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

[kmart]

 

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

 

 

Are you kidding?

 

Here's when:

 

10/17/14/9/8/7/10/2

 

In other words, when your 7 studio albums released over the preceding decade sell 4-5x as many copies AT LEAST (averaging nearly 11x platinum each), and thus, you have an established audience who will basically buy ANYTHING you put out (your live album the preceding year sells 21x platinum)), and there is no secret who the artist on the album is, which means there are much higher expectations for sales the a mere 2x platinum...and to top it off, the content is at best sub-par, receiving mixed reviews from critics and indifference or outright dislike from the fans.

 

I'd say THAT's when.

 

There wasn't a Chris Gaines follow-up, was there?

No.

[kmart]

 

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.

 

 

Ummm....

 

 

No.

 

The only thing Garth maybe 'believed' was that he was about to become some sort of serious actor, and the album was part of his character study:

 

You're right that it wasn't a gimmick to sell records, though: that's far too short-sighted. What it was a gimmick for was to sell tickets to the planned movie 'about' fictional rock star Chris Gaines that never ended up happening.

 

The whole thing was a marketing plan, plain and simple.

BTW - Santa Caus isn't real, either.

[wheresgrant3]

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.

 

Lee your points are well noted. See the problem is you have a handful of bands that are playing the 'standards' and delivering them in a way that nets and enormous audience and fanbase. Then you have every other band in the market that looks at their empty room and says... this sucks, I want what they have. And then the 'sellout' begins. But more often times than not they are merely miming the acts they've seen working that material to success. And that only draws a comparison. I've said this many on this board (and Dave did as well before things got off track) it's all in the delivery of the song. It's in how you sell it. There's nothing more painful than seeing a classic rock band retool itself as Top 40 only to mimic the steps of the more successful band down the street. That's where the standard drops off a cliff. If you are playing passionate music dispassionately just to get through it... no matter what you do to dress it up (wearing silly hats, standing on a bar with your wireless) you are going to look like a fool trying to do so. But if you take that music, make smart choices, and try to do something of your own with it, well then you're on the road to delivering music that is more than just the song. I don't think we could have ever sustained our popularity if we just played through the material. And it's certainly not always about picking the right song either... we've bombed where other bands have succeed and we've hit where other bands have failed.

 

I have a friend in a well paid regional band that plays all up and down the east coast. They have a memorable gimmick, which is quite clever and almost admirable in it's delivery. They play all the standard songs... but they perform them with conviction. I went to see them recently and it reaffirmed my understanding why they are one of the top paid cover bands (earning more than most mid-level national acts) in the country. Musically there's nothing special about them... the gimmick helps of course (that in itself, draws attention). They draw the audience in from the first few notes and the audience that is reluctant to respond they walk out to them and seal the deal. It's a show... an act. And people go back to see them again and again. They 'get it'... but as performers they always 'had it' to 'get it'. This is getting away from the music a bit... but this is where things start to break down. The Average Joe Band goes out to see these guys and walks away with the idea that the 'gimmick' is the selling point, not the performance. So they dress up in similar fashion, rename the band in some derivative of the agency band I just mentioned, don't come close to matching the level of performance/connection with the audience and they look like a bunch of tools doing so.

 

Being successful in any band market is not a simple task. It's not open packet and add water. It takes a ton of work and effort. We rehearse every week... we tape every performance... our manager writes notes of what's working and not working in the back of the crowd... we have 9 people to support a band of six on stage. It takes work and effort to deliver a good product. And you have to sell it bottom line. But sometimes you have to 'have it, to sell it' too.

[wheresgrant3]

Ummm.... No. The only thing Garth maybe 'believed' was that he was about to become some sort of serious actor, and the album was part of his character study: You're right that it wasn't a gimmick to sell records, though: that's far too short-sighted. What it was a gimmick for was to sell tickets to the planned movie 'about' fictional rock star Chris Gaines that never ended up happening. The whole thing was a marketing plan, plain and simple. BTW - Santa Caus isn't real, either.

 

True... but then again I bought KISS 'The Elder' as a kid. LOL And that entire band was a marketing idea.

[Vermoulian]

 

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

 

 

Lee, I appreciate your point and respect your eloquent propounding of it, but . . . I think you are falling into one of the classic musician blunders. I strongly suspect that most if not all of us on this board would prefer that great musicianship was more prevalent, if for no other reason than there would be more shows out there we'd be interested in going to see. But, the tough thing to get one's mind around is this: the audience is not wrong. The audience is just the audience. At no time did God Almighty decree that excitement "should" be coming from a superlative heartfelt musical performance as opposed to, I don't know, Silly String and bubble machines or whatever.

