The "dont want to play what everyone else is playing" Circular logic

[wardjames]

Hello to you as well. I guess I should have asked if the bands that are choosing standard set lists are using the band as a significant source of income. We are all gainfully employed and playing out 1 or 2 times a month is fine. We intend to play the hell out of our ( not obscure ) songs and figure that is what will entertain people.

 

 

I don't rely on music as a main source of income. My goal is to be able to fund retirement savings and kids school through music as a part time job.

 

Playing the hell out of songs is the start...but you've also got to have the whole package, which includes audience interaction, lights...THE SHOW. Set list aside, one thing to keep in mind is that playing the songs well is only one part (albeit a very important part) of the equation.

[New Trail]

It's pretty easy to be a successful band if you're willing to do what it takes to make your crowd happy!

[tucktronix]

Since it's been 30 years since you've played out, let me give a brief rundown of how your first several months of gigging will go: Once you guys work up 35-40 songs you think are pretty cool and will work, you book a gig at a small club where one of the guys in the band has a connection. The first night is just "meh", but hey---it's just the first night. And besides, the clubowner said he thought you guys were pretty good and he liked the stuff you play! He says "call me a couple of weeks and we'll see what I have coming up". You do and he books you again! Right on! After playing a few times in the club's "B" rotation about every 6-8 weeks, you begin to notice that some songs are clicking with the crowd better than others, so you start re-arranging the sets to get maximum response. One night, towards the end of the 2nd set, things really start to click and the dance floor is beginning to hop. This feels good! 2nd to last song of the set the dance floor is full and there are pretty girls dancing in front of you smiling up at you as play your guitar solo. This feels REALLY good! Just like the old days even! You crank right into your big 2nd set closer which...~sigh!~...empties the dance floor. Oh well, that was more of a "show" song, a big set-ender, rather than a dance song anyway. No problem. We'll wake 'em back up during the next set. You open the next set with one of your best dance tunes. Unfortunately, the place had emptied out during the break and you half-heartedly play through the 3rd set for a nearly-empty room with your neck craning towards the entrance hoping some of those people come back. But they don't. But hey--it's not a total loss because the manager gives you an Early Out with full pay. You're home and in bed before 1 AM! Not the best result, but you'll take it. You decide you need to learn a few more "crowd pleasers", so you decide to learn some of the 'standards' you've seen other bands have success with, or maybe you've had requests for, that you don't COMPLETELY despise. The crowds are staying longer, which is good, but it's still hard to really get that momentum going that towards that fully excited crowd that you feel the band is right on the verge of creating because, no matter HOW you rearrange them, having only 10 really killer crowdpleasers out of 40 songs just isn't enough. One night you're playing and, for whatever reason--you heard there might be a bachelorette party in the back of the room--the crowd is a little better than usual. These 3 girls come up to you during a break, one of whom is pretty hot and while you're happily married and not at all seriously interested in a girl this young, and you're pretty sure she's not really interested in you, it IS nice to look at her while she's BEGGING you to play "Brown Eyed Girl", so you humor her. You keep trying to tell her that while you are familiar with the song (heck, you played the song years ago before she was even born, you say to her with a slightly lecherous grin) the band doesn't know it. She's pleading with you "but EVERYONE knows Brown Eyed Girl! Can't you play it for me....please??? It's MY song" she says while batting those pretty lashes. You ask her if she wouldn't rather hear "Moondance" or "Caravan" instead. She looks at you like she doesn't have the slightest idea what you're talking about and says "PLEASEEE" one more time while pulling a 20 dollar bill out of her purse. So you go up to the guys and tell them about this girl and how she and her friends have been dancing all night and she's even offering 20 bucks, and you're pretty sure you can stumble through the song if they can follow along. So you do it and, even though it's sloppy as hell and you forget half the words, the crowd goes crazy for the fact that you did this special-request-we've-never-even-attempted-to-play-until-this very minute and you think to yourself "you know...even though I absolutely DESPISE that song and swore up and down we'd never be one of THOSE bands, that was actually pretty fun. I wouldn't mind doing that every gig. Especially if we get that sort of response. And besides, we sort of did our own version of it which I think the crowd really dug!" And after the end of the night the clubowner not only paid you, but did it with a bigger smile and was asking YOU about openings in your schedule next instead of the other way around. Long story short---save yourself 18 months, and all the song and dance about being "better" than certain songs and learn 'em already.

