Band Meeting!

[Vito Corleone]

 

certainly lighting is a necessary evil for gigging.

 

 

Why? As long as you have enough light to see what you're doing on stage, what more is necessary unless you're actively trying to entertain the audience with your look? Just put a booklight on your music stand and you're good to go. :poke:

 

I would prefer to be recognized as a certain artist based on your personal looks than to try and make your "bandness" known via what you are wearing. That just seems kinda fake-cocky to try and beef up who you are. Show them who you are once you hit the stage, that's my motto.

 

 

Yeah, I get that sentiment and have certainly heard it a million times. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe you sell your act and music with your visual as much as with the audio. Lighting is part of that. Banners and backdrops are part of that. Having good looking gear is a part of that. (A horribly {censored}ting looking set of drums or guitar amp might SOUND just as good something shiny and impressive looking. But who wouldn't agree that a NICE looking drum kit or guitar amp isn't a better option if the sound is the same?) And the dress of the band members is part of that visual as well. I just think bands should do everything they can to connect with the audience and leave no stone unturned.

 

Certainly there are exceptions, but I don't think ANY of those exceptions work as POSITIVES. Sure, Dave Matthews gets by looking like the audience. But I don't think he GAINS anything doing so and would be just as well liked if he dressed up a bit more. I suppose at that level there may even be SOME advantage to trying to come across as "I'm just one of you guys". But at the bar-band level? We need to be trying to stand OUT not blend IN.

[tlbonehead]

Why? As long as you have enough light to see what you're doing on stage, what more is necessary unless you're actively trying to entertain the audience with your look? Just put a booklight on your music stand and you're good to go. :poke: Yeah, I get that sentiment and have certainly heard it a million times. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe you sell your act and music with your visual as much as with the audio. Lighting is part of that. Banners and backdrops are part of that. Having good looking gear is a part of that. (A horribly {censored}ting looking set of drums or guitar amp might SOUND just as good something shiny and impressive looking. But who wouldn't agree that a NICE looking drum kit or guitar amp isn't a better option if the sound is the same?) And the dress of the band members is part of that visual as well. I just think bands should do everything they can to connect with the audience and leave no stone unturned. Certainly there are exceptions, but I don't think ANY of those exceptions work as POSITIVES. Sure, Dave Matthews gets by looking like the audience. But I don't think he GAINS anything doing so and would be just as well liked if he dressed up a bit more. I suppose at that level there may even be SOME advantage to trying to come across as "I'm just one of you guys". But at the bar-band level? We need to be trying to stand OUT not blend IN.

For me, one of the most important things is to be "me" onstage. So sure, it can be said that I am image conscious in that respect. So I'll just disagree on the part about having to show the crowd that I am someone special, not just another bar-hanger. I personally think there is nothing cooler than not knowing who the band members are in the room until they walk up on stage and blow the roof off the place.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I personally think there is nothing cooler than not knowing who the band members are in the room until they walk up on stage and blow the roof off the place.

 

 

I've heard that a lot too. Frankly, I think that's a musician mind-set. I think it comes from the same place as "I think there's nothing cooler than a band that got up there and played nothing but obscure deep-album cuts." But I think the audience almost unanimously disagrees. I think the vast majority of audience members LIKE seeing somebody who looks special come in the room and knowing that person is in the band. (In my experience, no one thinks it's pretentious unless you ACT pretentious--expect maybe other musicians, of course). And I've come to this conclusion based on having done it BOTH ways. I've gotten a ton of comments and compliments over the years for dressing nicely and aggressively. I don't recall EVER having someone tell me "wow, I had no idea you were in the band and it was so cool the way you just blended in with the crowd and then just got up there and blew us all away".

 

And again, I'm not trying to talk you into doing anything differently than what you've been doing--but for anyone out there who might be on the fence---just keep in mind that what YOU think is "nothing cooler than" isn't necessarily what your audience thinks.

