

Having said that solo, is awfully easy (redo arrangements on the fly, not have to wait for someone to tune,or switch instruments, etc.). And a duo gives a good solo performer an additional 'foil' on stage (assuming there's good chemistry).

Guess you asked a question, we turned over a rock and found another question and two more rocks!

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: Callie
Date: 22 Aug 00 - 01:06 AM

It depends on the type of music. I play in a trio which does mainly vocal music with some instruments - 2 females and a male. Or in other words, soprano, alto, tenor. i think it's the perfect vocal combination because it allows for the widest range of possibilities without sounding top or bottom heavy. We're always careful to augment our vocal arrangments with an arrangment THAT FITS both harmonically and pitch-blend (overall voicing).

We can also do a wide range of repertoire & don't have to stick to single gender-specific songs.

I've just re-read your original thread, and realise you're going from a quartet to duo. I think duos can be great, but have always ended up singing in "third-type" harmonies, if you know what I mean. And the dynamic is different. But hey - the Louvin Brothers were just a duo, and so were the Everleys and they're both great (they are also sets of brothers!), and that's just scratching the surface!

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: Les B
Date: 22 Aug 00 - 12:46 AM

OK - I'll throw one more element into the mix. How about mixed gender groups versus all male or all female ?

Pete probably misunderstood what I'm asking about. I was after the kind of analysis Callie offered. Very insightful.

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: JamesJim
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 11:59 PM

I believe a trio is best. A much fuller harmony.

Jim

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: Franklin Thompson
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 11:25 PM

Ah, Guest Les B, the beautiful thing about music is that you can pick and choose, much like buying apples at a fruit market. You can enjoy Granny Smith, Red Delicious, etc., but you can choose the best of each, to enjoy.

Was Les B's question in the mudcat do's and don't's list of questions that shouldn't be asked? Perhaps "Pete" has a copy he will share with us?

Franklin Thompson

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: GUEST, Banjo Johnny
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 10:38 PM

As a general rule, two voices are plenty for folk music, one high, one low. Also there's no reason to have duplicate instruments such as two guitars. Better to have a range of instrumental sounds for variety. It's always great to have a bass of some kind. The more players, the tougher it is to sound tight. Too many cooks ...

== Johnny

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: Callie
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 09:01 PM

I don't think it's a dumb question. Of course Les didn't imply that one is unconditionally better than the other - it is an interesting question about group dynamics and how you arrange music and layer sounds.

I used to sing in a quartet which is now a trio. There are pros and cons, but the bottom line is, we couldn't find the ideal 'fourth person', so we remain a trio until that day.

The Pros: It's easier to learn new material It's easier to blend three voices than four It's easier to hear everyone, and therefore easier to achieve a higher musical standard faster It's easier to organise rehearsals It's easier to reach concensus It lends itself more to have a soloist on a song and two minor parts You need fewer mikes on stage It might be difficult to find 3 people of like mind, but imagine how much harder it is to find 4 people!

The trio can work if you arrange the music properly - ie, have a 'bottom end' sound, a middle and a top line, which is usually but not always the solo line. I've heard trios that were too bottom heavy - cello, low voice and low percussion - and it just sounded wrong.

The Cons:

some songs just NEED that fourth line to get the complexities in there. We need to import a fourth person from time to time. If you're strictly a vocal group, the existing (mainly pre-20th century) repertoire is limited. Trios can be tricky in a personal sense, although they are not always. Alliances form and tend to leave one person out a bit, and it's usually unintentional. A quartet - although just one person more - can often avoid the 2 vs 1 syndrome (although that's a generalisation).

Callie

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 05:53 PM

Les,

All can sound great.

My opinion is to listen to what you like.

There are great solo performers, lots of awful ones.

The same applies to duos, trios, etc

There is no right answer, let your ears decide!

Pete

What a dumb question

Subject: RE: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: Charcloth
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 05:39 PM

I have done the solo bit & I don't care for it. You have much more artistic lattiude with a duo than solo. On occassion I have done the trio & even tried a five piece group I prefer the duo. One thing I find it is much easier to book a smaller group than a larger cause $400 spreads alot better among 2 people than it does 5. If a duo puts a bit of thought in it,& mixes the instruments they can have a much fuller sound than the sum of their parts

Subject: Duos, Trios or Quartets - which ?
From: GUEST,Les B
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 04:51 PM

I just attended a local Bluegrass festival, which also had a few "filler" acts that were solos, duos, etc. The dynamics of the various acts got me to wondering about the format of folk performances in general.

While there were some very talented pickers & singerrs doing solos, their musical output paled in comparison to the duos, trios, and quartets. .But, on the other end of the scale, a few of the quartets, or even five-piece groups seemed overblown -- a cluttery, clashy, somewhat unclear musical experience.

I have experienced or can guess some of the obvious pros & cons of playing with one, two, or three others, but I'd like to hear from others about their preferences for hearing, and for playing in duos, trios, or quartets. (I currently play in a quartet, but am looking at getting into another situation as a duo.)