The ebb and flow of a gigging musician

[SeniorBlues]

"I Got a Woman" by Ray Charles, or any one of thousands of hit records with what I call a basic country two-beat. How many drummers have you seen who try to play it with a 16th ride instead of alternating strokes on the snare?

[Lee Knight]

"I Got a Woman" by Ray Charles, or any one of thousands of hit records with what I call a basic country two-beat. How many drummers have you seen who try to play it with a 16th ride instead of alternating strokes on the snare?

 

​Perfect! How many bands would never go here? On first listen with "modern ears" they'd hear something that is a tad square and tame. But this beat played loud in a modern context with players playing that groove... the dancefloor will be packed. It never ceases to amaze me how hip these old grooves are when heard live. By a great band, say, like NRBQ or Bonnie Raitt's band, or David Lindley or Derek Trucks or Ozomatli. Steve Jordan from John Mayer's band. All of a sudden it's not so tame. But I can only imagine how it would sound like from 95% of the bar bands today

 

[Vito Corleone]

I'll try to make it clearer for you.

 

MS and Feelin' Alright are good examples of classic grooves of songs that a lot of bands have played over the years. Most bands do try to cop the grooves of these classic songs to the best of their abilities. . . . or at least they try.

 

Lord help me, this thread actually made me waste 10 minutes of my life listening to different versions of Mustang Sally. Every one I heard the drummer is playing the same beat as the guy did on the Pickett version (or the original Mack Rice version actually) with just slight variations and accents to fit their own style. Including my own drummer. Not sure what sort of drummers you have come across that can't cop that groove.or else either you're very picky about how you want that groove played! But yes, pretty sure that's the only way I've heard that song played.

 

Not that somebody couldn't break the song down completely and do it completely differently though. As tired as that song is, somebody probably should already!

 

We all can agree on the importance of compatibility of band members, musically and otherwise. What gets my goat is guys who give the impression that a watered down version of a song is just as good as the original, and use audience reaction as their sole barometer of success. Sorry, Dave, we have different goals and priorities and continue to talk past each other.

 

We might have different goals and priorities in some cases but yes---I do use audience reaction as a big (if not sole) barometer of success with any arrangement and performance of a song we do, but I think it goes a little bit deeper here in that you seem to really be tied to certain versions of some songs as the barometer of how they should be arranged/performed in the first place, and I'm not particularly interested in that at all. I think bands should make songs their own as much as possible. Find their own groove. That doesn't make it "watered down". If they like it and if the audience likes it....whose left to judge? Other musicians? Pffffft.

 

But yeah....how well you connect a song to audience is a big part of the success of a live performance to me. To me that just kind of seems obvious. Otherwise, why are you even doing it in public? But we can agree to disagree on that point. That's cool. Too each his own.

[Vito Corleone]

 

 

 

Sometimes listening to you talk about this stuff... I'm amazed you're not a Midwestern heartland rock player. Born and raised on Head East and REO. You typically scoff at the idea that there's something subtle and magic and powerful in a groove. REO didn't need 'em! Why do I?

 

 

 

 

I'm not scoffing at the idea that there's something subtle and magical and powerful in a groove. But I'm also not something that there's not something magical and powerful in what Grand Funk did with Feelin' Alright either. I love that version almost as much as the Cocker version and I'm guessing many people out there like it even more. I agree with everyone that if a band plays a song in a lame manner, then that's just plain lame. But to suggest that's something lame simply because they didn't play it with the same funk groove that someone else did 50 years ago is wrong too. I love funk grooves. But not all bands play funk well. So what? They shouldn't play certain songs? Especially if they and their audiences enjoy it? Why not? Who makes these rules?

 

On a similar thread a couple of weeks ago talking about how Ring of Fire "should" be played I posted alternate version by Social Distortion and Blondie. I love both those versions. I think they are perfect for their bands. They come nowhere close to copping the country groove that Johnny Cash does with it. So what? I think it's better that they didn't. If they tried to play it just like Johnny.....now THAT would have been lame!

 

Just my opinion though. YMMV.

 

which is why it often comes back to how much the audience digs it. Which, in my view, is MUCH more important than repeating what was played on a record note for note decades ago. But again---YMMV.

[SeniorBlues]

It's number 235 on the RS top 500. I picked it for the groove, but also because it's not a song I was raised on. I was only six when it was released in 1954. He recorded all kinds of songs that were gospel based, or country, or latin, or blues, or swing that influenced many artists during the following decades. He's like Duke Ellington - a musical prerequisite, regardless of what style you play or how old you are.

