Our Original Band: How I would like it to be.......perfect! Too much to ask?

[BlueStrat]

 

Using Eagles and Steely Dan as examples? Seems to me the "perfection" of those bands lies in the fact that their originals were studio-created compositions and arrangements that the groups decided to "perfectly" recreate in later live performances. Had either band been bands more of the "lets jam 'em up and gig 'em out" types, I'm pretty sure songs like "New Kid in Town" and "Deacon Blues" would be much different arrangements. So if you're looking for THAT sort of perfection with your live performances, you need to have a solid (probably recorded) version of "THIS is how the song goes." But if your songs are works-in-progress to any degree, then you're not likely to ever achieve THAT level of perfection.

 

 

 

I've recorded several songs that I played for months or years and rearranged them for the recording, and then relearned them off of the record.

[tim_7string]

 

I agree with Kramer...and I have found that learning covers note for note, even sols, has helped me pay attention to details in my own song writing. A lot of times, "good enough" is good enough, but it will hinder you from being great and keep you from developing your ear to what it could be. Here's a case in point: my last cover band (that I recently quit) was playing "Running Down A Dream" by Petty. We were playing the chorus A-G-E, E G A. It never sounded right to me. Everyone else shrugged and said "sound's good to me!". So I put the CD on and sure enough, the chorus was D-G-E, E-G-A, D-G-E, E-G-A, then A-G-E. We fixed it and it sounded better to me. Would it have made a difference to the average bar patron? Probably not. But it's paying attention to detail that makes one a better player and writer, IMO. I'm not saying every cover has to be played like the record, and I don't do that myself. But it's nice to know I could if I had to, because when I learn them, I learn them as close to the original as I can get.

 

 

I completely agree. And funny you should mention that particular song. I had to argue with my bandmates last year about the chord changes. I knew it was D-G-E/E-G-A, so we kept going over it. They eventually agreed it sounded better. When we started playing it live, some musician friends of theirs complimented on us playing it "right, like the record" even though we were just a trio. So, that was enough validation for me.

 

I've always been one to keep bashing out a chord until it sounded like the chord on the recording. Whether it was finding the right inversion, hand position, tone, whatever, I try to get things to sound as close as possible. It drives some people crazy, but the results speak for themselves whenever the band I'm in plays live and the audience cheers.

[Funkwire]

Depends on your bandmates. Perfection is pretty lofty and not totally realistic. The thing is that sometimes if you are too set on perfection you can end up changing things that don't need changing. You can drive yourself crazy chasing something that might or might not even exist. Aim to make music you'll love to listen to for years. Sometimes warts aren't a bad thing

 

 

This. We can post all day long about what perfection is, or if it is truly attainable. The important question is--are your bandmates on board with this? Do they define 'perfection' the same way the OP does? If not, then...no, you won't achieve perfection, and you'll be frustrated in the process. If yes...then go for it.

[Lee Flier]

 

This. We can post all day long about what perfection is, or if it is truly attainable. The important question is--are your bandmates on board with this? Do they define 'perfection' the same way the OP does? If not, then...no, you won't achieve perfection, and you'll be frustrated in the process. If yes...then go for it.

 

 

Yup. That's why I specifically said that our idea of "perfection" is a bit different from the OP's, but that is fine because everyone in our band is on the same page about what it means. As long as you all have the same goals and you spell it out and don't assume everyone has the same definition, you'll be fine. Striving together for a common musical goal is a great thing, even if you never quite get there. But if one person is a relentless "perfectionist" and nobody else is, it's not very likely to ever be satisfying.

[Marko]

Our Original Band: How I would like it to be.......perfect! Too much to ask? I might not be too much to ask, but it might not serve you as well as having realistic, yet stringent expectations. Then being willing to accept varying amounts of "perfection" to allow you to get out and play live. There's that point where refining in rehearsal stops working and you need to get it out to get it better. It's knowing when that point is that's important. Don't polish it over and over with diminishing returns. Get it out there when the time is right to really see great improvement. Gig, rehearse/refine, gig, rehearse/refine Tape your gigs...