 

I see a progression of appeal to bands:

 

1. Uninspired music, uninspired performance.

 

2. Great music, lacking performance.

 

3. Great performance, meh music.

 

4. Great music AND great performance.

 

I think it's pretty clear that a category 3 band will out-draw a category 2 band. Most bands have a tough enough time getting beyond category 1, and putting the extra focus on performance over musical virtuosity will give a better return on investment in terms of audience appeal. Sad but true.

 

But it sounds like you are advocating for category 2 being a preferred scenario to category 3. They're both less than ideal (which would be category 4), but it's simple economics that a category 3 band will be more successful, and it's hard to argue with that.

 

One would hope that everyone strives to reach category 4, but I suspect there are plenty of acts out there that are doing well enough at category 3 that they don't feel a burning need to kick their playing up a notch or two. That is frustrating and unfortunate. But based on my own experiences going to see bands, there are so many category 1 bands out there that even seeing a category 3 band is refreshing.

[Vito Corleone]

Well put, Vermoulian.

 

I think the biggest mistake cover musicians often make is they think they are somehow like original music artists and that what they do is all about the message of the song they are performing. That THAT is the draw of their performance. And that really is backwards.

 

Let me see if I can explain this easily:

 

When you go to, say, a U2 concert you go largely to hear THEIR songs. And everything they do---who they are, how they look, how they sound, how they perform is all really just devices used to sell you their SONG. Everything that goes into everything they put into that performance of "With Or Without You" is geared to make you like that song so much that you'll go out and buy IT. The SONG is the end product. (And I don't mean this in strictly a commercial sense, I also mean in an artistic sense as well.)

 

But a cover band playing "With Or Without You" isn't in the business of selling you that SONG. The SONG is a device to help sell THEIR product (again, not meant in just a commercial sense) which is the entire band experience. Both bands may be doing many of the same things very similarly, but the focus on the end product is the difference.

 

Back in the 80s I played in a (one of what were many around at the time) very successful cover band doing pop metal/rock in big clubs around the country. What we were selling essentially was mini-concert experiences. People could come to these clubs, hang out with other people all dressed like them and what was driving this "experience" were the big-haired bands on stage playing the necessary songs in the necessary manner to give the people little mini-Motley Crue concerts. We had to pick the right songs for us to sell this experience successfully but nobody was really a fan of the band because we played certain specific songs. They were fans of the band because we used those songs to give them a particular experience. Of course there were always certain individuals who loved that we played this song or the other, but that wasn't really what it was about. They weren't lined up around the block because they knew they were going to hear us do "Tom Sawyer" or "Whole Lotta Love" or whatever our signature songs happened to be at the time. They were lined up around the block because they knew we'd give them a certain 'experience' overall.

 

Where so many cover bands fail is that they don't seem to understand that it isn't the individual song they are selling. Our goal as cover bands is not to have people love our version of "With or Without You" so much that they run out and buy a U2 CD. The song is simply one device used to sell the experience we provide.

[drumsnbeer]

There is a lot of arguing apples to oranges going on, from what songs are considered obscure to what constitutes a good performance. If you have a band that has more of a support staff than actual band members you are operating under a different set of circumstances than most cover bands and would not fit into any of the smaller cubs/bars that the majority of cover bands are playing in. So if you can't fit all of your lights, props, DJs etc. what does that leave you? I am saying that your song selection and playing needs to be even better in a smaller type of venue and these are the venues that the majority of cover bands are playing in.

[SeniorBlues]

 

Lee, I appreciate your point and respect your eloquent propounding of it, but . . . I think you are falling into one of the classic musician blunders. I strongly suspect that most if not all of us on this board would prefer that great musicianship was more prevalent, if for no other reason than there would be more shows out there we'd be interested in going to see. But, the tough thing to get one's mind around is this: the audience is not wrong. The audience is just the audience. At no time did God Almighty decree that excitement "should" be coming from a superlative heartfelt musical performance as opposed to, I don't know, Silly String and bubble machines or whatever. I see a progression of appeal to bands: 1. Uninspired music, uninspired performance. 2. Great music, lacking performance. 3. Great performance, meh music. 4. Great music AND great performance. I think it's pretty clear that a category 3 band will out-draw a category 2 band. Most bands have a tough enough time getting beyond category 1, and putting the extra focus on performance over musical virtuosity will give a better return on investment in terms of audience appeal. Sad but true. But it sounds like you are advocating for category 2 being a preferred scenario to category 3. They're both less than ideal (which would be category 4), but it's simple economics that a category 3 band will be more successful, and it's hard to argue with that. One would hope that everyone strives to reach category 4, but I suspect there are plenty of acts out there that are doing well enough at category 3 that they don't feel a burning need to kick their playing up a notch or two. That is frustrating and unfortunate. But based on my own experiences going to see bands, there are so many category 1 bands out there that even seeing a category 3 band is refreshing.

