Dad Bands: your definition.

[Wayne2]

Overweight, poorly-dressed, badly-motivated losers is practically the definition of "cool".

[TheRinger]

Maybe we just define dad bands the way the Supreme Court defines pornography

[TIMKEYS]

Overweight, poorly-dressed, badly-motivated losers is practically the definition of "cool".

 

 

you are talkin about dudes man. Dudes are cool!

[wardjames]

However, it now appears as if some people are equating older guys in bands with hacks (?????) so basically if you are not in what you consider a 'pro' band, you are a hack ?? And therefor anyone in a pro band is NOT a hack?? Those things seem like they would not necessarily mutually exclusive ????? I'm confused again!

 

 

I looked up the definition of professional, and I think the most relevant to music is "following a line of conduct as though it were a profession". The more standard definition would be someone who "participates for financial return in an activity".

 

If you're paid to play music, you're a professional. If you're a hack, you're not acting in a professional manner while doing so.

[Ku'Yleh]

 

OK I am beginning to understand why I'm confused. When I think of a dad band, I rarely think of them getting paid. I can understand the derision related to dragging prices/perception down. Where I am, from what I have seen, dad bands don't get paid and are usually doing charity. However, it now appears as if some people are equating older guys in bands with hacks (?????) so basically if you are not in what you consider a 'pro' band, you are a hack ?? And therefor anyone in a pro band is NOT a hack?? Those things seem like they would not necessarily mutually exclusive ????? I'm confused again!

 

 

Hacks are hacks either way.

 

If they happen to be older than 40, wear cargo shorts, have music stands onstage and still manage to go to the wrong chord/lyric 30% of the time, then we have a name for it - DAD BAND. If they arent, then we still have a name - {censored}ty band.

 

again, this does NOT mean that all musos over 40 are hacks.

[BlueStrat]

I disagree with this completely. It's an attitude and a look. When you're on stage, if you look the same as you do cutting the grass, you're in a dad band. There is middle ground between putting in some effort and purple spike hair. We have a pretty good following in the teenage and early 20 demographic for several reasons. We sound good. We play newer music that they know and like. We don't remind them of their parents. Honestly in this and the music stand thread, it sounds like some of the senior guys here feel that because they're getting a big older there's no point in putting in any effort. You guys seem to have just given up.

 

 

Ha ha! I'll be sure and pass it on to my kids and their friends that they are misinformed as to what they consider a dad band. And I haven't given anything up, except the delusion of my exceptionalism. YMMV.

[BlueStrat]

I'm pretty sure I'm one of the older guys on this board and in this thread. You're still missing the point about what makes up a "dad" band. The term as it is used around here, as I said, is guys that have been out of it for 25 years and are taking up where they left off in high school. They put no effort into appearance or staying current with the song list. They wear shorts to their $200 dive bar and cookout gigs. You can change the definition if you like, but that's what we're talking about here. That's a category I'll never fall into.

 

 

Actually, that's YOUR definition and what YOU'RE talking about, but it isn't what all of us are. And the truth is, as I said, it doesn't mater what YOU think you are, it's what others say about you that matters. My kids think I'm in a dad band and I don't meet ANY of your stereotypes. I've never been out of it for any length of time, I don't wear shorts to gigs or use a stand, I don't play done to death classic rock or 12 bar blues, etc etc. But I consider myself a dad band, and it's fine with me.

[Ku'Yleh]

Actually, that's YOUR definition and what YOU'RE talking about, but it isn't what all of us are. And the truth is, as I said, it doesn't mater what YOU think you are, it's what others say about you that matters. My kids think I'm in a dad band and I don't meet ANY of your stereotypes. I've never been out of it for any length of time, I don't wear shorts to gigs or use a stand, I don't play done to death classic rock or 12 bar blues, etc etc. But I consider myself a dad band, and it's fine with me.

 

Which just brings us back to the original question posed in this thread - what is YOUR definition?

 

And to be fair, of course your kids think you are in a dad band, because.... you are their dad.

 

From what I have observed of you over the years, you do not at all qualify for MY definition of a "dad band". (and again, it isnt "change someones mind as to what a dad band is" nor is it "lets all agree on a definition", it is "what is YOUR definition?")

[Wayne2]

you are talkin about dudes man. Dudes are cool!