 

 

+1

[SpaceNorman]

 

I agree with Kramer...and I have found that learning covers note for note, even sols, has helped me pay attention to details in my own song writing. A lot of times, "good enough" is good enough, but it will hinder you from being great and keep you from developing your ear to what it could be. Here's a case in point: my last cover band (that I recently quit) was playing "Running Down A Dream" by Petty. We were playing the chorus A-G-E, E G A. It never sounded right to me. Everyone else shrugged and said "sound's good to me!". So I put the CD on and sure enough, the chorus was D-G-E, E-G-A, D-G-E, E-G-A, then A-G-E. We fixed it and it sounded better to me. Would it have made a difference to the average bar patron? Probably not. But it's paying attention to detail that makes one a better player and writer, IMO. I'm not saying every cover has to be played like the record, and I don't do that myself. But it's nice to know I could if I had to, because when I learn them, I learn them as close to the original as I can get.

 

 

Maybe it's just me ... but I don't equate playing the same chord structure as the original with playing something "note for note". I agree that being able to copy is an important skill that is worth putting some work into - but certainly wouldn't be interested in working anybody who's expecting everything to truly be "note for note"..... I'd much rather work with folks who focus on getting the spirit of the tune right - and who quickly recognize the pieces of the song that embody the spirit of the tune and focus on getting those elements right - than with folks who get all twisted about thing being "perfect". Bands that fall into the first group work ... and work alot. The bands that fall into the second group usually end up arguing in the basement until somebody gets tired enough to quit. Then they come to BSWTB and bitch about their former bandmates who just didn't care about the music.

[BlueStrat]

 

Maybe it's just me ... but I don't equate playing the same chord structure as the original with playing something "note for note". I agree that being able to copy is an important skill that is worth putting some work into - but certainly wouldn't be interested in working anybody who's expecting everything to truly be "note for note"..... I'd much rather work with folks who focus on getting the spirit of the tune right - and who quickly recognize the pieces of the song that embody the spirit of the tune and focus on getting those elements right - than with folks who get all twisted about thing being "perfect". Bands that fall into the first group work ... and work alot. The bands that fall into the second group usually end up arguing in the basement until somebody gets tired enough to quit. Then they come to BSWTB and bitch about their former bandmates who just didn't care about the music .

 

 

That's a good point, and I agree with it. I was thinking, though, that taking the time to learn something note for note teaches one discipline and attention to detail, develops the ear, deepens the well to draw from in one's own style, and all of these things contribute to making one a better musician and songwriter if they're so inclined. I have never subscribed to the idea that covers should always be played note for note. But being able to pull it off is what makes one a better player, I think. I learn stuff note for note (or as close as I can) that I will never perform live, just for the practice of it.

 

And yeah, I guess I consider learning the correct chords, breaks, pushes, dynamic, etc as part of playing something "note for note." I guess it would be more accurate to say "as written and recorded".

[Dancebass]

I would bet money if you showed The Eagles or Steely Dan videos from their first 100 gigs they would have died of shame. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE sucks until they get 100 shows under their belt. I'm not saying they suck compared to me, they suck compared to their future selves.

If you want perfection have a Pilsner Urquell. If you want a great band, don't get mad if some glasses get broken at the party.

[NeverTheMachine]

I want our originals band to be perfection, like Steely Dan or The Eagles perfection, where every note, every drum lick and beat, every bass run, every vocal line, every guitar harmony, every vocal harmony, etc., etc., is so perfectly crafted and executed that you can't imagine the song without it. Is that too much to ask? BTW I also play in a blues band that mostly jams all night, so I've got THAT musical direction covered, too.

 

Forgive me, but is this hard to detect internet sarcasm? It's hard to tell.

 

Too much to ask is a question only you can answer .... I'm personally done with perfection in music, human beings aren't perfect and human beings make the music. But, then again "perfection" is hardly definable in this case ... you can make perfectly executed performances, or you can convey emotion and soul "perfectly" .. and still everyone won't get it.

[3shiftgtr]

If you want it to be perfect, then there ya go. It is not at all unrealistic.

I dunno...If it is perfect you want, then do it. Be responsible. If your guys are pros, or they at least act like it, then perfection isn't that much of a problem if;
1) The material isn't, you know, dream theatre or something
2) The musicians are good and have a pro work ethic
3) Your first gig out of the box isn't playing for 10k people.

