I wanted to throw out a question to interested parties. Has anyone but me noticed that very often, when someone advertises for singers needed for a group, that they always seem to want someone between their 20’s and middle 40’s? I wonder why those of us who have sang for the Lord for many years and are now older than our mid 40’s are apparently no longer worth consideration? Just wondering out loud. What do you think?
Oh Yes, I have noticed that a lot…... i.m not lookin mind you, I am enjoying my old age, but I must admit I don’t move as fast or think to clearly sometimes. My 12 year old grand daughter is my computer teacher, bless her heart.
I think I can still sing a good bari or lead, but admit I probably would not enjoy traveling ang can not lug sound equipment that much anymore. I now go and listen to these young upstarts, but, I must admit some of them are really great singers even though they look wet behind the ears, he he he!!!
By the way, I will be 69 in a couple of weeks….... don’t tell on me, though
That’s the problem in country music. Everybody wants the “pretty” people. Others need not apply. I do think the situation has improved somewhat in SGM thanks to an outstanding list of heroes and legends and the Gaither Homecoming programs.
These people you are referring to are missing out on some of the most talented and experienced Singers and real Entertainers in the Industry and have already learned from their mistates.
The group I sang with previously had two members over the age of 50, and they were the most dedicated, easy to work with guys I’ve ever met. You couldn’t get them riled up, they had quite a few years of experience, and were VERY dependable.
The “young ‘uns only” thing, I think, comes from the desire to build a group and keep the same singers together for a long time. Realistically, though, that just doesn’t happen very often….
I personally think its all about wanting a “marketable image” as opposed to longevity. More and more younger groups (and some of the longer established ones too) these days are wanting to have that ultra casual (jeans and shirttails) look supposedly to appeal to younger audiences. Partly it could have to do with salary scales and the notion that you can pay a younger single person alot less than what an older person with a family needs to survive.
Again, personally, I can do without all of that nonsense. Ladies in dresses, men in suits or at least dress clothes, please. And for pete’s sake, cut and comb your hair! For what its worth, I’m female and in my mid-forties.
not that this is my personal mindset, but it has been told to me by some folks who were looking that they wanted a younger inexperienced person so that they could “mold” them into the vocalist that they wanted. They had their own mindset of what they wanted in a vocalist and didn’t want someone coming in that would have too much to say about the way things were done or try to change the group in any way or bring too much of an ego with them.
At age 76, I can still sing pretty good and do funerals and some weddings. The problem I have as a male singer, I don’t have enough hair to tease up and look like I just stuck my finger in a light socket.
At age 76, I can still sing pretty good and do funerals and some weddings. The problem I have as a male singer, I don’t have enough hair to tease up and look like I just stuck my finger in a light socket.
Finger in a light socket!!! Huh!! Imagine that. I always wondered how they got their hair to look like that. Thanks for the chuckle, I needed one today.
the real reason, in my opinion…. is that they know that they cannot afford an older singer…. he or she has a house to pay for, kids, college, retirement…. and a kid will live with the group owner and make $200-300 a week…. waddya think?
Like the great quote from “The Right Stuff”: NO BUCKS, NO BUCK ROGERS
One example that comes to mind is the Oaks…...... They (Duan Allen, William Golden, Joe Bonsall, Richard Sterban) have been together for 36 years. Looking at the other extreme - I wonder if they would want any young’uns or inexperienced singers???
It comes down to a couple of reasons, but the main reason is money. It has been my experience that most groups want to hire someone with a limited resume so they can “afford” them. This can be seen when the average full-time pay for a piano player in this industry is around $400 a week (much higher or throw in benefits and you are living big). That is very close to the same thing it was 20 years ago. In the case of pianists, they would rather hire a 16yr old that can beat the keys off a piano and work for nothing than to hire a 30 yr old or 50 yr old that has a family or retirement to worry about and therefor needs an income that can actually be capable of maintaining the needs of such a person. It is a lot easier for a young single kid with no family and financial obligations to live off of $20800 a year than it would be for a person with any level of financial responsibility or a family. This is the biggest issue, no matter what anyone says. As far as marketing is concerned, Bill Gaither is no spring chicken, yet his group is consistently one of the most successful groups in the industry. When it comes to image, how many groups in SG are ready for the cover of GQ. Longevity is the biggest laugh when it comes to reasons for hiring young members. It seems that many of today’s most popular groups change personnel more than they change their underwear these days. While all of these issues play a tiny role in what groups are looking for in new group members, the number one issue in many cases comes to money. If that offends anyone, it is not meant to. It is just an observed fact. Take it for what its worth.