 

Right on the money! DAMN!!

[Lee Knight]

That's fantastic!

 

 

Or not.

 

David, you've detailed a logical path to success. No doubt. I wonder why I dislike status quo bar bands so much? Because they're status quo. Nothing wrong with it, but it isn't the only way. It's not my way currently or for a long time. If James Brown were onstage beckoning to me to get up! to a song I'd never heard before and I didn't know JB from Adam Ant, I freakin' get on up!

 

So we're no JBs. But the point is, there is scale of ability. And plenty of great bands do things a bit differently. I'm certainly not saying this is the only way but...

 

...I come from a background of creativity. I'm not saying anyone else here doesn't. But, for me, it is the act of the idea. And the skill of how you execute that. And I love POP. So I'm not talking esoteric games here. I'm talking knocking a crowd on their ass. Differently. I'm not particularly into even deep cuts from current artists. That's a little too self indulgent and not for the crowd enough. I'm talking an idea that makes sense and entertains people. Differently.

 

So, while I have done bands that will play "what the crowd wants to hear" and had a great time at it, it isn't the only way to go. Sometimes the crowd only wants to hear a particular thing because no one's convinced them otherwise. Harder to achieve? Yes.

 

And for me... that's the real fun.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Or not. David, you've detailed a logical path to success. No doubt. I wonder why I dislike status quo bar bands so much? Because they're status quo. Nothing wrong with it, but it isn't the only way. It's not my way currently or for a long time. If James Brown were onstage beckoning to me to get up! to a song I'd never heard before and I didn't know JB from Adam Ant, I freakin' get on up! So we're no JBs. But the point is, there is scale of ability. And plenty of great bands do things a bit differently. I'm certainly not saying this is the only way but... ...I come from a background of creativity. I'm not saying anyone else here doesn't. But, for me, it is the act of the idea. And the skill of how you execute that. And I love POP. So I'm not talking esoteric games here. I'm talking knocking a crowd on their ass. Differently. I'm not particularly into even deep cuts from current artists. That's a little too self indulgent and not for the crowd enough. I'm talking an idea that makes sense and entertains people. Differently. So, while I have done bands that will play "what the crowd wants to hear" and had a great time at it, it isn't the only way to go. Sometimes the crowd only wants to hear a particular thing because no one's convinced them otherwise. Harder to achieve? Yes. And for me... that's the real fun.

 

 

Agreed, agreed, agreed. 1 million percent. I know it's not possible, or even desirable, to read everything I've posted but if you've read much of anything I've posted you've certain noticed how much time I've spent talking about the need to niche yourself, my complaints about lazy bands and lazy musicians and how I think THAT is a big part of what is wrong with live music today, and about how it isn't about the songlist--it's about how you sell it and the ENTIRE presentation.

 

But we're not talking about any of that here. The guy I'm posting to wants to play once or twice a month, claims to not care about the venue or the money, and would rather stay away from the tried and true standards. What I don't see in ANY of that is a desire to be something different and special, any inclination to work really hard at developing a unique product and niche or any real desire to try and be great. I just see that same ol', same ol' of wanting to have as much fun as possible with the minimum of effort and compromise possible. Have you ever seen success with THAT model? I never have. And all those bands either break up or move towards playing a more commericial/standard product because they aren't really interested in working hard at anything else and/or don't have the creative background to do more.

 

Creative isn't being able to choose a "better" Van Morrison song. There isn't a person here or a musician alive who couldn't come up with 40 really cool songs to play that WOULD go over great IF ONLY the audience was receptive.

 

I agree, the audience CAN be. But you have to WORK at it. You have to make your band something much more special and interesting than just which particular song you're playing at any moment. There are all SORTS of great bands who can do this. But I don't know any of them who are built on a model of "I'm getting back into this after 30 years and interested in playing once or twice a month; money really isn't a concern".

