DJ's: How successful would they be if they didn't work the crowd and only played.....

[vanlatte]

FIVE times was an exaggeration I used to make a point, but the basic premise is sound: More people on stage working to connect with the audience is better than one. Which is why full bands are almost always more entertaining than solos or duos. Of course, not everyone in the band is going to be a dynamic presence or good performer, nor need to be, but a good band will have many more tools at their disposal to connect with the audience and should work to take advantage of that fact.

 

Ok, if it was an exageration do you mean that say, two people can do twice as well as one, and three can do 3X as much, etc?

 

That is the concept I can't really agree with, it's just silly.

 

In fact saying that more people = more tools is also silly, since a good DJ has such a huge toolbox to draw from that it would take hundreds of people to replicate. Which, I believe goes a long way in understanding why so many band members and "real" musicians are so ignorant and bitter when it comes to DJs. I am sure this thread will join every other DJ thread in that regard soon enough...

 

Unless you are talking about shtick or something.

[vanlatte]

Oh and the answer to the OP is "About as successful as any jukebox that is only available to the staff and no customers"

[Vito Corleone]

Ok, if it was an exageration do you mean that say, two people can do twice as well as one, and three can do 3X as much, etc?

 

It was an exaggeration. I used the number "five" to relate to the fact that most bands have "five" members. The actual truth of how much more a five piece band can do compared to a DJ? I dunno. Twice as good maybe? 1 1/2 times? Whatever. The point is that I believe having more people on stage working for the same goal is better than just one. That the potential is there, at least, and that bands should work to exploit that advantage. I'm sorry if my exaggeration distracted from the point I was trying to make.

 

In fact saying that more people = more tools is also silly, since a good DJ has such a huge toolbox to draw from that it would take hundreds of people to replicate. Which, I believe goes a long way in understanding why so many band members and "real" musicians are so ignorant and bitter when it comes to DJs. I am sure this thread will join every other DJ thread in that regard soon enough... Unless you are talking about shtick or something.

 

Schtick may be one tool a band can use. The point is the many of the tools DJs have are different from what bands have. So rather than focus on the things they can easily and obviously do better, focus on the advantages a live band have.

 

One of the main reasons people even still HIRE full bands over DJ or solo acts is they want that ambiance that a stage-full-of-musicians provides. But many bands go no further than just standing on stage playing the music. At which point, many people start thinking "why didn't we just hire a DJ?"

 

Work to exploit the advantages we have rather than bitch about the ones we don't have. THAT'S my point.

[TIMKEYS]

 

You STILL only play so many songs on any given night though. That's my point. Not that any band only needs a finite number of songs. (FWIW, we have many more than 40 because we might offer a vastly different setlist from one gig to the next depending on the event. Case in point: a couple of weeks from now we're playing a 60's themed party. So we'll be dusting off a lot of old classic rock tunes we haven't played for awhile and dressing in period garb.) But even for a DJ with 1,000 songs, he's still only going to play so-many on any night. The trick is to play the RIGHT ones. Or, sell them in such a manner that they BECOME the right ones.

 

 

 

I get the point. We have a tough job. We have to fill the same joint 260 shows a year. to do that you need to have a very free flowing show where its more than a band playing songs on a set list. You have to make is so that people keep comming back because they feel they might miss somthing. most of the time it doesnt have much to do with the music or songs. Its about the interaction between the stage and the crowd. Requests are very big part of doing what we do even to the point of saying we dont know that one , but we will do it for you after the break. They dont expect perfection ,, they expect to have a good time when they come in and spend the evening at the bar. A great DJ can make it about him more than the set list. thats the difference between just music and an entertainer. Some gigs , you are best to just shut up and play the best get your feet moving songs you can. Others you have to so more than that. I think entertainers tend to do better than just bands that play music. Again it does depend on the type of scene and show.

[vanlatte]

 

I get the point. We have a tough job. We have to fill the same joint 260 shows a year. to do that you need to have a very free flowing show where its more than a band playing songs on a set list. You have to make is so that people keep comming back because they feel they might miss somthing. most of the time it doesnt have much to do with the music or songs. Its about the interaction between the stage and the crowd. .