 

 

[Lee Knight]

Actually I hear drummers butcher the MS beat all the the time. But it the drummer nails some facsimile of it, the bass player fails to get the upbeats on 2 and 3. 1 +... 2 AND^ 3 AND^...

 

And if they get that right they most likely play it too slow. Or too fast. Or just so freaking WHITE. Any way to drain it of life.

 

Not that any band needs to copy that groove verbatim. However, every tired bar band I hear seems to replace that groove with some completely lame plod with no syncopation. So why not at that point just really learn that groove to see how it ticks. To add that to your communal arsenal.

 

Or maybe just jam on it and feel it our way. The crowd loves us! I bet they'd love you more if you were killing a groove too.

[FitchFY]

This thread went to "Mustang Sally." Unfathomable. *facepalm*

 

YAY INTERNET!!!!

[Lee Knight]

This thread went to "Mustang Sally." Unfathomable. *facepalm*

 

YAY INTERNET!!!!

 

 

Really?

 

[Lee Knight]

I guess I should have said... Royals? We're just using MS to illustrate a point. But you knew that, right?

[Vito Corleone]

Actually I hear drummers butcher the MS beat all the the time. But it the drummer nails some facsimile of it, the bass player fails to get the upbeats on 2 and 3. 1 +... 2 AND^ 3 AND^...

 

And if they get that right they most likely play it too slow. Or too fast. Or just so freaking WHITE. Any way to drain it of life.

 

Not that any band needs to copy that groove verbatim. However, every tired bar band I hear seems to replace that groove with some completely lame plod with no syncopation. So why not at that point just really learn that groove to see how it ticks. To add that to your communal arsenal.

 

Or maybe just jam on it and feel it our way. The crowd loves us! I bet they'd love you more if you were killing a groove too.

 

They might. They might also love other stuff you add to the arrangement and performance as well. If it works for them without syncopation, then so what?

 

So bands are not supposed to use the audience as a barometer to judge if we're playing the song well or not. Okay.

 

And it seems they're not supposed to use if they're actually having a good time playing it or not either. Okay.

 

So what's left? Somebody ELSE'S definition of "groove" and "life"? Some other musician who may or may not walk into the room while we're playing? How much we can sound just like 'the record'? Really? C'mon, man. You KNOW that's not what it's supposed to be about.

 

I'll go back to the Grand Funk version of Feelin' Alright. Although it was recorded only a couple of years after Cocker had a hit with it, pretty obviously their goal was not to impress people with how much they could groove just like the other recording. What they saw was a song that would work for them in their own way and that they could connect with their audiences. And it worked. For THEM anyway. Even though their version is white as f*ck. YOU may not personally like it because they don't groove as tightly on it as Cocker's band, but so what? Would you have liked it had the Cocker version never existed? Why tie yourself so much to a particular version, or more importantly....why get so upset if other bands DON'T? It's not your band.

 

You want to rock the hell out of that old Mustang Sally groove? Put a band together and go for it, man. Show all those lame bar bands how it's done!

[Lee Knight]

 

They might. They might also love other stuff you add to the arrangement and performance as well. If it works for them without syncopation, then so what?

 

So we're not supposed to use the audience as a barometer to judge if we're playing the song well or not. Okay.

 

And it seems we're not supposed to use if we're actually having a good time playing it or not either. Okay.

 

So what's left? Somebody ELSE'S definition of "groove" and "life"? Some other musician who may or may not walk into the room while we're playing? How much we can sound just like 'the record'? Really? C'mon, man. You KNOW that's not what it's supposed to be about.

 

I'll go back to the Grand Funk version of Feelin' Alright. Although it was recorded only a couple of years after Cocker had a hit with it, pretty obviously their goal was not to impress people with how much they could groove just like the other recording. What they saw was a song that would work for them in their own way and that they could connect with their audiences. And it worked. For THEM anyway. Even though their version is white as f*ck. YOU may not personally like it because it doesn't they don't groove as tightly on it, but so what? Would you have liked it had the Cocker version never existed? Why tie yourself so much to a particular version, or more importantly....why get so upset if other bands DON'T? It's not your band.

 

You want to rock the hell out of that old Mustang Sally groove? Put a band together and go for it, man. Show all those lame bar bands how it's done!

 

You ability to be obtuse amazes me. I swear, I'm not saying anything you're implying I did. I don't think any of that ^^^. I do know, however, that bands can believe they're using the "audience as a barometer" when in fact they're just rding on the audiences good time in spite of the band. I see that all the time. But they love us! We must rock. Yep.