 

Yeah, I want them to think my band is special. I want them to think we sound special, and look special and act special. Because I believe we ARE special or I wouldn't even be doing it. So I want to sell it on EVERY level.

[wheresgrant3]

Unless I'm totally imagining things, that's an assembled comp/Photoshop job of the individual members. Nothing live about it

 

Nope... no composite. It's an actual photo. Nothing plugged in or playing though. Photographer took the photo in a bar area of a night club we play. Took about an hour to set up the shot and get the lighting right.

(setting up the shot and getting light levels):

[wheresgrant3]

the other problem with that "party" pic is that the lead singer just looks like a douche with his hat on backward and holding a wireless mic like his d*ck in his hand... (not trying to be rude, but that pic is NOT flattering, and he looks like a meathead too... which doesn't help). using a mic-stand gives a frame of reference to the audience, and gives you an (inanimate) object to interact with on the stage. it also tells people where to look to find "the band" they find the other members based on their instruments, the singer needs a similar calling card. also, if your'e NOT hefting an instrument, you (as stated by many others) really should be donning something to draw attention or create a theatrical feel. the guitar (bass, etc) is a theatrical prop as much as it is a musical device. the other "problem" with that picture is that its appears flash-aided which completely washes out the effects of stage/spot-lighting and and flattens and dulls things tremendously. we see that in the difference between flash-stills of our previous work and the live video. I wear jeans and a black shirt, in the video I look like the singer in a band. in the stills I look like a dumb@ss on stage with some buddies in broad daylight.

 

LOL Thanks for the fashion tip. I understand it's not a personal statement (so I won't take it that way)... just an observation given the image posted, but do you ever think there's some context behind the way we dress. I mean do you think this audience really has a hard time determining if this a douche with his hat on backward and holding a wireless mic like his d*ck in his hand is fronting a band.

 

 

somehow I'm not really seeing the 'dress' issue as a huge 'problem'.

 

Ahem... btw, where are your pics?

 

As I said... a band can decide if they want to dress apart from the audience... or be a part of them. One look may make you more accessible looking than the other. Plenty of bands look toward appearing inaccessible. When your playing local bars everyone knows who you are. For us, accessibility has been a big part of our success. Could we use help from a stylist. Of course. But has not having a 'look' hurt the band. Probably not.

[DarkHelmet]

that's why I said the PIC isn't flattering... it is so hard to capture motion and emotion and character in still photos...

 

if I could find the pics, I'd post them, but I've had a HD failure since our last last performance and need to get the files from the photog again (sis-in-law)...

 

I've struggled with this same thing and I'm sure I've looking like a d-bag on occasion too... we have a show in 3 wks, so worst case I'll have some pics then.

 

the videos you've posted all prove without a doubt that you guys "have it" and "get it" my post was more meant to be a commentary on still photography for live-performance and it's limitations as well as the staging aspects... that's all.

[DarkHelmet]

the other thing we've not covered is whether choices in band attire are relative based on the percentage of the band trying to pull tail at any one gig?

 

 

2 of the three of us are married, so that likely influences our choices a bit!

[Vito Corleone]

2 of the three of us are married, so that likely influences our choices a bit!

 

 

Once you start playing rock n roll like you're married, it's time to exit the stage....

[wheresgrant3]

 

that's why I said the PIC isn't flattering... it is so hard to capture motion and emotion and character in still photos... if I could find the pics, I'd post them, but I've had a HD failure since our last last performance and need to get the files from the photog again (sis-in-law)... I've struggled with this same thing and I'm sure I've looking like a d-bag on occasion too... we have a show in 3 wks, so worst case I'll have some pics then. the videos you've posted all prove without a doubt that you guys "have it" and "get it" my post was more meant to be a commentary on still photography for live-performance and it's limitations as well as the staging aspects... that's all.

 

 

Understood... I just thought this thread was about what to wear on stage rather than 'how is this picture framed'.

