Why don't rock bands have multiple lead singers anymore?

[fiddlesticks]

@zombywoof

The Drive-By Truckers is another recent/current rock band with multiple lead singers.

DBT members generally sing the songs they write themselves, so they are really a collection of songwriters who hang out together.

[FordTaurusSHO94]

The Goo Goo Dolls have two singers. You only hear Johnny on the radio, but Robbie sings several songs on each album they release.

[MysteryFellow63427]

@Jas09

I’d add Arcade Fire as a band that has multiple singers

This and the White Stripes are closest to mainstream, wide-scale “supergroups” that have multiple singers. Almost everything else mentioned in this thread can’t even be heard on the radio (or was founded at least 20-25+ years ago).

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@tomcar

Hahahah, Fugazi and Sonic Youth both came to mind. Unfortunately, they aren’t around anymore

Fugazi isn’t around, but Sonic Youth is, sorta.

Thurston Moore and Kim Gordon announced late last year (2011) that they were divorcing, and shortly after Lee Ranaldo announced the band was going on hiatus. Prior to that tho, the band had released albums regularly, including last years Simon Werner a Disparu, which was well received by critics and fans alike. IMO, the band isn’t done yet; Moore & Gordon have been (had been?) together for over 30 years (both professionally and personally), and my gut feeling is that even if they do end up divorced, the band will eventually continue.

[Astral_Rejection]

Linkin Park hasn’t been mentioned yet, and they have two very distinctive singers, often both singing within each song.

[Accidental_Martyr]

@zombywoof

The Drive-By Truckers is another recent/current rock band with multiple lead singers.

That was the first band I thought of when I read the thread title.

[Sage_Rat]

@Bozuit

Looks like this is also a case of the confirmation bias that is especially strong when comparing music of different times. There is a point when a person is most interested in music. They talk about it with their friends and seek it out. They find interesting things that they like, and ignore the rubbish. Then later, they become a far more passive consumer of music and they just hear what is most popular. They mistakenly assume this is the best that contemporary music has to offer and become even less interested in digging out the good stuff. Anyway, I think some of your points are way off.

I think it would be more accurate to say “Basically, during the 60s and 70s, bands (you listened to) were self-formed and largely self-produced, writing their own music”. Actually I think “largely self-produced” is probably inaccurate for any period anyway. The Monkees and the Jackson 5 are obvious examples of “manufactured” bands of the era.

I was 10 in 1989. I wrote what I wrote because that seems to be the case, not because the 60’s and 70’s were the glory years of my teenhood.

[Bozuit]

@Sage_Rat

I was 10 in 1989. I wrote what I wrote because that seems to be the case, not because the 60’s and 70’s were the glory years of my teenhood.

I did consider you might not be old enough for what I said to be relevant but wrote it anyway as it still applies to many people. And I still disagree with most of what you said.

@Astral_Rejection

Linkin Park hasn’t been mentioned yet, and they have two very distinctive singers, often both singing within each song.

I was afraid to.

@neuroman

This and the White Stripes are closest to mainstream, wide-scale “supergroups” that have multiple singers. Almost everything else mentioned in this thread can’t even be heard on the radio (or was founded at least 20-25+ years ago).

You can hear more from this thread than just them on the radio. And maybe you don’t know what “supergroup” means because I’m not sure how that applies to the White Stripes or Arcade Fire.

[MysteryFellow63427]

@Bozuit

You can hear more from this thread than just them on the radio. And maybe you don’t know what “supergroup” means because I’m not sure how that applies to the White Stripes or Arcade Fire.

Eh, you’re mostly wrong about the radio thing. And no, we don’t have “supergroups” any more like there were in the 70s, but Arcade Fire headlines at national music festivals–call them whatever the fuck you like, they’re in the upper echelon.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@neuroman

And no, we don’t have “supergroups” any more like there were in the 70s, but Arcade Fire headlines at national music festivals–call them whatever the fuck you like, they’re in the upper echelon.

[QUOTE=merriam-webster.com]
supergroup : a rock group made up of prominent former members of other rock groups; also : an extremely successful rock group.
[/QUOTE]
You seem to be using the term in the second sense. Bozuit was using the first definition, which is the one I am more familiar with and the one described in the Wikipedia article.