 

To tie this back into an earlier point you made: it's all about FOCUS. A good band (or good dance group or magician or any live entertainer) lives and dies by their ability to grab an audience and hold their attention. The ENTIRE audience. Whether that's 10 people or 1000. Grabbing the attention of just a few while the rest are waiting to see if what you do next is more entertaining isn't good enough. The reason why so many bands rely on the standards is because they are easy attention grabbers. Once you have them all dancing or singing along or just staring at the stage or whatever you can then give them your show. Familiar songs are GREAT for serving this purpose and for bands that don't have a whole lot else to grab the audiences attention with, it is often ALL they have. If you want maximum results with minimum work--THIS is the way to go.

 

But yes, I agree totally that there are greater rewards for using things other than song-choice to entertain the audience. But that's real work. That takes a unique business-plan, a unique focus, and putting a lot of effort into really trying to make your band something special. I LOVE those kind of bands. It's the kind of band I aspire to be. I think it's the type of bands we should ALL aspire to be. But you can't do it by putting in a few hours a month.

[Lee Knight]

what you said ^

[Vito Corleone]

 

David, you've detailed a logical path to success.

 

 

The reason it's logical is because it's the only natural path for most bands to take.

 

Think about it: if you're playing 3 or 4 hours in a club, no matter WHAT songlist you're playing, there are going to be some songs that work better than others. And it's only natural to gravitate your setlist towards "more THAT!" Are there really bands who are content to have a crowd that responds really well to 2 songs out of your set and continues to play those 8 others where the dancefloor is empty, nobody is looking at the stage, and people are grabbing their coats and walking out simply because the band likes those songs so much better? If there are, those bands don't usually last very long. They are the ones who start arguing amongst themselves and losing gigs. It's only natural (not to mention good business and good entertainer skills) to want to make those other 8 spots in the set list work as well as the 2 that are killing now.

 

So what is a band to do? Well, you can either learn some easy, crowd-pleasing favorites, or you can start working on becoming such a great and unique band that those other 8 spots work pretty much regardless of what song you choose.

 

I agree that latter is preferred. But you aren't gonna do that on a few hours a month. Hell, most bands aren't going to do that with even a much greater effort because they don't have the creativity and/or aren't JB.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but unless the guy I'm posting to is either willing to play the standards or work really hard at being something special, there aren't a lot of other options inbetween unless you want to spend time going from band to band, fighting with bandmates, being disappointed with venues and clubowners and payscales and crowds and all that other bull{censored} that gets discussed here ad naseum. I don't expect him to take my advice, but if he did he'd no doubt shave a couple of years off the process of ending up in the same place anyway.

[Lee Knight]

I'm agreeing with you.

[Vito Corleone]

I'm agreeing with you.

 

I know. I'm just fleshing out some concise points for my next book.

 

Another way to look at it is like this: the goal of every cover band is to have every song be a huge crowd pleaser that has everyone applauding and cheering afterwards. Right? Now the EASY way to do this---the baseline, so to speak---is to have every song be an easily recognizable, time tested, proven dance-floor favorite. There are any number of bands who can attest to this fact.

 

But there's nothing special or unique about such generic bands--regardless of how good their audience response and paychecks are. So rather than play those dancefloor favorites you'd rather replace them with more esoteric material? Great! Just make sure that with each and every "replacement" song you add something else to the mix that keeps the audience response at at LEAST the level it would be at with that dancefloor favorite.

 

Otherwise, why bother? What value is there in being a LESSER product than the most simple, generic bands out there? That's why I often suggest STARTING with a set full of easy crowd-pleasers and building UP from there. If you can't pull Brown Eyed Girl out of your set and replace it with something you like better that the crowd likes at least as much, then you either need to work harder or maybe you just ain't got what it takes.

 

In which case, you can always put BEG back in the set. But at least you're STARTING from an easily-acheiveable baseline of having an excited, receptive crowd. From which point it's much easier to work on honing your individual and unique skills than it is trying to do so for empty rooms.

 

Or another way to put it: if anyone thinks they are a musician who is "better" than the common standards or have a band who is better than the bands who live and die by their material---fine, but before you go making such pronouncements you might wanna try proving you're AS good as them first.