With pop, or progressive pop, all you really need is dedicated musicians and effective rehearsals where people are PREPARED for rehearsal (they can already play the song before they get there). 1 or 2 small gigs to pop the 'stage bubbles', and you should be good to go.....if everybody has their {censored} together.

[Kramerguy]

 

Maybe it's just me ... but I don't equate playing the same chord structure as the original with playing something "note for note". I agree that being able to copy is an important skill that is worth putting some work into - but certainly wouldn't be interested in working anybody who's expecting everything to truly be "note for note"..... I'd much rather work with folks who focus on getting the spirit of the tune right - and who quickly recognize the pieces of the song that embody the spirit of the tune and focus on getting those elements right - than with folks who get all twisted about thing being "perfect". Bands that fall into the first group work ... and work alot. The bands that fall into the second group usually end up arguing in the basement until somebody gets tired enough to quit. Then they come to BSWTB and bitch about their former bandmates who just didn't care about the music .

 

 

Maybe I'm speaking a different lingo, but when I reference the term "note for note", I speak not only of getting the notes and progressions correct, but also the tone, spirit, feel, and everything else correct as well. I've seen a million 'jam-band' guitarists nail the spirit of classic rock songs while playing wrong notes, wrong keys, and even sometimes playing the wrong songs while the rest of the band plays something else. I know as a musician, *I* notice, but as a patron/fan, I also notice people's faces showing visible pain as a guy plays a solo in the wrong key or even on the wrong scale, or when they just aren't playing it right. It comes down to my original concept that learning and playing a song the right way will make you better. Bull{censored}ting your way thru it will not.

 

Why on earth would stopping at "getting the spirit of the main parts correct" be an acceptable stopping point of learning a song?!?

[SLScott86]

 

Maybe I'm speaking a different lingo, but when I reference the term "note for note", I speak not only of getting the notes and progressions correct, but also the tone, spirit, feel, and everything else correct as well. I've seen a million 'jam-band' guitarists nail the spirit of classic rock songs while playing wrong notes, wrong keys, and even sometimes playing the wrong songs while the rest of the band plays something else. I know as a musician, *I* notice, but as a patron/fan, I also notice people's faces showing visible pain as a guy plays a solo in the wrong key or even on the wrong scale, or when they just aren't playing it right. It comes down to my original concept that learning and playing a song the right way will make you better. Bull{censored}ting your way thru it will not. Why on earth would stopping at "getting the spirit of the main parts correct" be an acceptable stopping point of learning a song?!?

 

 

I think there is a broad sweet spot between note-for-note and playing in the wrong key, and that's what he's referring to.

[tim_7string]

I agree.

 

Our band usually rehearses once a week, sometimes twice if there are some things we need to get down that take more than one rehearsal. It's usually the endings, bridges, etc. Sometimes, we don't play the entire song, just the problem areas. Other times, we'll hammer out on one song for 2-3 hours.

 

The bassist/vocalist and myself are both really nitpicky, but at the same time, we leave room for some improvisation and interpretation. Intros and especially endings are very important to us and we will work hard to get those tight, but they may not be the way the song started or ended at all. Most songs just fade out of course, so we will often make up our own endings if a live version isn't readily available.

 

I have no problem with this. I don't expect everyone to nail every single part exactly right 100%, but in the 90% range is definitely helpful. Thankfully, I'm in a band with a drummer that can play pretty much whatever you throw at him, a bassist that is very capable and puts in cool parts all the time and a lead guitarist that can really let it rip, yet be quiet as a whisper the next moment. It's a lot of fun.

 

I know the kind of people SpaceNorman is talking about. The ones that stay in the basement, practicing every night, stopping the song every few measures, saying "no, no, NO! that's not right!! it's..." while everyone else gets pissed off at each other. And no gigs (relief) in sight.

 

Those bands can stay there while I will be playing the songs not quite right, but right enough for people to say "you guys are great!"

[Micky Z]

We're talking originals here, right? Note-for-note perfection perhaps applies more to learning covers than doing originals. Or at least in my experience in cover bands, and I'm also of the opinion that getting the structure and signature characteristics of the song while leaving a little interpretive room is the best way to keep everyone interested in doing the cover.