 

 

Interesting points. Are you talking about a DJ or a band? Because everything you just said applies equally to both.

[TIMKEYS]

 

Interesting points. Are you talking about a DJ or a band? Because everything you just said applies equally to both.

 

 

both To me the goal is to have an act where it rises above just putting music in the air. You have to entertain people rather than just being a back drop to them entertaining themselves. A top DJ fills a room because of who they are, A top band fills a room because of the bands personna and the guys in the band. A jukebox cant interact with the crowd.

[BlueStrat]

 

There are a lot of bands that DO do only that and are quite successful.

 

I didn't say bands, I said music, as in the business in general. It's a stupid proposition. Every industry needs innovators and imitators, and one isn't better than another. To think otherwise is just sophomoric. Where would Prince have been if he'd played nothing but hits in his band? (or any number of other bands) Where would music be in general? There's a place for bands that play hits. There's a place for bands that create hits. And I agree with Lee- the best DJs I have heard mix it up between playing hits people want to hear ad exposing them to new stuff. The whole either/or proposition is just silly. YMMV.

[mstreck]

The original intent of the OP was interesting though. What are DJs doing that bands can learn from. MOMENTUM. Like sex, building and building. With a DJ, it's easy for us band geeks to overlook them and say, "They're just playing other people music". Fair enough. They are. And by doing that, they are freed up to really pay attention to what is happening in the booties, groins and hearts of their audience. Put your foot on the pedal and control it. Building momentum, backing off without losing pressure or steam. Laying into it again, all building to a climax. Take a break, we'll back to finish you off in 15...

 

I've always thought about the night's setlist like that - it just seems obvious. You're courting the crowd for four hours, so you've got to be conscious of their needs or they're going to go elsewhere. I never understood why some bands would just play whatever they felt like no matter what was happening in the crowd. Try doing "whatever/whenever" with a woman for four hours without regard to her needs and let me know how you make out - if she even sticks around that long.

 

In either context, the trick is to have a good plan going in, but being able to adapt when necessary. Of course, the better the plan, the less improvising you'll need to do.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I didn't say bands, I said music , as in the business in general. It's a stupid proposition. Every industry needs innovators and imitators, and one isn't better than another. To think otherwise is just sophomoric. Where would Prince have been if he'd played nothing but hits in his band? (or any number of other bands) Where would music be in general? There's a place for bands that play hits. There's a place for bands that create hits. And I agree with Lee- the best DJs I have heard mix it up between playing hits people want to hear ad exposing them to new stuff. The whole either/or proposition is just silly. YMMV.

 

 

I don't think my mileage is varying very much from your since I said this to you in the very next sentence:

 

The Holy Grail---whether you're a band OR a DJ--is to find the right balance of both, of course. The BEST DJs are the one's who not only "play the hits", but do it in a creative manner. Same with the best bands. And the MOST successful DJs--the ones who earn money in the "top original band" range---are ones who don't necessarily play ANY hits at all, but are very creative in what they do.

 

[BlueStrat]

 

I don't think my mileage is varying very much from your since I said this to you in the very next sentence: The Holy Grail---whether you're a band OR a DJ--is to find the right balance of both, of course. The BEST DJs are the one's who not only "play the hits", but do it in a creative manner. Same with the best bands. And the MOST successful DJs--the ones who earn money in the "top original band" range---are ones who don't necessarily play ANY hits at all, but are very creative in what they do.

 

 

I was talking more about bands, but point taken!

[tlbonehead]

I didn't say bands, I said music , as in the business in general. It's a stupid proposition. Every industry needs innovators and imitators, and one isn't better than another. To think otherwise is just sophomoric. Where would Prince have been if he'd played nothing but hits in his band? (or any number of other bands) Where would music be in general? There's a place for bands that play hits. There's a place for bands that create hits. And I agree with Lee- the best DJs I have heard mix it up between playing hits people want to hear ad exposing them to new stuff. The whole either/or proposition is just silly. YMMV.

precisely!