 

 

I think Lee isn't advocating for a category (2) band as you've described it. Seems to me he's asking musicians to pay more attention to the musical content as a means of projecting yourself to the audience.

 

When I was playing in a show band, there were segments of our floor show (no dancing) that were geared to schtick, but other songs that were clearly about the presentation of the music itself. We knew which was which.

[Vito Corleone]

I am saying that your song selection and playing needs to be even better in a smaller type of venue and these are the venues that the majority of cover bands are playing in.

 

Absolutely. In which case that brings us back to the old "know your market" discussion. The more generic your band becomes and the more the major difference your band and the band across the street is simply which songs you've chosen to cover, the more you have to rely on the generic appeal that particular song has to the audience.

 

Which is why so many bands rely on the standards to draw the crowd to their band. Because if they don't have anything else, that's really the only thing left.

 

You've been out of this game a long time (if you were ever into it much even 30 years ago). I know it's sounds good on paper to say "people are tired of hearing the same stuff over and over, so if we play something different that we'll be a better and more popular band than the others". But unless you've got something else to sell them---some improved "experience" over what the other bands provide(and this doesn't have to be light shows and costumes and gimmicks. It can certainly be done with simply HOW WELL YOU PLAY ), it's almost guaranteed to be a fail.

[Lee Knight]

 

I think Lee isn't advocating for a category (2) band as you've described it. Seems to me he's asking musicians to pay more attention to the musical content as a means of projecting yourself to the audience. When I was playing in a show band, there were segments of our floor show (no dancing) that were geared to schtick, but other songs that were clearly about the presentation of the music itself. We knew which was which.

 

 

^thank you^

 

I'm all for category 5.

 

.5 Great performance as a result of great music.

 

I'm not saying anybody should get rid of the bubble machines. Whatever makes your party, partay! What I am saying is, guys that force the "show" are bordering on lame. Sorry, but you know it's true. It - is - true.

 

Guys, on the other hand, that have an over the top show, that is standing on the solid foundation of great music... inspired performances, players that know how to share their excitement of the music with their crowd, those guys rock.

 

It's funny how the point gets made to me that great music and a great show aren't mutually exclusive. and then the point later gets made that because I'm an advocate of great music, somehow I'm making a "musician's blunder" and suggesting that the audience is wrong. That I'm suggesting a "no show" aesthetic. That isn't true in the least.

 

Of course the audience is right. And that's why they love what I'm suggesting a hell of a lot more than hollow showmanship.

 

Great music and a great show belong together. But in that order. KISS knew that (barely holding on). Zeppelin knew that. Hey, The Foo Fighters play with heart and put on a show. Even an over the top gay disco band like Scissor Sisters or a reformed Frankie Goes To Hollywood know that.

 

I saw Gnarls Barkley live. I love Cee Lo. But they sucked. They were trying so hard to play to the cheap seats, the music sucked. But now... Cee Lo, as over the top as he is, is nailing his music like he can. With no lack of SHOW!!!!!

 

See?

 

...

[Vito Corleone]

 

I think Lee isn't advocating for a category (2) band as you've described it. Seems to me he's asking musicians to pay more attention to the musical content as a means of projecting yourself to the audience.

 

 

And I point with which I agree 1000%. The problem is---and let me be brutally honest here--99% of cover bands aren't capable of using musical content alone as a means to project themselves to the audience. Most can't perform at any near that high a level. I've seen bands that do that, and those bands are not only usually comprised of players who are incredibly proficient at their respective instruments but have years of experience at knowing how to work material and an audience. And often have front men (or other players) that are so good and so dynamic that you're primary thought when watching them is "what are they doing HERE"?