[wades_keys]

Or not. David, you've detailed a logical path to success. No doubt. I wonder why I dislike status quo bar bands so much? Because they're status quo. Nothing wrong with it, but it isn't the only way. It's not my way currently or for a long time. If James Brown were onstage beckoning to me to get up! to a song I'd never heard before and I didn't know JB from Adam Ant, I freakin' get on up! So we're no JBs. But the point is, there is scale of ability. And plenty of great bands do things a bit differently. I'm certainly not saying this is the only way but... ...I come from a background of creativity. I'm not saying anyone else here doesn't. But, for me, it is the act of the idea. And the skill of how you execute that. And I love POP. So I'm not talking esoteric games here. I'm talking knocking a crowd on their ass. Differently. I'm not particularly into even deep cuts from current artists. That's a little too self indulgent and not for the crowd enough. I'm talking an idea that makes sense and entertains people. Differently. So, while I have done bands that will play "what the crowd wants to hear" and had a great time at it, it isn't the only way to go. Sometimes the crowd only wants to hear a particular thing because no one's convinced them otherwise. Harder to achieve? Yes. And for me... that's the real fun.

 

Yeah, and it's super awesome to see a band like this.

 

The Bears and The Psychodots are/were doing things this way. I went to a dots show and it was packed, people knew all the words....And even those that didn't, like me: we got up. The music and the presentation was just fantastic. Sounded just familiar enough to hook you in: great pop sensibilities with some real strange lyrical twists thrown in, and fantastic musicianship. A show to remember.

[drumsnbeer]

I know. I'm just fleshing out some concise points for my next book. Another way to look at it is like this: the goal of every cover band is to have every song be a huge crowd pleaser that has everyone applauding and cheering afterwards. Right? Now the EASY way to do this---the baseline, so to speak---is to have every song be an easily recognizable, time tested, proven dance-floor favorite. There are any number of bands who can attest to this fact. But there's nothing special or unique about such generic bands--regardless of how good their audience response and paychecks are. So rather than play those dancefloor favorites you'd rather replace them with more esoteric material? Great! Just make sure that with each and every "replacement" song you add something else to the mix that keeps the audience response at at LEAST the level it would be at with that dancefloor favorite. Otherwise, why bother? What value is there in being a LESSER product than the most simple, generic bands out there? That's why I often suggest STARTING with a set full of easy crowd-pleasers and building UP from there. If you can't pull Brown Eyed Girl out of your set and replace it with something you like better that the crowd likes at least as much, then you either need to work harder or maybe you just ain't got what it takes. In which case, you can always put BEG back in the set. But at least you're STARTING from an easily-acheiveable baseline of having an excited, receptive crowd. From which point it's much easier to work on honing your individual and unique skills than it is trying to do so for empty rooms. Or another way to put it: if anyone thinks they are a musician who is "better" than the common standards or have a band who is better than the bands who live and die by their material---fine, but before you go making such pronouncements you might wanna try proving you're AS good as them first.

 

I think you misunderstood me and seem to be threatened by someone suggesting that people might want to hear something other than a typical set list. Don't worry I'm not in Nevada.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I think you misunderstood me and seem to be threatened by someone suggesting that people might want to hear something other than a typical set list.

 

 

I'm not threatened by it, just bored by it. Do you think you're the first guy to come up with the idea of "hey! let's play songs that not-every-other-band-does because there must be a ton of people tired of hearing the same old stuff!"? Do you think that hasn't been tried by a gazillion bands who have crashed-and-burned relying on THAT as their 'niche'? Do you think you're the first guy to come into this forum and suggest that a lot of guys here have it all wrong by not thinking more outside-the-box with their setlists? That you could do at LEAST as well just by simply picking some not-so-worn-out songs to play?

 

Here's the bottom line as simply as I can put it: people don't care what song you play. They don't go to see a band because THIS band plays such-and-such a song or they DON'T play such-and-such another one. Do you really think there's a bunch of people sitting at home who WOULD go out except they can't bear to hear yet another band do "Play That Funky Music"? That if only some band would find some DIFFERENT songs to play, that THAT'S what would move them and excite them about live music?