Exactly!

[rccCrawler]

So, like a lot of the derisive comments I occasionally see here, it boils down to the money. You dislike dad bands for the same reason you dislike pay to play and weekend warriors - because they grind down on your ability to make a living, due to their negative effect on the market price for a gig.

In addition, a 'hack' is a definition of someone's professionalism, not their playing ability per sey, although lack of playing ability can affect their professionalism, and thereby make them a hack. Similarly, an experienced, highly skilled player who does not conduct him/herself professionally (for instance by wearing cargo shorts, not caring what the audience wants, not putting on a show, etc) is a hack.

Does that sum it up?

It's all basically about the money.

So a group of older guys, who are very good players, who care mostly about the quality of the music, who occasionally play out, but only for free and only when there would not otherwise be a band because there is no money to be made - such a band is neither a dad band, or hacks, because there is no monetary element to what they are doing?

Again, just trying to understand. I totally get pros being upset about things which grind down on their ability to make a living. But amateurs just being amateurs is OK, right? As long as they are not taking money out of your pockets?

For an older amateur player trying to enjoy his hobby without negatively affecting pros, it can be a struggle to define how to do that. And I would hate to think that pros simply are against their very existence, which us sometimes how some of your comments appear to an outside observer. After all, isn't more people into music - more music fans - better for everyone? As long ad it doesnt affect your ability to make a living? Didn't every pro at least start out as an amateur?

[GCDEF]

 

So, like a lot of the derisive comments I occasionally see here, it boils down to the money. You dislike dad bands for the same reason you dislike pay to play and weekend warriors - because they grind down on your ability to make a living, due to their negative effect on the market price for a gig. In addition, a 'hack' is a definition of someone's professionalism, not their playing ability per sey, although lack of playing ability can affect their professionalism, and thereby make them a hack. Similarly, an experienced, highly skilled player who does not conduct him/herself professionally (for instance by wearing cargo shorts, not caring what the audience wants, not putting on a show, etc) is a hack. Does that sum it up? It's all basically about the money. So a group of older guys, who are very good players, who care mostly about the quality of the music, who occasionally play out, but only for free and only when there would not otherwise be a band because there is no money to be made - such a band is neither a dad band, or hacks, because there is no monetary element to what they are doing? Again, just trying to understand. I totally get pros being upset about things which grind down on their ability to make a living. But amateurs just being amateurs is OK, right? As long as they are not taking money out of your pockets? For an older amateur player trying to enjoy his hobby without negatively affecting pros, it can be a struggle to define how to do that. And I would hate to think that pros simply are against their very existence, which us sometimes how some of your comments appear to an outside observer. After all, isn't more people into music - more music fans - better for everyone? As long ad it doesnt affect your ability to make a living? Didn't every pro at least start out as an amateur?

 

 

If you're talking to me, you missed the point completely. It's about the lack of effort and poor quality product, not the money. Dad band is four guys wearing the same thing they wear cooking hot dogs on the back deck, playing the same songs they were playing 35 years ago, with little to no thought given to stage presence.

[FitchFY]

There's some real quality internetting going on in this thread. Whoa.

[SeniorBlues]

 

If you're talking to me, you missed the point completely. It's about the lack of effort and poor quality product, not the money. Dad band is four guys wearing the same thing they wear cooking hot dogs on the back deck, playing the same songs they were playing 35 years ago, with little to no thought given to stage presence.

 

 

No, YOU'VE missed the point completely.

 

We don't all do this for the same reasons. Many of us do it because we love to play music, and there is no sin in playing older music, if that's what we do well. If it's harder to find an appreciative audience, that's our problem, not yours. You're denigrating us because we're not interested in your market, at least as you perceive it. I tend to agree with attire, but you set the bar unnecessarily high for "putting on a show", again, given the range of reasons for playing. I enjoy what I'm doing and it shows; that's enough for me. My age and weight are no concern of yours.

 

What I really want to know is why your musical product isn't so far ahead of the slackers that you can't attract a crowd better than they can?

 

The real problem, as has been stated often, is lack of playing venues with a large capacity. The fact that there aren't a lot of people going to see live music and that there aren't really very many really good bands to attract them is a chicken egg argument which, again, has little to do with this.