For an originals band, or a cover band with some original songs, the players have to be invested in the song(s). Either they all come up with their parts as part of the writing/arranging/recording process, which then all agree to duplicate live, or the main writer dictates close to 100% of what will be played, and the players agree to act as session players to perform the writer's song. All have to be in agreement with either of the approaches.

I've had the occasion to bring some of my originals to a couple different bands. In my mind, note-for-note perfection wasn't something I strove for. I DID teach the same basic structure, the signature lines, and the intro, transitions, and ending to both bands, but then I stopped there. At that point, there were things I wanted to hear the other band members bring to the songs that I couldn't and/or wouldn't dictate.

Between the two groups, I heard different valid versions of my "same" songs because of what the other players brought. Sometimes I would work with a player to modify what they had added to conform a little better with what I originally heard in my head, and I would typically play my guitar leads pretty much note-for-note with how I originally wrote it. But by letting the others add what they felt and heard, they bought into the tunes, owned their parts, and made them come alive. And it stretched them as musicians as they strove to come up with their parts out of nothing but their own heads and hearts. Made them better musicians on the covers we did, too, I think.

[New Trail]

 

We're talking originals here, right? Note-for-note perfection perhaps applies more to learning covers than doing originals. Or at least in my experience in cover bands, and I'm also of the opinion that getting the structure and signature characteristics of the song while leaving a little interpretive room is the best way to keep everyone interested in doing the cover. For an originals band, or a cover band with some original songs, the players have to be invested in the song(s). Either they all come up with their parts as part of the writing/arranging/recording process, which then all agree to duplicate live, or the main writer dictates close to 100% of what will be played, and the players agree to act as session players to perform the writer's song. All have to be in agreement with either of the approaches. I've had the occasion to bring some of my originals to a couple different bands. In my mind, note-for-note perfection wasn't something I strove for. I DID teach the same basic structure, the signature lines, and the intro, transitions, and ending to both bands, but then I stopped there. At that point, there were things I wanted to hear the other band members bring to the songs that I couldn't and/or wouldn't dictate. Between the two groups, I heard different valid versions of my "same" songs because of what the other players brought. Sometimes I would work with a player to modify what they had added to conform a little better with what I originally heard in my head, and I would typically play my guitar leads pretty much note-for-note with how I originally wrote it. But by letting the others add what they felt and heard, they bought into the tunes, owned their parts, and made them come alive. And it stretched them as musicians as they strove to come up with their parts out of nothing but their own heads and hearts. Made them better musicians on the covers we did, too, I think.

 

 

There's definitely more leeway in covers, but you can kinda tell when, for example, a musician in a cover band is either phoning it in or just wanking rather than playing a necessary part to the song.

[MartinC]

Nope. C,S,N,Y at woodstock. And countless others.

I would bet money if you showed The Eagles or Steely Dan videos from their first 100 gigs they would have died of shame. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE sucks until they get 100 shows under their belt. I'm not saying they suck compared to me, they suck compared to their future selves. If you want perfection have a Pilsner Urquell. If you want a great band, don't get mad if some glasses get broken at the party.

 

[Vito Corleone]

[Lee Knight]

Boy... I sure liked them a lot more back then. Before they owned the world. There's a humbleness that is missing in their later music.

[Vito Corleone]

There's a humbleness that is missing in their later music.

 

 

Yeah, it was called "Don Henley only wrote and sang one song on the first album..."

[3shiftgtr]

 

 

 

Good lawd that abomination of a guitar solo.....no wonder they got Felder......

[SeniorBlues]

 

Good lawd that abomination of a guitar solo.....no wonder they got Felder......

 

 

Really . . . what's with the b7?

 

On playing covers . . . A lot has to do with your lineup and the instrumentation on the recording. Maybe the bass and drums can copy it, and often the guitar chair, but often as not everything else gets dumped in my lap. Let me interpret the song the best I can . . . .

 

Boils down to your repertoire . . . as always.

[Kramerguy]

I agree. While my original post was about my originals band,

 

I don't know if this quip will help you, help me, or just highlight my neurosis ..but here goes...

 

I was in an originals band..