[Vito Corleone]

I didn't say bands, I said music, as in the business in general.

 

You're losing me here... :poke:

 

But yeah...we're agreeing much more than we're disagreeing on this point.

[BlueStrat]

You're losing me here... :poke: But yeah...we're agreeing much more than we're disagreeing on this point.

 

Well, hell, now I lost my own self. It happens.

[Kramerguy]

 

Who cares?A DJ is not a band.There are as many reasons for bands to exist as there are musicians. Let me turn your question around: where would music be if bands only played what "the crowd" wanted to hear and only played the hits of others?

 

 

sounds like how nickelback happened. So now we know why.

[Kramerguy]

In all seriousness... this topic has been half beaten to death here but at the same time, the timing is interesting ... simply because my cover band is struggling really hard right now with it..

 

We used to play "what we wanted" 3 years ago. Notall prog rock or anything, just stuff that was a little more heavy rock and less danceable. I know a lot has changed in the last three years, but we had a good following and everyone would constantly tell us how glad they were that we didn't do all the same songs as every other band.

 

So fast forward.. after 3 BIL requests for SWA, we eventually added it, when we saw crowds reacting to danc'ier stuff, we kept adding what works for other bands, mostly a lot of standards. So now, 3 years later, were just watching a LOT of songs tank.. songs that shouldn't tank can still tank. All of them do well here and there, just not consistently.. I was thinking about it and I remember the old way we did things had a FAR more consistent crowd reaction than what we do now...

 

So I guess what that translates to loosely is that if you treat your crowd like idiots and play idiot music, you will appease idiots, but anyone with taste will just write you off as weekend warriors or a middle-of-the-road band.. but you play something with some real chops, express your skills / talents, and play GOOD music, and maybe the idiots won't like you, but the rest will give you some credit, even if they don't particularly like the material. I guess.

 

We are still struggling with material- we're trying to add a set for every crowd possible (dance set, classic rock set, modern rock set, 80's set, metal set, etc...) but too much of that and you lose your identity....

 

In the end, I think we're all just guessing, throwing {censored} at the wall, and seeing what sticks; but pandering to the SWA fanboys and fangirls just isn't cutting it for us.

[TIMKEYS]

when you look out over the bar room ,, is the crowd changing, in size or demographics. If they dont react like they used to ,, it could be because its not the same people that used to be out there. The economy and the fact that people tend to move on and new people replace them may be part of it.

[wheresgrant3]

In all seriousness... this topic has been half beaten to death here but at the same time, the timing is interesting ... simply because my cover band is struggling really hard right now with it.. We used to play "what we wanted" 3 years ago. Notall prog rock or anything, just stuff that was a little more heavy rock and less danceable. I know a lot has changed in the last three years, but we had a good following and everyone would constantly tell us how glad they were that we didn't do all the same songs as every other band. So fast forward.. after 3 BIL requests for SWA, we eventually added it, when we saw crowds reacting to danc'ier stuff, we kept adding what works for other bands, mostly a lot of standards. So now, 3 years later, were just watching a LOT of songs tank.. songs that shouldn't tank can still tank. All of them do well here and there, just not consistently.. I was thinking about it and I remember the old way we did things had a FAR more consistent crowd reaction than what we do now... So I guess what that translates to loosely is that if you treat your crowd like idiots and play idiot music, you will appease idiots, but anyone with taste will just write you off as weekend warriors or a middle-of-the-road band.. but you play something with some real chops, express your skills / talents, and play GOOD music, and maybe the idiots won't like you, but the rest will give you some credit, even if they don't particularly like the material. I guess. We are still struggling with material- we're trying to add a set for every crowd possible (dance set, classic rock set, modern rock set, 80's set, metal set, etc...) but too much of that and you lose your identity.... In the end, I think we're all just guessing, throwing {censored} at the wall, and seeing what sticks; but pandering to the SWA fanboys and fangirls just isn't cutting it for us.