 

Maybe what really bothers you is that the people who do go out have decided that the dad bands are good enough for them.

 

They're not willing to pay more to see you, apparently.

 

Too bad.

[GCDEF]

 

No, YOU'VE missed the point completely. We don't all do this for the same reasons. Many of us do it because we love to play music, and there is no sin in playing older music, if that's what we do well. If it's harder to find an appreciative audience, that's our problem, not yours. You're denigrating us because we're not interested in your market, at least as you perceive it. I tend to agree with attire, but you set the bar unnecessarily high for "putting on a show", again, given the range of reasons for playing. I enjoy what I'm doing and it shows; that's enough for me. My age and weight are no concern of yours. What I really want to know is why your musical product isn't so far ahead of the slackers that you can't attract a crowd better than they can? The real problem, as has been stated often, is lack of playing venues with a large capacity. The fact that there aren't a lot of people going to see live music and that there aren't really very many really good bands to attract them is a chicken egg argument which, again, has little to do with this. Maybe what really bothers you is that the people who do go out have decided that the dad bands are good enough for them. They're not willing to pay more to see you, apparently. Too bad.

 

 

You're making a whole lot of incorrect assumptions here, and I'm not really sure why you feel the need to attack me personally, or why you even take this thread so personally, when I'm just talking about the general category of dad bands and what I perceive as a whole category of bands that doesn't try very hard.

 

If you play older music, good for you. That doesn't make you a dad band. Dad bands play it because they're too lazy or unaware of current music to play or learn anything else. I had a bass player (briefly) who was completely aghast at the thought of actually learning a song he didn't already know. That's a dad band player.

[rccCrawler]

If you're talking to me, you missed the point completely. It's about the lack of effort and poor quality product, not the money. Dad band is four guys wearing the same thing they wear cooking hot dogs on the back deck, playing the same songs they were playing 35 years ago, with little to no thought given to stage presence.

 

 

I wasn't addressing you specifically or singularly, I was addressing all the pros on this thread in general, trying to understand the scorn. Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

 

With regards to your comment, I understand it if the band us question us charging a professional fee, but if the band in question is not, then how is it that they can have a 'product', about which they should be concerned about it's quality?

 

My supposition is that your scorn is directed at dad bands because they lower the market value if the gig (with your aforementioned lack of effort and quality), but that therefor amateur bands do not fall into this category. It is the money which is the catalyst for your derision.

 

If your point is that lack of professionalism is to be scorned in ANY band, regardless if whether they are being paid, then that us both a ridiculous and completely intolerant. I would suit that in almost any such activity there is almost always an amateur stage wherein the participants practice their craft, perhaps one day to become a pro. It is at the time that money starts changing hands that there is the attached expectation of a certain level of quality.

 

You are not really suggesting that ANYBODY in ANY band that plays should be the object of scorn if they do not put on a professional show, are you? That seems extremely intolerant.

[rccCrawler]

Also, I apologize for the bad spelling. I am on an 'auto-spelling' phone, and it is almost impossible to edit properly on it.

[Mel Cooley]

I think it comes down to younger musicians not having grown out of a concern for what is "cool" and merely appreciating music for what it is.

[Yer Blues]

What's funny is the average age of this thread is probably over 40. If you're over 40 and playing covers you're probably in a dad band in somebody's eyes regardless of how you dress it up. If you are getting whatever fulfillment you seek from it then everything else is secondary. You can be in a dad, mom, aunt, or uncle band.

[BlueStrat]

Which just brings us back to the original question posed in this thread - what is YOUR definition? And to be fair, of course your kids think you are in a dad band, because.... you are their dad. From what I have observed of you over the years, you do not at all qualify for MY definition of a "dad band". (and again, it isnt "change someones mind as to what a dad band is" nor is it "lets all agree on a definition", it is "what is YOUR definition?")

Fair enough.

[TheRinger]

Well, it's obvious that a consensus on a definition isn't going to happen. However, I'm now convinced that a definition for the other thrown around term, "Pro Musician" would be equally debated. Don't tell me a "pro musician" is someone who generates the majority of their income from playing music. I don't consider a couple of guys renting a $300 apartment with their only job being $300 bar gigs every weekend as pro musicians. I also don't consider a kid who gets paid $50 for playing his sister's friends party a pro either.