 

Because if that's what you think, you're dead wrong. Or, at very least, the small amount of people who DO feel that way aren't enough to fill most barroom closets. They don't care about songlists. They care about being entertained. But entertaining people and doing it well is actually pretty hard. It's a lot harder than just getting-together-with-some-other-musicians-and-playing-some-cool-songs. So a lot of bands play familiar songs because that WILL pack a dancefloor and get some hands in the air. Playing familiar songs is one pretty sure-fire way to entertain people with your musical/stage skills.

 

As has been pointed out, there ARE, of course, other ways to entertain people with your musical/stage skills and if you've got such skills, then it doesn't much matter WHAT song you play. So whaddya got? What's your game plan? What's your niche and your unique skillset that is going to entertain people while playing something other than a "typical" set list?

[Vito Corleone]

Here's the way I see it:

 

There are 3 types of cover bands in the world:

 

A) Bands that play typical setlists and, while being very generic, keep dancefloors packed and venues crowded.

 

B) Bands that play atypical setlists and draw no-one but close friends and relatives and bore everybody.

 

C) Bands that rise above the typical and generic and really entertain the hell out of people. Some of these bands play typical setlists; some do not. It pretty much doesn't matter what they play because they are so damned good at entertaining the crowd.

 

One of the biggest problems with live music today is there is not nearly enough of the C) bands. If every band worked harder at being the C) bands, I'm pretty sure we'd all be enjoying a much more vibrant and profitable musical scene.

 

Neither the A) bands nor the B) bands are doing much to excite the live music scene or move things forward but at least the A) bands keep crowds dancing and venues happy and probably aren't HURTING things. The B) bands are mostly just old and in the way and are the ones most responsible for people going to a DJ or staying home and watching a movie rather than going out to see a live band.

[wardjames]

C) Bands that rise above the typical and generic and really entertain the hell out of people. Some of these bands play typical setlists; some do not. It pretty much doesn't matter what they play because they are so damned good at entertaining the crowd. One of the biggest problems with live music today is there is not nearly enough of the C) bands. If every band worked harder at being the C) bands, I'm pretty sure we'd all be enjoying a much more vibrant and profitable musical scene.

 

 

Absolutely. For example, I just bought a 6 DVD set of Garth Brooks concerts. The man is a phenomenal entertainer. PHENOMENAL. He could metamorphasize into any member of this board, put together a band that plays obscure B-sides, and he'd have a gigantic crowd. Kind of like Lee's example with James Brown earlier. But his appeal would have nothing to do with the music selections, it would be because he's Garth Brooks and has that kind of entertainment ability plus the work ethic and vision to put an amazing show together. The further you get away from Garth Brooks and the closer you get to Joe Average musician, the more you need to rely on other tools, such as familiar songs, assuming you want large energetic audiences.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Absolutely. For example, I just bought a 6 DVD set of Garth Brooks concerts. The man is a phenomenal entertainer. PHENOMENAL. He could metamorphasize into any member of this board, put together a band that plays obscure B-sides, and he'd have a gigantic crowd. Kind of like Lee's example with James Brown earlier. But his appeal would have nothing to do with the music selections, it would be because he's Garth Brooks and has that kind of entertainment ability plus the work ethic and vision to put an amazing show together. The further you get away from Garth Brooks and the closer you get to Joe Average musician, the more you need to rely on other tools, such as familiar songs, assuming you want large energetic audiences.

 

 

Jesus, dude. Nothing like setting the bar HIGH. Garth is in that stratosphere where only half-a-dozen or so entertainers exist and all are known by their first names. I saw him live pretty early on--around '89 I think--and while I wasn't much of a fan of the music at the time, the show was un-{censored}ing-believable.

 

And even with all that gifted ability Garth works his ass off AND still knows to give 'em the hits. None of it is easy. My band works really hard to TRY and be a C) cover band and not just be an A) band and it's hard work.