 

You are exactly right... this topic has been beaten to death... and frankly the people who respond as if it's the holy grail (like any magic pill) will be the same people trying to figure out how to please audiences in another five years. I hate to sound harsh but theory is nothing but a huge hamster wheel. Something sounds great in concept but in practice YMMV. And that varible that binds theory and practice with cover bands is 'live presentation'.

 

I think what's at the core of what most bands experience is really the lack of 'commitment' while performing popular music. I've said this many times... you can play a song but are you really 'selling it'. Sure your playing song material that is lowest common denominator but are you really committed to presenting it. Or are you playing it to just appease the audience. Plowing through a setlist material engineered to make an audience dance is only part of the solution... selling them on the idea that this is their night and these songs are wonderful even if you have little interest in the material is the real challenge. An audience can smell a band a mile away, just faking it. We have a saying... if we (the band) ain't selling it, then the audience ain't buying it. And we've dumped alot of popular songs quickly that didn't work because for various reasons we weren't able to sell them. It doesn't have to be big presentation, with huge lighting to help sell a song. For us always about audience engagement whether they are facing you or their backs are to you. For other bands it may be performing with such command that the room never stops dancing. Or it can be two guys with an acoustic that are working the crowd back and forth. Or it can be a guy playing solo acoustic with his eyes closed, playing his heart out. At every level the common denominator is 'committment' to each song's presentation and performance.

 

Off the top of my head I can think of three popular bands in your back yard (or close by) that have total commitment in presenting every song (one has three vowels in their name). I'm sure there's crossover between setlists but each band is performing what works for them. There is no 'filler', there is no debate in what they like and don't like to play... they play every song with total committment, they open up, and let the audience in. The problem is, if your not doing that at every show the audience will pick that up. I felt this way a decade ago when I saw 50 year old dads with graying hair, playing Blink182 while wearing Hot Topic shirts just to stay relevant... don't ever be something you're not. You will ultimately fail worse than if you had just stayed true to yourself.

 

I have a 'friend' in a competing band who has openly said to me he doesn't understand why his band doesn't draw nearly the same sized crowds that my band draws... after all they play nearly the same songs. Perhaps it's because he showed up to play the Black Eyed Peas and Ce Lo wearing a 'Song Remains The Same' with the sleeves cut off. Or maybe it's because he doesn't smile while playing any song material that wasn't written before 1989. I could go down a list of offenses, but the one thing I feel good about is that he just 'doesn't get it'. I never have to worry about him stealing my lunch.

[Lee Knight]

 

In all seriousness... this topic has been half beaten to death here but at the same time, the timing is interesting ... simply because my cover band is struggling really hard right now with it.. We used to play "what we wanted" 3 years ago. Notall prog rock or anything, just stuff that was a little more heavy rock and less danceable. I know a lot has changed in the last three years, but we had a good following and everyone would constantly tell us how glad they were that we didn't do all the same songs as every other band. So fast forward.. after 3 BIL requests for SWA, we eventually added it, when we saw crowds reacting to danc'ier stuff, we kept adding what works for other bands, mostly a lot of standards. So now, 3 years later, were just watching a LOT of songs tank.. songs that shouldn't tank can still tank. All of them do well here and there, just not consistently.. I was thinking about it and I remember the old way we did things had a FAR more consistent crowd reaction than what we do now... " So I guess what that translates to loosely is that if you treat your crowd like idiots and play idiot music, you will appease idiots, but anyone with taste will just write you off as weekend warriors or a middle-of-the-road band.. but you play something with some real chops, express your skills / talents, and play GOOD music, and maybe the idiots won't like you, but the rest will give you some credit, even if they don't particularly like the material. I guess. " We are still struggling with material- we're trying to add a set for every crowd possible (dance set, classic rock set, modern rock set, 80's set, metal set, etc...) but too much of that and you lose your identity.... In the end, I think we're all just guessing, throwing {censored} at the wall, and seeing what sticks; but pandering to the SWA fanboys and fangirls just isn't cutting it for us.

 

 

I think you're on the right track but...

