Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
Dee Snyder Twisted Sister is an interesting front man. He took it to audiences who sat on their hands and did nothing
Until he threw **** at you
Freddie Mercury hands down. I mean, the guy got Wembley Stadium to do a call-response yodel with him in 1986.
He had it all. Range, was an entertainer, composer, stage presence, and longevity. He also played in a band that did many different styles from hard rock to opera to ragtime to funk to synth etc.
Queen had enough longevity as well. They were around for about two decades (1971-1991) and were just as relevant in 1975 as 1985.
Dave Grohl, dammit!
for me Bon Scott should be there. Anyone who watches his old live performances see what could how great he was live. Paul Stanley is joint front man with Simmons and Simmons has more allure then PS
I mean, here's what I can get behind. If front-man is just a code-word for stage presence and charisma of any variety, then I'm onboard, I guess. I can relate to the feeling of a band having just the right look/demeanor/schtick, adding mood and color to the performance with banter/wit/charm/just the way they carry themselves and all that. But whenever I see these lists, it always feels like a list of "the guys who are the best at dancing around on stage, being theatrical/dramatic, asking for attention and getting the crowd riled up" which has always felt like a pretty unimportant thing to me, so the term is a bit unclear to me. Dylan sitting motionless on his chair with that full harmonica contraption getup, wise-cracking with the audience between songs has an awesome feel to it, but does that make him an incredible front-man? Or is a front-man STRICTLY the TYPE of stage presence that Jagger is? And why would a great voice be a prerequisite? Also, does a person's front-man-ness depend on the crowd's reaction to it, or is it just judged by whatever your own personal reaction to the environment? What are the rules?
I haven't seen Can live before (except in videos), but I've always liked the description I've read of what Damo Suzuki seems like on stage. Just buzzes around the stage like a fly losing himself to the groove, almost like a wandering homeless man who doesn't seem to have any reason to be up there, and then occassionally, WHAM! picks the perfect spot to jump right in, nonsensically barking/wailing like a psychotic madman to give everything that extra punctuation. Is that front-man-ness?
If it's JUST strictly the stadium-rock-type thing that Mercury/Jagger does, I have no use for it, personally.
I think the fact no women are even mentioned here is pretty interesting, unless they are taking front"men" literally.
It tells me that indeed, testosterone is what fuels big stadium concerts maybe more than someone really getting up there and pulling you in emotionally, thru vocals, subtlety, the craftsmanship of a song. Not saying men can't do that, in fact it's probably a good reason that someone like Dylan, or Clapton or Levon Helm don't make this list.
Since when is Dave Grohl so special???
FWIW, I find Karen O to be a very engaging and fun frontwoman.
Danny Carey: Tool
Well, going to a live show's a different story haha. But as depraved as he was, he was honest and uncompromising, which is more than you can say for most. And beyond the shock of it all, he had some kickass tunes.
Is this cuz Maynard usually hangs out backstage?
Sorry, I missed this. I've seen some modern acts live, but admittedly, most of the peak guys we're talking about are before my time, and I've either only seen concert films of them or the over-the-hill version of them. So if that means only take my comment with a grain of salt, that's fair.... I just don't really understand why there's a distinction between the crowd-work front-man kind of charisma/stage presence and just ANY kind of charisma/stage presence. They're both an ability to impress through performance.... shouldn't that be the only measure, then? Just seems a little strange to me that the crowd-effect/performance type matters enough that these guys get their own special label for it.Have you ever seen a band live?
Sorry, I missed this. I've seen some modern acts live, but admittedly, most of the peak guys we're talking about are before my time, and I've either only seen concert films of them or the over-the-hill version of them. So if that means only take my comment with a grain of salt, that's fair.... I just don't really understand why there's a distinction between the crowd-work front-man kind of charisma/stage presence and just ANY kind of charisma/stage presence. They're both an ability to impress through performance.... shouldn't that be the only measure, then? Just seems a little strange to me that the crowd-effect/performance type matters enough that these guys get their own special label for it.
Mike Patton is so criminally underrated.
I changed my post? What do you mean?You changed your post ha ha.
Those of us who think it weighs heavily are the ones who have experienced it and give it weight. You can't or haven't, therefore you don't give it much weight. Apparently the majority of people judging this subject have experienced it and therefore give it a lot of weight.
You keep using words that put those of us who feel that way down as well. I don't think you can help it lol.
We are getting "worked up" by a frontman? Seriously, it's as if getting into a concert is us being less thans who can be tricked into dancing and cheering by these people just because they scream "I can't hear you "Insert city name", Are we gonna have some fun tonight? Crowd ROOOOOOOOOOAAARSSS!!!
Sorry, I missed this. I've seen some modern acts live, but admittedly, most of the peak guys we're talking about are before my time, and I've either only seen concert films of them or the over-the-hill version of them. So if that means only take my comment with a grain of salt, that's fair.... I just don't really understand why there's a distinction between the crowd-work front-man kind of charisma/stage presence and just ANY kind of charisma/stage presence. They're both an ability to impress through performance.... shouldn't that be the only measure, then? Just seems a little strange to me that the crowd-effect/performance type matters enough that these guys get their own special label for it.
Just stuff like Radiohead, Arcade Fire, Broken Social Scene, U2, and over-the-hill-Stones when I was younger in various stadiums/venues in Vancouver. Admittedly I'm not a big live concert guy, they probably weren't the most ideal venues, and these are not the best guys to judge by. It's mainly just something that I don't grasp/make sense of conceptually and basing on found footage rather than a "I know concerts, and this is what I know from first hand experience" claim, though. For example, I've seen a bunch of Rolling Stones concert films, looked at Jagger's front-man-ness and wondered-- Why is this its own category of thing?What bands have you seen? What size of venue have you been in?