 

Actually, I'm a Grand Funk fan and love that version. They do a great job of rocking it up. Most don't. I was just using them to illustrate a point.

 

[Vito Corleone]

 

You ability to be obtuse amazes me. I swear, I'm not saying anything you're implying I did. I don't think any of that ^^^. I do know, however, that bands can believe they're using the "audience as a barometer" when in fact they're just rding on the audiences good time in spite of the band. I see that all the time. But they love us! We must rock. Yep.

 

Actually, I'm a Grand Funk fan and love that version. They do a great job of rocking it up. Most don't. I was just using them to illustrate a point.

 

And I'm using them just to illustrate a point too. Just because it ain't funky, doesn't mean it can't work.

 

So what's the barometer to use? Again, if we're talking about a live performance, I'm hard pressed to find much else to use besides how much the band enjoys playing it and how much the audience enjoys it. If people want to talk about copping a groove just like the record or impressing their musician buddies, then OK. They can use those barometers but personally those are WAY WAY low on my list. Especially if you're nailing the first two.

 

But yeah....of course....some joker bar band is playing a half-assed version of Mustang Sally and they're bored with it and the place is nearly empty except for a couple of fat-assed old drunk broads scooting around the dance floor---then yes. That's lame beyond lame. We all agree on that and have all seen that scenario way too many times. But a band like that is almost certainly lame in ways much more core than lacking proper syncopation on a particular groove. Hopefully we're talking about stuff above that level as a starting point here?

 

I'm not trying to be obtuse or put words in your mouth, but I get a bit lost when people start posting decades old recordings as examples of what bands aren't doing right on particular songs.---that if they don't THIS groove just like THIS then they've failed.

 

Yes, I love that old Ray Charles record probably as much as you do. And if a band wants to cop that groove and nails it....I'm sure I'd enjoy the performance. But if they don't? Or even if they CAN'T and therefore decide to do something else with it? Man...to me that's even better if it works for them. Even if I still may personally prefer the Charles version. I'd much rather know a band is having success with a version of a song EVEN IF I PERSONALLY DON'T DIG IT than knowing they played exactly the same way I'd choose to do it or how I'm gotten used to hearing it for so many years.

 

Maybe I'm reading all this wrong, but to me there's a lot of talk about not putting bands and music in certain boxes that is then followed up doing exactly that:

 

"Dude....who CARES if you had fun playing the tune or if your dance floor was packed??? You're lacking the proper GROOVE!!!! Doncha get it??"

 

Do some bands just ride the audience and mistake it for their own success? Probably. Heck, we've all had those nights at least once or twice, haven't we? But the deal with that is that eventually it's going to fail. NO band plays for can't-miss audiences every night. Eventually (and in pretty short order usually) the truth becomes evident. When you know you're 'connecting' with the audience is when your performance of a song works night-in and night-out. When it works whether there's 5 people in the room or 500. When it works whether they are drunk or sober.

[Lee Knight]

You're putting words into my mouth. You talking like that guy that says "We don't need to be Al DiMeola!" I'm not suggesting you should impress anyone but the dancer on the floor. Get that clear. Please. You're playing for the audience. I'll repeat. THIS IS FOR THE AUDIENCE. Do you believe me?

 

I hope so.

 

I think what you believe is good enough for the audience isn't near as good as it could be. And it doesn't have to be a classic R & B groove. Nor should it. The groove of most bar/event bands is appalling. Rock, Pop, Country, R & B. When I hear an unwitting defense of that.... it gives me the chills.

[Lee Knight]

But the crowd digs us! And what choice do they have?

[SeniorBlues]

I think what you believe is good enough for the audience isn't near as good as it could be. And it doesn't have to be a classic R & B groove. Nor should it. The groove of most bar/event bands is appalling. Rock, Pop, Country, R & B. When I hear an unwitting defense of that.... it give me the chills.

 

Sig worthy

[Vito Corleone]

Like I said, I'm hoping we're all talking above the level of the hopeless lame bar bands. Bands that even IF they had better groove would still be lame. I'm not giving defense to that.

 

But what happened to the days of "who cares what the critics think? We like what we're doing and what it's all about and our fans love us!"? Has all of that been turned on its head now that YOU'RE the music critic, Lee?

[Vito Corleone]

I think much of the problem here is you mix the objective with the subjective. We may never make good band mates because we have different approaches, but so what?