I brought 'parts' to a song I wrote.. these parts, while not wholly assembled, were not just part of a song, but could be expanded into an entire theme / album. The main parts I introduced were almost formulated into a good 'intro song' into the whole thing.

 

So anyways, I showed them what I had done so far and explained what I was looking for as far as feel / progression, everyone really loved it and agreed that it had potential to be really great.

 

So right off the bat the bass wants to change the progression to something more fun to play, as the initial progression was too 'boring'. Drummer tried to write an 'exciting' drum part into it, even though the mood and dynamic called for simple and aesthetic .. imaginative, but filtered..

 

At first I figured let it happen, see if any magic pops.. what really happened is that it turned into a sloppy and disorganized mess. Musicians classically try to overdress everything simply because most 'common' music, regardless of how great it is, is boring to play. Sure, you can play DMB and Yes and have fun interesting songs.. but not all great songs are fun and interesting.. in fact, the majority of them are 4/4 and follow a simple key and note pattern. Being imaginative and able to separate itself from the rest is part of what makes a great song too, I could go on for days about my songwriting beliefs.. but in the end, I felt the greatness being ripped from the song and eventually 'yanked' it, refusing to work on it any more as a collaboration. When I'm done composing it, I will dictate the exact notes, even accent, for every instrument. Why? Because in my head it's already perfect. Maybe I'm a control freak and it sucks, but maybe I'm a genius and have a real and fathomable idea. I don't expect to make a million bucks, but before I die, I will create an extraordinary single album where every song flows from one to another, yet any single song will be able to stand alone. It's my personal dream, and if nobody likes it, I'm okay with that too, but first and foremost, *I* have to like it. No, I have to LOVE it, every note, every tap, period.

 

I've personally yet to be satisfied with anything I've ever recorded, and not that I'm that hard to please, but that my ear is better than most and I can pick up the slightest inconsistencies and recording quips. I don't even have the necessary gear to record to the level that I hear at.

 

So NT I hope that helps.. lol. There are some who absolutely labor over every nuance.. strive for that perfection.. and IMO it's better than striving for "good enough"

[SLScott86]

I don't know if this quip will help you, help me, or just highlight my neurosis ..but here goes... I was in an originals band.. I brought 'parts' to a song I wrote.. these parts, while not wholly assembled, were not just part of a song, but could be expanded into an entire theme / album. The main parts I introduced were almost formulated into a good 'intro song' into the whole thing. So anyways, I showed them what I had done so far and explained what I was looking for as far as feel / progression, everyone really loved it and agreed that it had potential to be really great. So right off the bat the bass wants to change the progression to something more fun to play, as the initial progression was too 'boring'. Drummer tried to write an 'exciting' drum part into it, even though the mood and dynamic called for simple and aesthetic .. imaginative, but filtered.. At first I figured let it happen, see if any magic pops.. what really happened is that it turned into a sloppy and disorganized mess. Musicians classically try to overdress everything simply because most 'common' music, regardless of how great it is, is boring to play. Sure, you can play DMB and Yes and have fun interesting songs.. but not all great songs are fun and interesting.. in fact, the majority of them are 4/4 and follow a simple key and note pattern. Being imaginative and able to separate itself from the rest is part of what makes a great song too, I could go on for days about my songwriting beliefs.. but in the end, I felt the greatness being ripped from the song and eventually 'yanked' it, refusing to work on it any more as a collaboration. When I'm done composing it, I will dictate the exact notes, even accent, for every instrument. Why? Because in my head it's already perfect. Maybe I'm a control freak and it sucks, but maybe I'm a genius and have a real and fathomable idea. I don't expect to make a million bucks, but before I die, I will create an extraordinary single album where every song flows from one to another, yet any single song will be able to stand alone. It's my personal dream, and if nobody likes it, I'm okay with that too, but first and foremost, *I* have to like it. No, I have to LOVE it, every note, every tap, period. I've personally yet to be satisfied with anything I've ever recorded, and not that I'm that hard to please, but that my ear is better than most and I can pick up the slightest inconsistencies and recording quips. I don't even have the necessary gear to record to the level that I hear at. So NT I hope that helps.. lol. There are some who absolutely labor over every nuance.. strive for that perfection.. and IMO it's better than striving for "good enough"

 

Sounds like your bandmates weren't listening critically to each other. It takes input and feedback from every member on everyone's parts, or else the collaborative writing process won't work. And among that feedback it takes coming to agreement one way or another. Sometimes it does simply work best when one person develops the ideas.