 

There are regional bands that play up and down the east coast that will dress like they are a touring band... for them that's what resonates with an audience that will likely never wind up bumping into them at a mall or getting served by them at a local resturant with your kids in tow. Since the majority of shows we play are within a 60 mile wide sandbox and we're on a first name basis with the 50 people up front, it seems silly for us to dress like we're Marilyn Manson on stage. With the exception of two band members in their 20's, the rest are over 34 (band ranges from 24-44), and a fair amount of us have full time jobs and careers. I've never had a problem getting recognized offstage... those that fear they do are maybe worried that all eyes aren't on them during the performance. As a part-timer I say, keep it semi-consistent and dress for the occasion. If playing in a band is your full time gig then go to town, make a statement.

[wheresgrant3]

I should also mention that we also wear shorts in the summertime. But we smile often and they are never above mid-calf so that helps to negate any uncoolness. In other words we have no problems looking like dorks if temps hit 96 degrees.

[Vito Corleone]

Since the majority of shows we play are within a 60 mile wide sandbox and we're on a first name basis with the 50 people up front, it seems silly for us to dress like we're Marilyn Manson on stage.

 

 

Do you think it would hurt your standing with these people if you did?

[DarkHelmet]

 

Once you start playing rock n roll like you're married, it's time to exit the stage....

 

 

probably true... but we still play pretty hard, and not caring who we impress allows us to take some risks and really lay into it without fear of losing anything save our dignity.

[Vito Corleone]

probably true... but we still play pretty hard, and not caring who we impress allows us to take some risks and really lay into it without fear of losing anything save our dignity.

 

 

I don't doubt you do. But if you're not caring who you impress, then why are you performing for a live audience? Isn't the entire purpose of doing your act on a public stage so that you might IMPRESS people with it?

 

I don't know. I guess there's some things I simply just don't get. I just don't understand how people who are obviously concerned about what people think about their band can say "I don't care what anyone thinks about how I LOOK" in the same process. And I don't get how people who say "I DON'T CARE what anyone thinks about how I look" will then turn around and say "I'd be embarrassed to wear that". Obviously such a person DOES care.

 

Point out to me where I'm wrong here, but I think the musician who insists on NOT dressing up and insists on wearing "whatever" cares just as much about their look and image and those who DO dress up. Otherwise, they wouldn't insist on wearing what they wear. They do so because they think NOT dressing up is MORE COOL than doing so.

 

Tlbonehead offered that he thinks it's more cool for someone who previously was just blending in to take the stage and blow everyone away. Grant offered that he thinks musicians you'll run into around town on a daily basis would be considered uncool to see dressed up on stage on the weekend. Such opinions are EVERY BIT AS MUCH about caring what you look like on stage as is the band who wears suits and ties to every gig.

 

Whether those opinions are correct or not is certainly a valid topic for discussion. But I just simply don't buy that they are about NOT caring about whom you impress.

[wheresgrant3]

Do you think it would hurt your standing with these people if you did?

 

Well... we probably wouldn't get alot of weddings that way. Private gigs make up 30% of our bookings. And they all come from our nightclub shows (we're not advertising on the wedding circuit). So we did make a conscious decision to have a semi-look while not going for the full blown look. And yeah, I think clubs kids (under 25) can appreciate a bit of pretentiousness... but those over 30 would certianly be a little "um, do they really think they are rockstars?" . Our intent for audience connection is 'all in'. 0-60. You can't be everything to all people but you can be likeable to most. The thing I see with regional bands who do commit to the 'tour' look is that they rarely have any following over 27. Maybe there's a sense as people move on in life... get the job, the marriage, the house and they see some 35 year old guitar player sporting KISS makeup, and leaving the show in a 89 Nissan pickup with the muffler tail draggin, is that they've moved on with their life but that musician clearly has not. I picture that movie in my head 'The Rocker'. The only bands I've seen on the regional scene that can bridge the private/professional/nightclub scenes are the agency bands committed to a full concept... and those band play well with those concepts because they are rarely playing at home. Much easier to maintain the illusion that your stage name is Sicko when your buddy Frank isn't grabbing the mic and saying "I remember when Jimmy here was puking behind the Dairy Mart after high school... when was that man??? 87-88?"