 

AND we rely on a lot of "typical" material. In part because of the type of band we are--doing only casuals we don't have a following. So to go in cold with a fresh audience every show and try to keep the dancefloor packed from start-to-finish---the "typical" stuff really helps. But as we get better and better we find we don't have to rely on the setlist as much. But as I've said before, while a great band can work up a crowd with almost any song, a familiar tune will get you 75% of the way there. So it hards to resist the temptation (and sometimes is downright foolish) to not take advantage of that. Why work any harder than you have to?

 

The other reason is, due to lifestyles and geography, we just plain don't have the time to work at being very, very good. It would take a lot more rehearsal and gigging to move the band up to that level. Slowly but surely---we get better and better all the time--but it takes work, man. It really does.

[kmart]

Absolutely. For example, I just bought a 6 DVD set of Garth Brooks concerts. The man is a phenomenal entertainer. PHENOMENAL. He could metamorphasize into any member of this board, put together a band that plays obscure B-sides, and he'd have a gigantic crowd. Kind of like Lee's example with James Brown earlier. But his appeal would have nothing to do with the music selections, it would be because he's Garth Brooks and has that kind of entertainment ability plus the work ethic and vision to put an amazing show together. The further you get away from Garth Brooks and the closer you get to Joe Average musician, the more you need to rely on other tools, such as familiar songs, assuming you want large energetic audiences.

 

 

Well...no, he couldn't, as history showed with the relative failure of the 'Chris Gaines Experiment'.

 

I get your point, however. Just not the best example.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Well...no, he couldn't, as history showed with the relative failure of the 'Chris Gaines Experiment'. I get your point, however. Just not the best example.

 

 

I dunno. That was such a weird one-off, that I can't hold it against his ability to entertain. First off, everyone knew it was Garth Brooks. But had he actually been able to start off again as an unknown rocker and put in the requisite time to make it work, I have little doubt he could have pulled it off.

[wardjames]

Well...no, he couldn't, as history showed with the relative failure of the 'Chris Gaines Experiment'. I get your point, however. Just not the best example.

 

I'm referring to magical powers of transformation. Work with me here

[wardjames]

 

Jesus, dude. Nothing like setting the bar HIGH. Garth is in that stratosphere where only half-a-dozen or so entertainers exist and all are known by their first names. I saw him live pretty early on--around '89 I think--and while I wasn't much of a fan of the music at the time, the show was un-{censored}ing-believable.

 

 

Yeah, I went extreme intentionally. There's a line between Garth Brooks and the worst dad band in America. The farther you get away from Garth, the more you need the typical stuff. That's not to say you have to be Garth Brooks to make obscure stuff work. But you do need to have some entertainment value beyond just playing the songs well.

 

Also, there's such a VAST variety of "typical" stuff out there that I can't believe bands can find something they like that the average audience goer likes as well. Like we're adding that Little Texas song "God Blessed Texas". No one else does that around here. But I know it will kill, because the whole audience knows and loves it. There's SUCH a big catalog to chose from, whatever your genre.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Yeah, I went extreme intentionally. There's a line between Garth Brooks and the worst dad band in America. The farther you get away from Garth, the more you need the typical stuff. That's not to say you have to be Garth Brooks to make obscure stuff work. But you do need to have some entertainment value beyond just playing the songs well. Also, there's such a VAST variety of "typical" stuff out there that I can't believe bands can find something they like that the average audience goer likes as well. Like we're adding that Little Texas song "God Blessed Texas". No one else does that around here. But I know it will kill, because the whole audience knows and loves it. There's SUCH a big catalog to chose from, whatever your genre.

 

 

Exactly. It's all about what works best for your band. Like I said, I think about each of the songs in our songlist as 'slots' that need to be filled by certain songs to help get the certain reaction we're trying to get in the spot in the set. And there might be dozen of songs that would work great in any of those slots. Which ones are the best for our band? That's part of the secret sauce recipe.

 

But there really are a ton of songs that fit under the banner of "typical, well-known songs that audiences love". While we play nothing but songs like that all night long, a lot of the most commonly mentioned ones, even though they are on our songlist and we can pull them out if we need to, we almost never play. Songs like Brown Eyed Girl, Brick House, Funky Music, Sweet Home Alabama, Mustang Sally...we rarely, if ever, play those. We've found other equally popular songs that we all personally like doing much more. There's no reason every band can't find their own Fave Forty "typical" songs.