 

So I guess what that translates to loosely is that if you treat your crowd like idiots and play idiot music, you will appease idiots, but anyone with taste will just write you off as weekend warriors or a middle-of-the-road band.. but you play something with some real chops, express your skills / talents, and play GOOD music, and maybe the idiots won't like you, but the rest will give you some credit, even if they don't particularly like the material. I guess.

 

This ^ centers too much on you and the crowd's perception of you. I'm not riding you here. It's a common perception. But wait a minute, what if you took "you" out of it and put music? There's too much tied up in ego gratification here. I dont' mean "huge ego". I mean letting yourself get in the way of yourself.

 

Personally, I really hate playing the songs that'll "move-the-crowd-cause-they're-sure-fire-winners". Too easy. You seem to agree. You're not banking on the music with those tunes, you're banking on their recognizable status. Too easy. But to play music that is played with the intent of MAKING GREAT MUSIC. People hear that...

 

...and anyone that disagrees isn't good enough to know it yet. Sorry, but that's true. Chops, skills, talent, those are all ego driven traits. The audience might use a term like that because they really don't know how to describe what it is they like.

 

They like music played with passion, that they can dance to. They don't like time wasters when they're awkwardly standing on the dance floor. They don't like being thrown a curve ball with regards to groove. If you're playing to dance crowds, make 'em dance. If you're playing to a different kind of crowd, feed that! But letting yourself get in the way... there's only frustration down the road.

 

The key to playing with passion is to find that balance between what feeds your soul and the audiences. Then get out of the way and share it.

[Lee Knight]

If my post came off a bit arrogant, it wasn't meant to. Good comes from the band moving as a whole to share something with an audience.

 

I was thinking about different scenarios. The other night my band played a cool private party. We dont' play anything recognizable. I'm not suggesting this, only pointing out something. We are a dance band that plays rockin' country blues with loud rock guitars and blues harp. So the other night, that crowd was rockin'. They were up in the first 30 seconds and didn't leave the floor for 2 hours when we stopped. It was a blast. The band fed off the audience feeding off of the band feeding off of audience... Easy.

 

Contrast with...

 

Playing in a bar that hasn't filled yet. They're coldish. The light are too bright in the house and the band feels naked. The thought crosses every band members mind, "This is going to be a long ass night". Then, for a song, the band turn inward. The bass player leans into the drum kit and locks. Pushes a little and the drummer smiles. The singer digs that and turns around and looks a the rhythm section and grins. Into the mike he says, "Yeah baby. I dig that."

 

Moved, the harp player locks into a shooka groove with the hi hat. The guitar soloist starts comping, laying back. Then building his solo from rhythmic blocks. Supported by this cool bass drum and harp groove. The singer says OH YEA! and goes in to the 3rd verse while the band drops down to a whisper. All intuitively and impromptu.

 

A couple jump up and want to be a part of this thing happening. the bass player smiles at them while nodding his head in time to this awesome groove. They dance to that groove, smiling big ass grins. The band and the couple are now thinking together...

 

"THIS IS {censored}ING FUN!"

 

A group of 4 stand in the doorway and vacillate, then the pick up something from over by the band and... they grab some beers. In 10 minutes the floor has 10 couples and its 9:45... 1:30 and everyone is sweaty and smiling and a little drunk.

[vanlatte]

 