 

And I agree (and hope I practice what I preach) that we should all strive to perform at that level. But the truth is that the vast majority of cover bands I see are simply garden-variety players/singers and most don't have the time/desire to put in the requisite work to be anything more than that. Like I said before, you can't reach that level just playing on the weekends for fun.

 

So the rest of us 99%ers have to reach to other elements beside just the musical content to reach the audience. Nothing wrong with that and there are many ways to do so.

 

My only real point here is that while there are many different ways to do so simply choosing a different/"better" cover tune to play in a garden-variety manner ISN'T one of them.

[Vito Corleone]

 

^Of course the audience is right. And that's why they love what I'm suggesting a hell of a lot more than hollow showmanship. ...

 

 

True. But I don't think anyone here has ever suggested "hollow showmanship" as an option, have they?

[Kramerguy]

 

Lee, I appreciate your point and respect your eloquent propounding of it, but . . . I think you are falling into one of the classic musician blunders. I strongly suspect that most if not all of us on this board would prefer that great musicianship was more prevalent, if for no other reason than there would be more shows out there we'd be interested in going to see. But, the tough thing to get one's mind around is this: the audience is not wrong. The audience is just the audience. At no time did God Almighty decree that excitement "should" be coming from a superlative heartfelt musical performance as opposed to, I don't know, Silly String and bubble machines or whatever. I see a progression of appeal to bands: 1. Uninspired music, uninspired performance. 2. Great music, lacking performance. 3. Great performance, meh music. 4. Great music AND great performance. I think it's pretty clear that a category 3 band will out-draw a category 2 band. Most bands have a tough enough time getting beyond category 1, and putting the extra focus on performance over musical virtuosity will give a better return on investment in terms of audience appeal. Sad but true. But it sounds like you are advocating for category 2 being a preferred scenario to category 3. They're both less than ideal (which would be category 4), but it's simple economics that a category 3 band will be more successful, and it's hard to argue with that. One would hope that everyone strives to reach category 4, but I suspect there are plenty of acts out there that are doing well enough at category 3 that they don't feel a burning need to kick their playing up a notch or two. That is frustrating and unfortunate. But based on my own experiences going to see bands, there are so many category 1 bands out there that even seeing a category 3 band is refreshing.

 

 

I think this topic has gone WAAAAY off course, but one of the things that seems to be repeating itself is that it's all about song selection vs. performance. I guess in the end, that might be all a band does have, but there are SO many variables that you aren't taking into account. By your chart above, there is only "great" and "suck" - there's no inbetween.. what about a local "dad" band that plays "good" music and basically a "decent" or even "adequate" performance??

 

another striking anomoly is simply that the "C" band you mention would never play most local bars that would call for your typical local dad-band, or let's say, won't be playing there long, cause they are on the up and up.

 

My OT was more or less based on circumstances in the armpit of Pennsylvania, where no local bar pays more than $400 a gig, and no better venue will book you without your band having an agent, so we have a HUGE variety of skill and performance levels in the local scene, all playing the same bars.

 

My whole point of this thread was to point out the obvious as it pertains to my local market, as a local bar band who all have day jobs and aren't interested in being the next Van Halen...

 

and that obvious is:

- Just because we play local bars and don't aspire to get signed by an agency and do weddings or whatever else pays the big bucks, we DO care greatly about our performance and song list, regardless that many posters here seem to think that since we (WE as in any local bar or dad band) aren't dropping $10k on a bigassed light show or promo kit, that we just don't care. We do. We just have to work within the confines of our wives, children, jobs, etc. If we didn't care, we wouldn't be doing it. Accept it.

- In THIS local market (and many others I imagine), you play songs that work and songs that don't. When you play more songs that don't, people leave or don't come back when your band plas there again, so you learn by proxy that you need to play what the patrons want, not what YOU want.

- The rest of the discussions revolve around the "IT" factor and stuff. Have you guys ever watched much concert footage? Ever watch what the non-frontmen / secondary players in bands do? Pretty much nothing but bop a little and play. Local / regional / national / world success ALL factor on usually ONE single person, usually the front-person, of a band. Rarely, a band like VH or Zep nails a grand slam with several IT people, but local bands... really? We're lucky if we can find people who can decently run a crowd and get thru a night... and believe it or not, the biggest problem is finding someone who is better than average, cause you KNOW they are gonna bail as soon as the next best thing comes along... kinda like dating outside your league...

 

- So in the end, it all comes down to playing what people want to hear, or you aint getting booked anymore. I don't disagree that a band needs to sell itself and project a good performance and show, but no matter how good- refusing to play standards and filling the night with power ballads or prog rock just aint going to cut it.