[wheresgrant3]

I guess what I don't really understand throughout this thread is the resentment toward these supposed Dad bands? Do they exist where I live? Of course. I can go on the local music networking site and there may be 15-20 bands I've never heard of in my local music scene 4-5 guys over 40, with the same style and presentation that most have described here. They always describe themselves the areas 'best party' band, or some #1 band of something (I love the promotion without even the effort put toward the promotion). From the band photo you can pretty much tell the effort they put into the product right away. Some bands I'm sure a few are pretty tight units, most are aeverage at best. A few of these bands used to be popular bands in my area that just faded out. Too many lineup changes, their following aged out and 10 years later they are playing $300 night gigs with one remaining member. But again, we don't cross paths with any of these bands. There are 5-6 local venues that would never consider hiring a band with no following or poor presentation. Their pay scale doesn't put any pressure on us... If they aren't bringing a following then they aren't a threat really. The occasional venue that we may share again is a benefit to us. We'll get a call from a smaller bar that wants to hire us, has a heart attack when we give them our rate, books the date anyway and crosses their fingers. We'll come in and blow the doors off the place and end up turning down an offer for a monthly booking at 5x's the rate of these other bands (one good night we expect... 12 good nights is not sustainable). We become the exception, they become the rule.

I'm 41... our frontman is 40, and our oldest member is 45. We've always had players over the age of 40, none of which who have looked or acted their age. There certainly isn't any benchmark in age when you fit this requirement. I think about another popular local band in a nearby city... those guys are all late 40's and early 50's (been together for 25 years) they still draw big numbers and throw a great time. And you'd be suprised how many 20's are lusting after their frontman who is more than 2x's their age. It's all about attitude and presentation, and some bands are able to sell a good time at any age.

[StratGuy22]

A lot of the older music we play, is because of out crowd. We cater to the mid-30's to 50ish crowd. They might not know a lot of "what the kids" are listening to today. It's just knowing your crowd...

[rccCrawler]

Wheresgrant:

 

Well that is what is confusing me as well. I get in general what they are, although clearly it means different things to different people. I just don't get why the scorn/derision?

 

Generally speaking, I dig anyone else who is a music lover doing precisely that - loving and supporting music. I have nothing but respect for those who can get paid, cuz I generally suck. And I totally understand not liking getting undercut in any business.

 

But this type of attitude exists somewhere between all of that, and I don't get it because when I see it from the outside I'm seeing apples and oranges. And I'd like to think that the people I admire at the top of this craft I wish I was more skilled in are open, generous, tolerant people. And that is not the impression I'm getting from this thread, so I'm trying to reconcile it and understand.

[vanlatte]

This guy cant be for real... "I did a search for Dad Bands but I am not a troll"

 

Gotcha.

[BlueStrat]

So, in the interest of fairness and clarity, I conducted this totally non-scientific experiment. I asked my daughter (22) and middle son (almost 24) to elaborate on what they consider a dad band. And here's what they said, summarized: Since almost no one their age playing in bands plays in a cover band, but rather is doing original bands or singer/songwriter stuff, the number one criteria for them is material, mostly covers. Age is a close second, because as previously noted, most cover band guys are over 30. (yes, I know there are exceptions, but not too many. Go out on any weekend to hear cover bands and most are older guys). Third is family life- guys in dad bands are, well, dads. They are guys who long ago changed their focus in life from being a rock star to caring for their families and holding down a job. Therefore, they tend to be more out of the loop of what's current, style, and so on. Some more than others.

 

I specifically asked them about skill level, and they indicated it was not relevant to what they and their friends thinks of as a dad band. Neither was presentation a major factor all that much. They indicated a lot of hipster bands are shoegazers, mumbling introverts, or dorks onstage. For them, it's simply a matter of age and material. Many of you who take umbrage to the idea that you might be in a dad band, well...according to them, you are, like it or not! Which is pretty much as I suspected. So, go ahead and believe otherwise, but the younger guys have a different view of us than we do!

 

I should add that they and their friends think my band is 'cool" and often come to see us, but that doesn't mean we're not a dad band in their eyes. They think it's cool we're old guys out playing music. They're always texting me asking when I'm playing next. My daughter has gotten onstage and sang with me. And they don't see 'dad band' as a negative term. it just is what it is.