If my post came off a bit arrogant, it wasn't meant to. Good comes from the band moving as a whole to share something with an audience. I was thinking about different scenarios. The other night my band played a cool private party. We dont' play anything recognizable. I'm not suggesting this, only pointing out something. We are a dance band that plays rockin' country blues with loud rock guitars and blues harp. So the other night, that crowd was rockin'. They were up in the first 30 seconds and didn't leave the floor for 2 hours when we stopped. It was a blast. The band fed off the audience feeding off of the band feeding off of audience... Easy. Contrast with... Playing in a bar that hasn't filled yet. They're coldish. The light are too bright in the house and the band feels naked. The thought crosses every band members mind, "This is going to be a long ass night". Then, for a song, the band turn inward. The bass player leans into the drum kit and locks. Pushes a little and the drummer smiles. The singer digs that and turns around and looks a the rhythm section and grins. Into the mike he says, "Yeah baby. I dig that." Moved, the harp player locks into a shooka groove with the hi hat. The guitar soloist starts comping, laying back. Then building his solo from rhythmic blocks. Supported by this cool bass drum and harp groove. The singer says OH YEA! and goes in to the 3rd verse while the band drops down to a whisper. All intuitively and impromptu. A couple jump up and want to be a part of this thing happening. the bass player smiles at them while nodding his head in time to this awesome groove. They dance to that groove, smiling big ass grins. The band and the couple are now thinking together... "THIS IS {censored}ING FUN!" A group of 4 stand in the doorway and vacillate, then the pick up something from over by the band and... they grab some beers. In 10 minutes the floor has 10 couples and its 9:45... 1:30 and everyone is sweaty and smiling and a little drunk.

 

 

I find this post strangely arousing...

[Kramerguy]

Lee / Grant

 

I guess I should have elaborated that we were (and even still are) enthusiastic about playing "new" material, meaning the same SWA songs (everything from black eyed peas to classics that work), we understand the philosophy of selling it. We have a demographic issue as much as anything else. I was not meaning to be egocentric about what we play, as most of it still isn't "for us" as much as just targeting what we think is a smarter and more diverse genre of music.. killers, alkaline trio, KoL, seether, etc.. all post-grunge rock is what we used to do and people loved us. Now we do jenny jenny, swa, journey, etc.. and it just isn't us, and it's equally as much not them either (our fans), which is why we see so much failsville on songs that should be home runs.

 

We saw drunk people dancing to Seether and thought maybe people wanted to dance more. I saw it worked for bands here, but in the end, I think we screwed up--- we had a formula that worked really well and we left it behind, on good intentions, but still, it didn't work. all about YMMV in the end. Find what works for you, I think I know now what works for us, and expand on it rather than divert away from it.

 

Thanks for the input, a lot of it was correct.

[Lee Knight]

 

Lee / Grant I guess I should have elaborated that we were (and even still are) enthusiastic about playing "new" material, meaning the same SWA songs (everything from black eyed peas to classics that work), we understand the philosophy of selling it. We have a demographic issue as much as anything else. I was not meaning to be egocentric about what we play, as most of it still isn't "for us" as much as just targeting what we think is a smarter and more diverse genre of music.. killers, alkaline trio, KoL, seether, etc.. all post-grunge rock is what we used to do and people loved us. Now we do jenny jenny, swa, journey, etc.. and it just isn't us, and it's equally as much not them either (our fans), which is why we see so much failsville on songs that should be home runs. We saw drunk people dancing to Seether and thought maybe people wanted to dance more. I saw it worked for bands here, but in the end, I think we screwed up--- we had a formula that worked really well and we left it behind, on good intentions, but still, it didn't work. all about YMMV in the end. Find what works for you, I think I know now what works for us, and expand on it rather than divert away from it. Thanks for the input, a lot of it was correct.

 

 

I didn't mean to imply you were being egocentric. Definitely not. I'm just pointing out how sometimes when we take ourselves out of it and put the music we love... and the music the can dig together, it becomes more about a shared experience. We're totally engaged, we're not "selling out", and the shared joy is just that... a joy for everyone in the room.

[wheresgrant3]

 

Lee / Grant I guess I should have elaborated that we were (and even still are) enthusiastic about playing "new" material, meaning the same SWA songs (everything from black eyed peas to classics that work), we understand the philosophy of selling it. We have a demographic issue as much as anything else. I was not meaning to be egocentric about what we play, as most of it still isn't "for us" as much as just targeting what we think is a smarter and more diverse genre of music.. killers, alkaline trio, KoL, seether, etc.. all post-grunge rock is what we used to do and people loved us. Now we do jenny jenny, swa, journey, etc.. and it just isn't us, and it's equally as much not them either (our fans), which is why we see so much failsville on songs that should be home runs. We saw drunk people dancing to Seether and thought maybe people wanted to dance more. I saw it worked for bands here, but in the end, I think we screwed up--- we had a formula that worked really well and we left it behind, on good intentions, but still, it didn't work. all about YMMV in the end. Find what works for you, I think I know now what works for us, and expand on it rather than divert away from it. Thanks for the input, a lot of it was correct.