 

not all directed at you Vero- just random thoughts after reading last 2 pages

[BlueStrat]

There is a lot of arguing apples to oranges going on, from what songs are considered obscure to what constitutes a good performance. If you have a band that has more of a support staff than actual band members you are operating under a different set of circumstances than most cover bands and would not fit into any of the smaller cubs/bars that the majority of cover bands are playing in. So if you can't fit all of your lights, props, DJs etc. what does that leave you? I am saying that your song selection and playing needs to be even better in a smaller type of venue and these are the venues that the majority of cover bands are playing in.

 

[Vito Corleone]

 

I- So in the end, it all comes down to playing what people want to hear, or you aint getting booked anymore. I don't disagree that a band needs to sell itself and project a good performance and show, but no matter how good- refusing to play standards and filling the night with power ballads or prog rock just aint going to cut it.

 

 

Everything you say is true and I don't think anybody here disagrees with you. In fact, I think most of us are agreeing with you. We're just debating the different ways to "up your game" in order to sell the non-standards.

 

Actually I think we're ALL agreeing largely. Except for those who believe that simply a "better song" is enough. (Or even helpful).

 

You started this entire thread pointing out that this is a lesson you've now learned yourself. I remember awhile back you were excited about the prospect of starting an 80s' synth-pop band. I remember being interested in the idea because I, too, love that sort of music but if you remember correctly, I was telling you then that while I wished you luck, I had my doubts about such a band flying in typical cover-band bar markets.

 

There ARE bands that can sell that stuff. (Or any stuff.) But it takes a lot more work than simply choosing the coolest songs to do so.

[Vito Corleone]

 

It IS a great idea, Pat. Problem is, how many bands can perform on that level, are willing to do the necessary work, or even understand what it takes?

 

No offense to drumsnbeer--I'm sure he's a good guy with good intentions--but he comes into the thread talking about how he's "finally putting together a coverband after 30 years" and how he doesn't have any goals beyond playing once-or-twice a month in the local pubs with little concern for the money. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT in and of itself. Best of luck to him.

 

What's WRONG is that A) I don't see any indication where that sort of business model is at all conducive to the type of superior playing needed for one's band to be considered "even better", do you?

 

B) he seems to still hold on to this belief that simply choosing a "better" or "less worn out" cover tune is something that gives a band any sort of edge or claim to superiority. You may or may not agree with me on this point, but I adamantly, 1000% believe this belief is mistaken.

[wades_keys]

WHEW...

 

I think I'm just gonna stick to woodshedding some stuff that's beyond my ability, playing with the lights off, and whatever else I can do so I can speak better on my instruments.

 

Everything else falls in place around that as far as I'm concerned.

 

Playing music is like talking: not everyone is gonna like your delivery, attitude, or choice of words. But one thing that almost no one digs is a forced delivery. Fear, ego: those two things show throw in a lot of cats up on stage. It's a turn off. I want neither. I just want to conversate, same as I do in real life.

 

Because here's the thing: I can only control what I do and how I do it. It's not selfish. It's just fact. And yeah, the "band sound" is important. But c'mon with all this band stuff. You're a musician. Nobody is making you move or not move, or wear a hat or not, or stare at the fretboard or your feet or not, or get off the stage into the crowd or not. Why all this talk about bands when really the power to change lies in each one of us? I don't get it. It's a cop out I think. Blame the band. Not me. Just the band. I ain't buyin that.

 

And you know what's cool? Maybe my band does suck. But do I suck? Okay. I'll fix that. Can't fix the band suck thing. Why try. But I can sure suck less. Seems to be a pretty good path. Because if someone in the crowd sees you not sucking, that can be a gig.

[modulusman]

 

There was a band here in the 90s and early 2000s (they still play, but not as much these days) who were in high demand and were all about schtick- they had a big box full of props and would put on shower caps and towels to play "Splish Splash", then grab hippie wigs and peace medallions to play some 60s song, and so on. Their musicianship was mediocre at best but they were one of the most popular and expensive bands around here for events, parties, street dances, etc etc. because of their "show". If I thought had to do that to get a crowd, I'd blow my own head off.

 

 

Were they the Bop a Dips from Missoula Mt.?

[SeniorBlues]

 

. . . simply choosing a "better" or "less worn out" cover tune is something that gives a band any sort of edge or claim to superiority. You may or may not agree with me on this point, but I adamantly, 1000% believe this belief is mistaken.