 

Our local market is a pretty small fishbowl. Oh, and Facebook makes it even smaller!

[Lee Knight]

I guess there's some things I simply just don't get. I just don't understand how people who are obviously concerned about what people think about their band can say "I don't care what anyone thinks about how I LOOK" in the same process. And I don't get how people who say "I DON'T CARE what anyone thinks about how I look" will then turn around and say "I'd be embarrassed to wear that". Obviously such a person DOES care.

 

 

I think there's a pretty common attitude that to admit to caring is sort of twee. That you are some kind of girlie boy/clothes horse. I came up with the two entwined. I always enjoyed dressing the part and have always admitted my enjoyment of it.

 

SRV?

 

Jame Brown?

 

Jimi?

 

Bob Dylan?

 

Those guys above dressed as part of their art. Dylan's young, hip Ray-Banned poet schtick in pointy black boots rocked. And he continued to let his image evolve with his music. Sometime he was Woody Guthrie's bastard son in denim too. How about The Band wearing vintage vests and hats from the 1800's? The Chemical Bros wearing yellow lenses. Leonard Cohen in his suit.

 

I enjoy discovering some young artist who digs presenting him or herself in a unique way. As I enjoyed doing it myself. The Beatles circa The White Album? Beck? Miles? Dizzy? Louis Armstrong? Mingus? Monk? Arturo Toscanini?!?!?

 

I dislike cheesy dress up as much as overlooking your image altogether. I'm just always sort of disappointed when people are embarrassed about it...

[wheresgrant3]

 

Point out to me where I'm wrong here, but I think the musician who insists on NOT dressing up and insists on wearing "whatever" cares just as much about their look and image and those who DO dress up. Otherwise, they wouldn't insist on wearing what they wear. They do so because they think NOT dressing up is MORE COOL than doing so. Tlbonehead offered that he thinks it's more cool for someone who previously was just blending in to take the stage and blow everyone away. Grant offered that he thinks musicians you'll run into around town on a daily basis would be considered uncool to see dressed up on stage on the weekend. Such opinions are EVERY BIT AS MUCH about caring what you look like on stage as is the band who wears suits and ties to every gig. Whether those opinions are correct or not is certainly a valid topic for discussion. But I just simply don't buy that they are about NOT caring about whom you impress.

 

 

 

Um... maybe we're not on the same page. I'm talking about the band that goes all in on a 'look'. The ripped T-shirt, the visible ink, the mascara. Again... I don't think anyone would not recognize us as 'the band'. Again... it's not being a matter of cool or uncool... it's a matter of accessibility.

[DarkHelmet]

I don't doubt you do. But if you're not caring who you impress, then why are you performing for a live audience? Isn't the entire purpose of doing your act on a public stage so that you might IMPRESS people with it?

 

I should have said "we don't care as much if we crash and burn/mess something up" we'd love to impress people, but it's not the end of the world for us if we don't since its just a hobby and we've committed to losing a couple grand every year on the project!

 

I perform because its FUN, cathartic, an excellent exercise to develop our musicianship (which we all use in other ways outside the band), and because my wife thinks its hot...

 

I completely agree on the rest of your post... I wear a suit and tie almost every day of the week, coach my kids soccer team, and am an "active member of the community"... so no ink, no wild hair (what's left of it), no insane clothes, no offensive t-shirts etc... my preference is actually horrid vintage plaid polyester...

 

hence we just choose to look like 3 guys cutting loose and making some (hopefully harmonious) noise in our time off. we'll never get a gig over an actually professional band... and we're ok with that.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Um... maybe we're not on the same page. I'm talking about the band that goes all in on a 'look'. The ripped T-shirt, the visible ink, the mascara. Again... I don't think anyone would not recognize us as 'the band'. Again... it's not being a matter of cool or uncool... it's a matter of accessibility.