[BATCAT]

So right off the bat the bass wants to change the progression to something more fun to play, as the initial progression was too 'boring'. Drummer tried to write an 'exciting' drum part into it, even though the mood and dynamic called for simple and aesthetic .. imaginative, but filtered.. At first I figured let it happen, see if any magic pops.. what really happened is that it turned into a sloppy and disorganized mess. Musicians classically try to overdress everything simply because most 'common' music, regardless of how great it is, is boring to play. Sure, you can play DMB and Yes and have fun interesting songs.. but not all great songs are fun and interesting.. in fact, the majority of them are 4/4 and follow a simple key and note pattern. Being imaginative and able to separate itself from the rest is part of what makes a great song too, I could go on for days about my songwriting beliefs.. but in the end, I felt the greatness being ripped from the song and eventually 'yanked' it, refusing to work on it any more as a collaboration. When I'm done composing it, I will dictate the exact notes, even accent, for every instrument. Why? Because in my head it's already perfect. Maybe I'm a control freak and it sucks, but maybe I'm a genius and have a real and fathomable idea. I don't expect to make a million bucks, but before I die, I will create an extraordinary single album where every song flows from one to another, yet any single song will be able to stand alone. It's my personal dream, and if nobody likes it, I'm okay with that too, but first and foremost, *I* have to like it. No, I have to LOVE it, every note, every tap, period. I've personally yet to be satisfied with anything I've ever recorded, and not that I'm that hard to please, but that my ear is better than most and I can pick up the slightest inconsistencies and recording quips. I don't even have the necessary gear to record to the level that I hear at. So NT I hope that helps.. lol. There are some who absolutely labor over every nuance.. strive for that perfection.. and IMO it's better than striving for "good enough"

I've been in three basic types of original bands: (and been able to enjoy all three kinds)

The first is one where there isn't a dedicated "songwriter"- it's a fully collaborative process. To be sucessful in this format requires a fairly high level of like-mindedness, musical maturity, and stylistic compatibility from each member. It also requires a lot of trust: a part might not be what you would choose, and if it doesn't seem right you might challenge the other member's idea, but in the end, you "let it go" because you trust that they are hearing something you aren't and that't it'll benefit the song as a whole.

You don't sound like you're in a place for this kind of a band right now.

The second is one where theres one (sometimes two) main songwriter who dictates the overall arrangements, stucture, and feel of the pieces but also engages in a collaborative dialog with the other band members. To be sucessful, the other members need to accept that they need to work within the general framework provided by the songwriter, and in turn the songwriter needs to relinquish some control and accept that the other might have some good direction, even if it differs from what they originally envisioned.

With the right peple, it sounds like you might find satisfaction ina band like this.

The third is where is a single songwriter exerts a high level of control over most or all aspects of the song. It requires that the members either have a lot of respect and admiration for the writers vision and/or be paid enough to make this their priority.

It sounds like what you most want is the third. For recording, what I'd suggest is demo-ing your songs as close as you can get them yourself, then going into a professional studio with a real producer and recording them there. Anything you can play yourself to your satisfaction, do it. Anything you cant, ask a capable friend to come in and play it or hire a pro.

[JailTime]

 

So right off the bat the bass wants to change the progression to something more fun to play, as the initial progression was too 'boring'. Drummer tried to write an 'exciting' drum part into it, even though the mood and dynamic called for simple and aesthetic .. imaginative, but filtered.. At first I figured let it happen, see if any magic pops.. what really happened is that it turned into a sloppy and disorganized mess. Musicians classically try to overdress everything simply because most 'common' music, regardless of how great it is, is boring to play. Sure, you can play DMB and Yes and have fun interesting songs.. but not all great songs are fun and interesting.. in fact, the majority of them are 4/4 and follow a simple key and note pattern.

 

 

Wow, this is really insightful. I've had this happen with drums, bass, guitar and keys. Someone has a notion of 'layering' sounds to make the recording fuller. Turns out, it was only layering crap on top of crap that covered up the entire idea of the song.