 

 

You'll agree, won't you, that there's a huge list of "classic" songs from many eras that would be as familiar (or not) to a typical audience than the small subset that most bands play. They stick to the small subset because, they already know them, they suit their instrumentation, they aren't as difficult in some way as many of the others.

 

I'm not talking about replacing hits off the all-time greatest list with obscure, non-danceable stuff. I'm talking about being willing to work up other songs were just as big in their day.

 

My point has nothing to do with "classic" vs "current".

 

Pick stuff in your wheelhouse. "Day Tripper" needs a backbeat which most bands don't have any more, so that's why it wouldn't work. "Sugar Pie . . . " is a much easier song.

[drumsnbeer]

 

It IS a great idea, Pat. Problem is, how many bands can perform on that level, are willing to do the necessary work, or even understand what it takes? No offense to drumsnbeer--I'm sure he's a good guy with good intentions--but he comes into the thread talking about how he's "finally putting together a coverband after 30 years" and how he doesn't have any goals beyond playing once-or-twice a month in the local pubs with little concern for the money. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT in and of itself. Best of luck to him. What's WRONG is that A) I don't see any indication where that sort of business model is at all conducive to the type of superior playing needed for one's band to be considered "even better", do you? B) he seems to still hold on to this belief that simply choosing a "better" or "less worn out" cover tune is something that gives a band any sort of edge or claim to superiority. You may or may not agree with me on this point, but I adamantly, 1000% believe this belief is mistaken.

 

 

You're right. I should spend less time practicing and more time working on my business model.

[Vito Corleone]

 

And you know what's cool? Maybe my band does suck. But do I suck? Okay. I'll fix that. Can't fix the band suck thing. Why try. But I can sure suck less. Seems to be a pretty good path. Because if someone in the crowd sees you not sucking, that can be a gig.

 

 

I was following you until this point. I understand the whole "I can only worry about myself" thing, but yeah, you CAN fix the band-suck thing. You're a member of the band, aren't you? If the band sucks and you're part of the band, who ELSE is going to fix it besides the people IN THE BAND?

 

Maybe you just put your head down and play in your own little world worrying only about your own performance and ignore the rest? Hookay. I suppose that's ONE way to do things. But that ain't playing in a BAND. A BAND is about the whole being better than the sum of its parts. And that takes everybody working together beyond their own personal performances.

[Vito Corleone]

You're right. I should spend less time practicing and more time working on my business model.

 

What you SHOULD do is, when coming to a forum looking for suggestions on how to gear up your first-band-in-30-years, that you actually TAKE some advice from those who have been doing it for that long instead of somehow presuming you know better.

 

Or were you not looking for suggestions but simply validation of your pre-disposed beliefs?

[wades_keys]

 

I was following you until this point. I understand the whole "I can only worry about myself" thing, but yeah, you CAN fix the band-suck thing. You're a member of the band, aren't you? If the band sucks and you're part of the band, who ELSE is going to fix it besides the people IN THE BAND? Maybe you just put your head down and play in your own little world worrying only about your own performance and ignore the rest? Hookay. I suppose that's ONE way to do things. But that ain't playing in a BAND. A BAND is about the whole being better than the sum of its parts. And that takes everybody working together beyond their own personal performances.

 

Nah man. That doesn't work. All bands have a leader. I ain't the guy. I'll talk about things a little. But I'm just a player. I conform. I do the genre justice. But I'm just a player.

 

The band is what it is. And I don't put my head down. I generally hop around. I go out on the floor if I'm feeling it. I'll head out on the patio and have a smoke and a chat if I'm feeling it. I get people up on stage if I'm feeling it. Got nothing to do with head down or not being aware. I'm very aware. I just don't care to have any part of band leadership.

 

I do bond with the drummer. I'm into the rhythm section mentality. That's your band work right there. And I listen. But primarily, my idea of fitting into the band is musical. How does my bass fit with what is going on? Should I follow the guitar on this tune or lock with the kick? Should I push or drag the beat a little? Make the notes pop, or let em ring? Those are the kinds of thoughts that fly through my head when I'm playing a line.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I'll talk about things a little. But I'm just a player. I conform.

 

 

OK buddy, step aside and let's see some ID. Who the hell are you and what have you done with Wades_keys?

[BlueStrat]

 

Were they the Bop a Dips from Missoula Mt.?

 

 

No.