 

 

Yeah, I think we're talking past each other a bit. I'm not talking about any SPECIFIC look--simply about having one vs. those who choose to have none AT ALL.

 

And while I'm guessing you probably have some specific bands in mind, MY thought is I can't think of any bands who--as long as their stage look works for them on stage-- wouldn't be fully accepted by their audience to see them around town without it. Maybe those "full blown/all in" bands you're thinking of are overdoing their look and trying a bit too hard on stage as well?

[pickinatit]

That's all true, but the other way of looking at it is that the visual was less important just simply as a function of the technology of the period. Rock music was primarily about the radio and the records. There were ocassional TV appearances and of course live concerts, but the LOOK of the bands was nowhere near as important as it became after the advent of MTV. I suppose you can call that "show biz", but I see it as more as just about the broadening of everything that a live band was about.

 

 

I think you are both underplaying an important point....maybe the biggest...about how it "used to be" in the earlier days of rock. It wasn't that the visual was less important so much as it was that the IN thing was not to be in, if you catch my drift. Formal was out.....dressing down was the new dressing up. Dressing down to look like "any-guy" was popular and you were "IN" if you looked like a farmer. For quite a few years there a band wearing suits and ties would have gotten laughed off most stages unless they were playing Motown or some other horn-band music. Later, Disco brought "dressing up" back into vogue. Just my $.02

[pickinatit]

....NOT dressing up and insists on wearing "whatever" cares just as much about their look and image and those who DO dress up. Otherwise, they wouldn't insist on wearing what they wear. They do so because they think NOT dressing up is MORE COOL than doing so. But I just simply don't buy that they are about NOT caring about whom you impress.

 

 

This sort of says what I was trying to say about the way it used to be back in the day better then I said it.

[tim_7string]

 

I think you are both underplaying an important point....maybe the biggest...about how it "used to be" in the earlier days of rock. It wasn't that the visual was less important so much as it was that the IN thing was not to be in, if you catch my drift. Formal was out.....dressing down was the new dressing up. Dressing down to look like "any-guy" was popular and you were "IN" if you looked like a farmer. For quite a few years there a band wearing suits and ties would have gotten laughed off most stages unless they were playing Motown or some other horn-band music. Later, Disco brought "dressing up" back into vogue. Just my $.02

 

 

You are right, this hasn't been directly addressed the way you are describing it. I watched "We Jam Econo: The Story of The Minutemen" last night. They were an example of guys that wanted to do their own thing their way. They did have a look, no question about it, but it wasn't the same look as other bands in their scene. The way they moved onstage was a style as well. D. Boon would hop around a certain way, bounding up and down inbetween his turns on the vocal mic. Mike Watt would shake his head and body as if he was having a seizure. George Hurley would headbang until his super-long blond bangs would flow out of his head, flying in front of his face as he pounded the drums. They did this at several different shows. Watt in particular has a very specific look he has cultivated with his lumberjack shirt with the rolled-up sleeves. He's been wearing that look for decades. To some, it might seem like he's just wearing everyday clothes, but they aren't.

 

Tlbonehead is probably from the "we aren't going to dress in snazzy suits, we're going to dress like this instead" school of thought. But ultimately, it still *is* a look, not an anti-look. Everyone has a uniform. I have a specific style when I go onstage. I don't just wear some t-shirt with some jeans. I actually think about what I am wearing, how my hair is going to look, how it will match my guitar and amp and the lights and the other guys in the band.

 

On the other side of the page, I don't think every band has to wear nice suits and ties or jackets or silk shirts. And thank god for that, because then everyone would look the same. And that's just as lame as bands that get up their looking like they just got done cooking on the grill or coming back from the beach.

[BlueStrat]

Hi! We're the band!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

[Lee Knight]

[Kramerguy]

 

FTW!