 

 

I don't think you were being ego-centric at all. In fact my statement was more in support of your band building a true identity... something you all feel comfortable with.

killers, alkaline trio, KoL, seether, Velvet Revolver... is all excellent material. There a market for all kinds of music as long as your willing to work toward building an audience. One of the best new drawing bands in my area plays traditional Celtic music. They are in their 20's and their audience is in their 20's. To build that audience they had to play alot of disappointing gigs before for things started catching on. Now they outdraw many bands that are playing the same tired favorites... and they have little in terms of 'competition'. They have a niche and it earns them a following and a great rep.

 

To sit and play songs that you don't feel comfortable playing, that the audience isn't responding too, just because other bands are successful with them is a terrible strategy. I've seen it time and time again.

 

Band X wants to increase pay and break out of the bottom rooms in the area. They look at successful bands on their circuit. The group leader convinces the band (with resistance) that the only way for them to be successful is to do what the other bands are doing... after all it must be the music netting that audience. Band X abandons their setlist and style and embarks on a new marketing plan... it's called'hey look over here, we're just like them!!!'. Except nobody looks... no one really pays attention. That's because there's already an established band or two that's been successful with that format for many, many years. Instead of building new opportunities, all the new strategy forms are weak comparisons.

 

Everytime I've seen a band emerge from the rubble to dominate a local music scene it was because they were doing something new and different with music, and people took notice. I've never seen a band copy the same style and setlist format of popular bands in their back yard and 'outplay' the dominant band in the area. I know this is getting far from New Trail's point... I'm just making the point that there is never a 'magic pill' that will suddenly incite a response from an audience. If anyone thinks the key to being a successful band lies inherently in it's songlist, they are delusional. Playing the right mix of songs can always help the effort, but it's never one thing that 'closes the deal'.

[tim_7string]

 

Everytime I've seen a band emerge from the rubble to dominate a local music scene it was because they were doing something new and different with music, and people took notice. I've never seen a band copy the same style and setlist format of popular bands in their back yard and 'outplay' the dominant band in the area. I know this is getting far from New Trail's point... I'm just making the point that there is never a 'magic pill' that will suddenly incite a response from an audience. If anyone thinks the key to being a successful band lies inherently in it's songlist, they are delusional. Playing the right mix of songs can always help the effort, but it's never one thing that 'closes the deal'.

 

 

This is what it all comes down to for me. The reason certain artists are successful in the entertainment business is because they offer something new and exciting. If everyone sounded like Elvis in the 60s, it would get boring fast.

 

On the local or regional scene, it is imperative that a band stakes out its own turf. There is a popular band in town that has been around for well over 25 years. The lineup changes have been minimal. They are good and reliable. Copying their setlist, their stage banter, their look...it would all be dumb. People go see them because they know what they are going to get. Every band should have its own unique brand. Kramerguy's band should have stuck with their formula. It was working. Nothing wrong with trying out something different, but it's important to know when to go back to what you do best too.

 

If The Cars came out with an album that sounded like reggae (and I don't mean like The Police), I wouldn't be interested. I like THEIR sound and I buy their albums to hear THAT sound. Whenever bands start to really change what they do, I lose interest fast. Foo Fighters are an example of a band with a consistent sound that has still managed to not sound the same on every album.

 

I am following my own advice now. We started out with a certain style and vision which got changed quite a bit when we added a female bassist/singer. Now that she is out, we are finding ourselves and doing what WE do best (70s/80s classic rock, with some songs a little off the beaten path). It's what we are best at. It's what we are. Don't fight what you do. Embrace it. Sell it. BE it.

 

Be you.

[Lee Knight]

This is what it all comes down to for me. The reason certain artists are successful in the entertainment business is because they offer something new and exciting... ...Be you.

 

:thu: