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

[Vito Corleone]

 

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.

 

 

I'll settle for a small fraction of that, please. You can take the rest.

[wardjames]

 

I'll settle for a small fraction of that, please. You can take the rest.

 

 

No Kidding.

 

I can't stop watching this video over and over. It's like a playbook on how to put on a great show, I don't care what genre you're in:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Garth-Brooks-Entertainer/dp/B000K8O27O/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1323531470&sr=1-1

[Vito Corleone]

 

No Kidding. I can't stop watching this video over and over. It's like a playbook on how to put on a great show, I don't care what genre you're in: http://www.amazon.com/Garth-Brooks-Entertainer/dp/B000K8O27O/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1323531470&sr=1-1

 

 

Good showmanship, like good musicianship, transcends genre.

 

I've never seen those concert vids of his though. I may have to put that on my Christmas wish list.

[wardjames]

 

Good showmanship, like good musicianship, transcends genre. I've never seen those concert vids of his though. I may have to put that on my Christmas wish list.

 

 

Look at the used ones. I think I paid $7-$8 shipped.

[Lee Knight]

One of the things that seems to get overlooked... is good music.

 

I don't mean musicianship. I don't mean showmanship. Though both are of course important. But there seems to be a lack of faith in audiences actually responding to great music. Or maybe a lack of faith in being prepared to deliver it. With soul and emotion and genuine heart. And passion. Delivered with truth. If that sounds corny, then I'm talking to you. It could be punk, country, jazz, soul... but people do respond to great music being played by people who love making it for them. And themselves.

 

I hear all kinds of talk about "entertainers" and"setlist" and getting the house dancing. All great stuff. No denying. But I rarely get the sense that that you guys have MUSIC on your mind. And I know why. Years of focusing on getting gigs, keeping a band together, breaking even or maybe a profit... all that distracts to the point where knocking out an arrangement on a sell-able tune is sufficient. Dress it up in lights and dance moves and move onto the next.

 

But it's not enough. And people don't know what they're missing. Till they hear it. Feel it. Nothing compares to that.

[Vito Corleone]

 

One of the things that seems to get overlooked... is good music. I don't mean musicianship. I don't mean showmanship. Though both are of course important. But there seems to be a lack of faith in audiences actually responding to great music. Or maybe a lack of faith in being prepared to deliver it. With soul and emotion and genuine heart. And passion. Delivered with truth. If that sounds corny, then I'm talking to you. It could be punk, country, jazz, soul... but people do respond to great music being played by people who love making it for them. And themselves. I hear all kinds of talk about "entertainers" and"setlist" and getting the house dancing. All great stuff. No denying. But I rarely get the sense that that you guys have MUSIC on your mind. And I know why. Years of focusing on getting gigs, keeping a band together, breaking even or maybe a profit... all that distracts to the point where knocking out an arrangement on a sell-able tune is sufficient. Dress it up in lights and dance moves and move onto the next. But it's not enough. And people don't know what they're missing. Till they hear it. Feel it. Nothing compares to that.

 

 

I agree. It's all in the delivery. And a heart-felt sincere performance of the material is part of that. But I don't think there are really very many bands having a whole lot of success who don't play-it-like-they-mean it.

[drumsnbeer]

 

One of the things that seems to get overlooked... is good music. I don't mean musicianship. I don't mean showmanship. Though both are of course important. But there seems to be a lack of faith in audiences actually responding to great music. Or maybe a lack of faith in being prepared to deliver it. With soul and emotion and genuine heart. And passion. Delivered with truth. If that sounds corny, then I'm talking to you. It could be punk, country, jazz, soul... but people do respond to great music being played by people who love making it for them. And themselves. I hear all kinds of talk about "entertainers" and"setlist" and getting the house dancing. All great stuff. No denying. But I rarely get the sense that that you guys have MUSIC on your mind. And I know why. Years of focusing on getting gigs, keeping a band together, breaking even or maybe a profit... all that distracts to the point where knocking out an arrangement on a sell-able tune is sufficient. Dress it up in lights and dance moves and move onto the next. But it's not enough. And people don't know what they're missing. Till they hear it. Feel it. Nothing compares to that.

 

 

Well said, my thoughts exactly.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Well said, my thoughts exactly.

 

 

I don't get where the two things are exclusive. In all the talk, for example, of Garth Brooks being a great entertainer was there ever the suggestion that he doesn't focus on good music, or that he doesn't deliver his songs with soul and emotion and geniune heart?

 

If anything, I think such things are taken for granted as the basis for a good performance which is why they didn't get specificially mentioned. To suggest that Garth doesn't have MUSIC on his mind would be absurd, IMO.

[BlueStrat]

 

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, now you're talking about that unquantifiable "it" factor that you are either born with or you aren't. The first time I recognized it was when I opened for Robert Cray, twice, back in 1981 and 1982 when he was still playing the same bar circuit I was. He had become a regional act by then, but he was on an upward trajectory. I had heard about him, and when I saw him, I was amazed. He didn't really do anything. He wore nice slacks and a pull over shirt and looked like he was getting ready for a round of golf. He didn't dance, didn't move around much, didn't tell jokes or many stories. He just stood there and played and sang....and had complete control and command of the audience. He was magnetic and mesmerizing. I had never seen anything like it. The next time I saw him was in 1983, opening a local concert for BB King. And he came out and played with BB, and that was it, he was off to the races.

 

There is a local 24 year old kid here who has that "it" factor as well. He is unfocused and undisciplined, but he contacted me and asked if I'd do a project with him after my surgery. I told him we'd talk- he will have to do what I ask him to do regarding the disciplines of being a musician or don't waste my time- but he could really do it. He's already won lots of regional contests and shows and plays in a successful band here but it isn't utilizing his potential and making him the front guy (they're using a cute blond with nice assets) but girls go wild for this kid. We'll see.

[wardjames]

 

I don't get where the two things are exclusive. In all the talk, for example, of Garth Brooks being a great entertainer was there ever the suggestion that he doesn't focus on good music, or that he doesn't deliver his songs with soul and emotion and geniune heart? If anything, I think such things are taken for granted as the basis for a good performance which is why they didn't get specificially mentioned. To suggest that Garth doesn't have MUSIC on his mind would be absurd, IMO.

 

 

Good example of that. There's this song where all of the sudden after a piano solo Garth gets up on the piano and knocks out a killer solo...on saxophone. Now, no matter who played the solo, it was great musically...Garth's a good musician and has a great voice. But being able to combine a great music moment with a great entertainment moment (who knew Garth Brooks could play saxophone) is something we can all learn from.

[drumsnbeer]

 

I don't get where the two things are exclusive. In all the talk, for example, of Garth Brooks being a great entertainer was there ever the suggestion that he doesn't focus on good music, or that he doesn't deliver his songs with soul and emotion and geniune heart? If anything, I think such things are taken for granted as the basis for a good performance which is why they didn't get specificially mentioned. To suggest that Garth doesn't have MUSIC on his mind would be absurd, IMO.

 

 

I believe Lee was referring to cover bands and I was agreeing with him in regards to that.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I believe Lee was referring to cover bands and I was agreeing with him in regards to that.

 

 

Same thing applies to cover bands though. Simply because the discussion isn't about the music doesn't mean there isn't any focus on it. And I also reject the suggestions that a band or musician has to somehow love or have some deep connection to a song to deliver it with soul and emotion and conviction. Miles Davis recorded hundreds of jazz standards over the years. Did he LOVE all those songs? I doubt it. Did John Coltrane need to LOVE "My Favorite Things" to be able to record his masterful version of it? Maybe he DID love it, but it's also just as likely that he simply found a connection with a couple of bits of the music and took it from there. In my view, the real musicians are the ones who can find the connection and emotion in almost anything while it's those who have to have some personal love for the material or some great connection with it from their youth or whatever that are the ones who are lacking in ability.

 

As far as the "typical" songlists go? Do I have any love for "You Shook Me All Night Long" after all these years? Hell, I've probably played that song 1000 times in the last 30 years. I'm sick to death of it on one hand, but on the other hand I STILL love the way the rhythm guitar chords snap into the drum groove like a fine-tuned watch. I NEVER get sick of playing that!

 

Do I even particularly like "Poker Face"? Not really. But I really enjoy making all those different keyboard patches come together and creating those soundscapes and making that bouncy-rhythm happen so Tiffany can sing the hell out of the vocal like she does. That freakin' ROCKS to do that! I LOVE playing that song when I nail my parts.

 

Do I ever need to listen to "Jessie's Girl" again as long as I live? Heck, I don't think I ever wanted to listen to it 30 years ago. But I enjoy singing the hell out of it---it fits right in my range, and I REALLY enjoy the way we break up the verses and get girls up on stage to sing it with us and how good it sounds when we nail the 3-part harmonies we do during the bridge. Yeah, I love PLAYING that song even though the song ITSELF I couldn't care less about.

 

So this whole idea that the song choices themselves have to be something special for the musician in order to be enjoyable to perform them is bogus and one almost completely put forth by people who don't really understand performing, IMO. On another thread somebody was derisively putting forth the idea of dance bands being a "human jukebox". Well, in my view, the "human jukeboxes" are those bands who are capable of doing nothing more than saying "here's a song that's one of my personal favorites, I hope you enjoy it too." That's nice if you can play for me nice versions of a bunch of songs you personally like, but you might as well just show me your iPod playlist and you'll get the same result.

 

Somebody asked me earlier if I've never had anyone come up and tell me they like the variety in my setlist. Of course I have when I've played in such bands. And I've also had people come up and tell me how much they like that they "know every song we do" when I've played in more "typical" songlist bands. And either one is all well and good but I'm not really in the business of getting people off with the playlist one way or another. The compliments I REALLY appreciate are when people come up and say "wow we had so much FUN tonight! We really had a great time!" Then I know it really didn't have much at all to do with the songlist-- it was the performance of those songs they liked.

 

Or when they come up and tell me "you guys were so much better than the band we had at this event last year". Not because I'm egotistically getting off on being thought of as better than any particular band...because I KNOW whatever band they had last year was most certainly VERY good with good players and good singers (and most likely much better than us on many levels). But because I know what they really mean is that they had a better TIME this year than last year. That the musical portion of their event was more ENTERTAINING for them than it was the year before. Whether that was because of better musicianship or stagecraft or songlist....I dunno. And they don't either. Because the exact details of the WHY isn't important. It's the fact that the overall SHOW was more entertaining is what is important.

[kmart]

 

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

 

Well we're going to have to disagree, then. Everything I know about it, the album didn't fail because people knew it was Garth: it failed because the product flat out sucked.

 

You want to talk about an artist who has been able to continually transform and change who they 'are' and what they sound like time and again and still be successful over time, you need to talk about Bowie.

[BlueStrat]

 

Well we're going to have to disagree, then. Everything I know about it, the album didn't fail because people knew it was Garth: it failed because the product flat out sucked. You want to talk about an artist who has been able to continually transform and change who they 'are' and what they sound like time and again and still be successful over time, you need to talk about Bowie.

 

 

To a lesser degree, I'd put Clapton (60s hard rock, country rock, straight ahead blues, adult pop) and Rod Stewart (Rock singer, disco singer, pop singer, now singing old classics) in there, too. Guys who can successfully cross genres and remain on top are pretty few and far between.

[kmart]

 

To a lesser degree, I'd put Clapton (60s hard rock, country rock, straight ahead blues, adult pop) and Rod Stewart (Rock singer, disco singer, pop singer, now singing old classics) in there, too. Guys who can successfully cross genres and remain on top are pretty few and far between.

 

 

I'd agree with both, like you said, to a lesser degree. Not as much entirely changing themselves as bridging decades by not remaining 100% the same act.

[wardjames]

 

Well we're going to have to disagree, then. Everything I know about it, the album didn't fail because people knew it was Garth: it failed because the product flat out sucked. You want to talk about an artist who has been able to continually transform and change who they 'are' and what they sound like time and again and still be successful over time, you need to talk about Bowie.

 

 

We will agree to disagree on Garth, and agree to agree on Bowie. I saw him a few years back on some awards show, dressed in a suit with short pants on an awards show. He was freaking mesmerizing, and I'm not even a fan.

[Lee Knight]

 

Simply because the discussion isn't about the music doesn't mean there isn't any focus on it.

 

 

Here's where we disagree. I see too much shuck and jive and not enough music. It's not like I don't go looking at these cover band websites. So, while entertainment and GREAT music are not mutually exclusive, you wouldn't think that by what I see.

 

Sorry.

 

This is not a slam on anybody here, or their band. But it is a "tough love" suggestion.

 

I understand what it is like to sell a party/cover band. Of course it is very difficult. But don't we all cringe when that cheesy late night commercial comes on. We think, "who do they think they're fooling?" And yet... all these cool musicians, artists even, are doing the big "Mammy!!!!" in promo videos. I'm not getting a sense of a quality music experience. I'm seeing late night local commercials. I can admire the slickness and craft but...

 

So, granted I'm making assumption based on promo material, but I'm getting the distinct impression that any passion coming off stage at a live show will be of the "high energy TNT stage antics" variety and less from any transcendent musical experience. See what I'm saying?

 

Think of Google. The utter lack of pretension or hype of their page. White. A strip to type your query into to. A simple logo. Why no hype? Cause it's a freaking great search engine. Now, don't make the mistake of thinking I'm against promo or even some good old rockin' hype. But... shuck and jive? Do we really need that?

 

And I'm very clear this shuck and jive is not promoting a great musical experience. Entertainment? Yes! More power to you. So why the shift? Market necessity? Hardly.

 

So the point I made early on was, why is everyone all but abandoning any music focus? Well, not even focus, but even a nod toward some sort of musical experience. Do you go there on a nightly basis. Every song? Every note?

 

We should.

[Vito Corleone]

 

And I'm very clear this shuck and jive is not promoting a great musical experience. Entertainment? Yes! More power to you. So why the shift? Market necessity? Hardly. So the point I made early on was, why is everyone all but abandoning any music focus? Well, not even focus, but even a nod toward some sort of musical experience. Do you go there on a nightly basis. Every song? Every note? We should .

 

 

What you're seeing is the result of several things:

 

1) Yes, it IS market necessity. You gotta bring 'em in the door. If you have two bands competing for the same gig, one with a flashy website and video showing a band that not only sounds good but looks exciting and fun and another with a white Google layout and a static video of them playing some kick ass arrangements on stage--which one is going to get the gig 9 times out of 10? The first act. Is it "shuck and jive"? I certainly don't see it that way. The bar for even a basic level of advertising gets raised continuously. It's 2011. You can't sell a band with a 1970's-marketing-level promo package.

 

2) Live entertainment is, and always has been, more than just about the music. A great show DOES provide a transcendent experience, but it usually involves more than JUST the music to take the audience there. Does that mean the attention to musical excellence might suffer somewhat in the process? Perhaps. 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 people in a band can only do so much. But the idea that these bands are all but abandoning any music focus is absurd. A band like mine? Yes, there's a lot of attention paid to stagecraft, audience interaction, light shows, etc. etc. But probably still 90% of the focus is on the music. Our rehearsals are about playing better, keeping the songs musically interesting, sharpening up vocal harmonies etc. 90% of what the musicians are thinking about when on stage is playing and singing. The music exists to better deliver the entire show-experience to the audience and the entire show-experience exists to better deliver the music to the audience. It's a symbiotic relationship.

 

The basis of which is good, solid music. If the songs aren't played well, you've got nothing. This is so essential to the core and the heart of the performance that it often goes without saying. Which is why it doesn't always need to be discussed.

[TIMKEYS]

 

What you're seeing is the result of several things: 1) Yes, it IS market necessity. You gotta bring 'em in the door. If you have two bands competing for the same gig, one with a flashy website and video showing a band that not only sounds good but looks exciting and fun and another with a white Google layout and a static video of them playing some kick ass arrangements on stage--which one is going to get the gig 9 times out of 10? The first act. Is it "shuck and jive"? I certainly don't see it that way. The bar for even a basic level of advertising gets raised continuously. It's 2011. You can't sell a band with a 1970's-marketing-level promo package. 2) Live entertainment is, and always has been, more than just about the music. A great show DOES provide a transcendent experience, but it usually involves more than JUST the music to take the audience there. Does that mean the attention to musical excellence might suffer somewhat in the process? Perhaps. 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 people in a band can only do so much. But the idea that these bands are all but abandoning any music focus is absurd. A band like mine? Yes, there's a lot of attention paid to stagecraft, audience interaction, light shows, etc. etc. But probably still 90% of the focus is on the music. Our rehearsals are about playing better, keeping the songs musically interesting, sharpening up vocal harmonies etc. 90% of what the musicians are thinking about when on stage is playing and singing. The music exists to better deliver the entire show-experience to the audience and the entire show-experience exists to better deliver the music to the audience. It's a symbiotic relationship. The basis of which is good, solid music. If the songs aren't played well, you've got nothing. This is so essential to the core and the heart of the performance that it often goes without saying. Which is why it doesn't always need to be discussed.

 

 

The slick promo is very valuable when you are dealing with people who dont know you and are not fans of the band. Slick promo wont get you hired over a band that knows somebody that has the power to hire their favorite band. A fan base is pretty hard to compete with as an outsider band. I know for sure we need to up our profile when it comes to promo but I also know that every time we go off property the ring at the home veune suffers. Its a tough situation, but I understand that upping the promo game is somthing that we need to do, but we need a WIN WIN approach to it.

[sbrett]

 

Well we're going to have to disagree, then. Everything I know about it, the album didn't fail because people knew it was Garth: it failed because the product flat out sucked.

 

 

OT, but since when is double platinum 'failing'?

[Lee Knight]

 

The basis of which is good, solid music. If the songs aren't played well, you've got nothing. This is so essential to the core and the heart of the performance that it often goes without saying. Which is why it doesn't always need to be discussed .

 

 

I disagree. I does need to be dicussed. Because your definition is under-reaching.

 

"good, solid music"

 

"played well"

 

Which is why you make the following statement that I disagree with:

 

 

If you have two bands competing for the same gig, one with a flashy website and video showing a band that not only sounds good but looks exciting and fun and another with a white Google layout and a static video of them playing some kick ass arrangements on stage--which one is going to get the gig 9 times out of 10? The first act.

 

 

If the band is playing something more than just "good, solid music"... that simple presentation will kill. But I'm not saying promo is bad.

I'm saying bad promo is bad. When did live music get so cheesy?

 

It doesn't have to be.

 

Band two in your comparison should be just as engaging as band one. Without the cheese. Without the Mammy! face. The guitarist as air guitarist. It's like kids miming the auto tune effect and learning to sing like that? Sometimes a lot of cover band guitarists seem like they learn their moves from air guitarists!!! And think that jumping around is energy! Showbz!!!!

 

Let's drop the cheese and get real. Not static and boring, but real.

[wardjames]

 

OT, but since when is double platinum 'failing'?

 

 

LOL, only when you're Garth! Seriously though, that album came out before people really heard what it sounded like. They bought it on the basis that it WAS Garth Brooks, and that's why they were so pissed when it was vastly different.

 

On a side note, it's my suspicion that used record stores have had more copies of that album pass through their store than any other.

[wheresgrant3]

One of the things that seems to get overlooked... is good music. I don't mean musicianship. I don't mean showmanship. Though both are of course important. But there seems to be a lack of faith in audiences actually responding to great music. Or maybe a lack of faith in being prepared to deliver it. With soul and emotion and genuine heart. And passion. Delivered with truth. If that sounds corny, then I'm talking to you. It could be punk, country, jazz, soul... but people do respond to great music being played by people who love making it for them. And themselves. I hear all kinds of talk about "entertainers" and"setlist" and getting the house dancing. All great stuff. No denying. But I rarely get the sense that that you guys have MUSIC on your mind. And I know why. Years of focusing on getting gigs, keeping a band together, breaking even or maybe a profit... all that distracts to the point where knocking out an arrangement on a sell-able tune is sufficient. Dress it up in lights and dance moves and move onto the next. But it's not enough. And people don't know what they're missing. Till they hear it. Feel it. Nothing compares to that.

 

Lee... I completely get what you are saying and I agree. There are many bands that just paint by the numbers. Still there needs to be context given the gig the situation. I often compare my band to a 'sandwich shop'... we pile layers and layers of songs together into a product that is completely differen't than the original. We make great sandwiches.. In fact we're going to be the best damn sandwich shop in the area. But they are still sandwiches. If you want a gourmet dinner well there's plenty of other bands that deliver that. It doesn't mean that we perform every song without conviction. We always have music on our mind... it's on the delivery of every song. We work to make make these songs our 'own' when we perform them. That being said... you're right most every song in the setlist is there to gain a reaction from the audience. We don't have songs for them to sit back and have them listen and soak it in. I'd argue to say that we're never going to be that band.... we're not engineered that way, but I'll also argue that it's not our job either. And I'm consigned to that fact. I'm not there to lead a music appreciation class, we're there to entertain. In the rare case we do pull a passionate song pick from left field... there are no surprises.... it's usually like letting all of the air out of a balloon. Believe me, we've had some duds over the years... a well rehearsed song, that you just killed in practice that you loved growing up and you just know... it will catch on.... just wait let it grow... and 16-20 bars in you see the confused faces, and the lights dim in their eyes and then you start think "how the f**k do we get out of this song early".

 

Seriously... I am a music lover at heart. Jazz, progressive rock, indie, alternative. There are a few extremely overlooked acts in my market who I would rate as simply fantastic. They have small to no regular followings but they deliver with all of the passion and soul you can muster. When I see them perform I am drawn in... I want to drink some scotch, light a cigar, close my eyes and melt away. My wife... she's bored to tears, wonders when we can get out of there to go meet with her friends. She thinks the music is nice buts she's not really a listener... she just wants to be entertained. And to her, music played with conviction but without presentation is soulless in her opinion. Probably because it's not filling her soul.

 

I get what your saying... but music is subjective and people listen to differen't music for different reasons. Music lovers would hate our setlist but they may appreciate the delivery.

[wheresgrant3]

 

LOL, only when you're Garth! Seriously though, that album came out before people really heard what it sounded like. They bought it on the basis that it WAS Garth Brooks, and that's why they were so pissed when it was vastly different. On a side note, it's my suspicion that used record stores have had more copies of that album pass through their store than any other.

 

 

I give him credit for trying though... I was pretty confused at the project... I never heard songs from the CD... but he sold me that he believed in it. It wasn't a gimmick to just sell some more records... he believed he could pull it off.

[Lee Knight]

...That being said... you're right most every song in the setlist is there to gain a reaction from the audience. We don't have songs for them to sit back and have them listen and soak it in. I'd argue to say that we're never going to be that band.... we're not engineered that way, but I'll also argue that it's not our job either. And I'm consigned to that fact.

 

Thanks for that. That was a great response. Bear in mind, I love simple rock and roll. I love everything. So I am not proposing that we all put on dour faces and teach the audience about music! I totally understand the kind of band you're in and I love it. I love entertainment. My Mammy! face refernece... I love Jolson. What I'm referring to is...

 

...a growing lack of faith in music.

 

But through music, excitement can come. Not the other way 'round. Too many guys are waving their top hats tap dancing off the stage when they should be letting the music swell up and drive their "show". The same amount of animation occurs in either event. One cheesy though, and one heartfelt and truly exciting.

 

I'm on a mission to remind us all where the excitment should be coming from.