 

One thing I'm focused on in trying to build the show to be bigger and better is my goal to have each and every song be a "moment". I'm always on the band when we're working up a new song: "what can we do to turn this into a 'moment'? Now that we've learned how to play it, what can we add to it to give it some more 'oomph'?"

 

When you go see an top act like Garth, EVERY song has something special about the way it's presented or the reason it is presented in that particular spot. But when I go see even some of the best cover bands, it seems there are always parts of their show where, even though the dancefloor might be packed and the crowd is having a great time, the band is kind of just running-through-the-motions and I can't even remember what songs they played during that spot in the set an hour later. I want to be better than those bands.

 

My goal is, like a great concert, to have every song be a "moment". Hard to do over 3-4 hours, and might not be a goal we'll ever fully achieve, but that's my goal nonetheless. The more each song is a "moment" I think we'll have the simultaneous effect of both A) making it not very-important-at-all which song that was played as long as it was the right song for that "moment" and B) making it more memorable for the audience.

 

There are a LOT of ways to do that. But they all take creativity, work, and having a really good sense of what works with the audience and what doesn't. And whichEVER way we do it it will involve a whole lot more than simply not playing "Livin' On A Prayer" and playing some other, less commonly-played rock song instead.

[wheresgrant3]

I can't get deeper in the weeds on this topic. Every band can have their niche and I'd much rather see a band doing someting differen't on the scene (if it's performed well) than 30 other bands playing our exact setlist. It's a common thing at our shows to see other band members at our shows in the crowd, watching our set. Shortly afterward, our clever ideas become there's. That just pushes us even farther to take what's familar and sell it more creatively.

Over the years I've heard the following from many smaller bands...
"How can you play all those {censored}ty songs every night without going nuts"
"Man, when do you have time to sleep?"
"I know you make alot of money and all... but man, all that travel"
"Playing every weekend is way too much for me... I could never handle that"
"Does it annoy you with so many people on stage on top of your gear?"
"It must cost you a fortune to run that band"
"Man... you guys have alot of gear, must take you forever to set up".
"God bless your guitarist... I could never play any song without a solo in it"
"Owning all that gear together will just cause trouble"
"No one is gonna tell me to bring a smaller amp"
"You guys get all the breaks... I know you work hard at it, but seriously you must know some people"
"You'd have to put a gun to my head before I'd play a rap tune!"

Most of the comments come unsolicited... I don't ask them, it's almost a defensive reaction when my band comes up in conversation as to why they are perfectly satisfied in their current band/project.
I just smile and nod my head.


The two things I always here eventually from some guy yammering on is:
"You think my band get in there???"
"If someone leaves the band and you have an opening, please call me!!!"

[Vito Corleone]

it's almost a defensive reaction when my band comes up in conversation as to why they are perfectly satisfied in their current band/project.

 

 

Yup.

[kmart]

I'm referring to magical powers of transformation. Work with me here

Well that's exactly what I was responding about; Garth Brooks, the mega successful, multi millions selling country artist thought he could simply or easily transform into mega successful, mlti million selling alt-rocker by putting on a different name, a {censored}ty wig and some guyliner.

 

And he couldn't.

[wardjames]

Well that's exactly what I was responding about; Garth Brooks, the mega successful, multi millions selling country artist thought he could simply or easily transform into mega successful, mlti million selling alt-rocker by putting on a different name, a {censored}ty wig and some guyliner. And he couldn't.

 

 

But that's because people KNEW it was Garth Brooks. If you take away that limiting factor, what I said holds true.

 

Put it this way, if you could implant Garth's entertainment ability in you or me, within a year our bands would be WILDLY successful.

[Vito Corleone]

Well that's exactly what I was responding about; Garth Brooks, the mega successful, multi millions selling country artist thought he could simply or easily transform into mega successful, mlti million selling alt-rocker by putting on a different name, a {censored}ty wig and some guyliner. And he couldn't.

 

 

Well he might have had everybody not known he was Garth Brooks. Kinda took the "transform" out of the process.