 

. I think we both agree the live music performance is both art and craft. That it mixes the aural and the visual and whatever other senses we can throw in there. That the goal is to move ourselves and move the audiences. I'm not trying to tell you your approach is wrong or inferior. I'm simply trying to impress upon you that mine isn't either.

 

. When you start that "if it doesn't have A B or C then it's simply wrong". Or that if I note a different set of criteria for success that that either isn't the right criteria to use or bands are fooling themselves to believe they've reached even that criteria, then you're kind of crossing a line here.

 

Don't fall into the Wade trap of dismissing everything as lame and jive-ass just because they aren't what personally floats your boat. You're better and smarter than that.

[Lee Knight]

Like I said, I'm hoping we're all talking above the level of the hopeless lame bar bands. Bands that even IF they had better groove would still be lame. I'm not giving defense to that.

 

But what happened to the days of "who cares what the critics think? We like what we're doing and what it's all about and our fans love us!"? Has all of that been turned on its head now that YOU'RE the music critic, Lee?

 

Any band can and will do what they want. And they should. My points are driven by the anti-music sentiment that is so prevalent here and with so many current bands in bars and playing events.

 

I'm not going to play false modest and pretend I don't know what I'm talking about. and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with me being the music critic. It has to do with a band doing fairly well with their audience and one that is slaying them on the dance floor. I'm not speaking about esoteric nuance. I'm talking about effing GROOVE.

 

You speak to subs and backdrops. All important things. They are. Nothing wrong with that. Integral to success today. That's great, I love it! But it's funny how when the talk comes to nuts and bolts music... GROOVE, there's a hemming and hawing. Either it's slamming or it's not. Sorry, but it's true. Records slam just fine. Live bar/event music used to but not anymore. It just doesn't for the most part, not from what I've seen and heard.

 

So I'm supposed to be quiet? I will be soon. But hey! I'm on a roll baby!

 

Jeeze, we used to talk about grooves. Dissect them. Reassemble them. And enjoy the dancers losing themselves from it rather than the subs and backdrop and funny glasses. All you kids need to get off my lawn!!!!

[Vito Corleone]

Re: "good enough". Again....based on WHAT exactly? Who sets the objective standard of what is "good enough" that so many bands supposedly don't reach?

 

Again, let's go back to the Grand Funk version of Feelin Alright? A) why isn't it good enough? Or B) when did it become so? They certainly plod through the choruses playing the same basic patterns of the Cocker groove. There ain't much funk there. It's as Midwestern white as you can get.

 

So when did it start to work? When you first heard it as a kid and didn't understand funk well enough? When it was played by a big time band with a record deal? When they made the verses slower and darker? When it sold a million copies? When you finally heard it enough times to be OK with it after decades?

 

. Everyone will have a different answer to that question. Including they've always hated it and still do. That's all good. But you can't deny that it's worked for them and their fans. Even if you'd walk out the door laughing at the performance.

[Lee Knight]

Are you reading and retaining, David? Wow.

 

\Anyway, it doesn't really matter. It is what it is. And BOY! What an is it isn't!

[Vito Corleone]

Look, the problem here seems to be, at least in part, that I have no idea what sort of band who have in mind when you talk about those that don't do things right. Obviously if a bands goal is to slay them on the dance floor and they don't, then dissecting how they groove is an obvious place to start looking for ways they can improve their performance. We have no disagreement there whatsoever.

[Lee Knight]

Look, the problem here seems to be, at least in part, that I have no idea what sort of band who have in mind when you talk about those that don't do things right. Obviously if a bands goal is to slay them on the dance floor and they don't, then dissecting how they groove is an obvious place to start looking for ways they can improve their performance. We have no disagreement there whatsoever.

 

Then you agree with me. That wasn't so hard was it?

[Vito Corleone]

Well, I like agreeing with you much more than I like disagreeing with you, believe it or not.

.

My problem becomes when you start going beyond simply trying to help out bands who aren't meeting their stated goals and start going on about how bands either should have different goals or aren't really meeting them like they believe they are. Like their dancefloor actually wasn't packed or somehow was but for the wrong reasons.

 

You ask when it's "good enough"? Honestly it's whenever the band says it is. I don't think you have any business telling a band they should groove more than anyone should be telling them to use subs or have more lights or to gig more often or for more money or at different venues. Unless they are specifically asking for such advice or looking to make certain improvements to which those are applicable.

[Lee Knight]

That's all true unless it's me doing it. Totally different then. Thank god you don't act the fountain of wisdom!

[Vermoulian]

I played with a guy who toured with Pickett.

 

Joey "the Lips" Fagan?