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

[Lee Flier]

Actionsquid's post is pretty right on as usual. My band is somewhere between the first and second type in his post. The bass player and I write most of the songs (although our drummer's been getting into it too, which is perfectly fine with us, as he's a very musical guy), but we all usually arrange the songs as a band and sometimes change structural elements or what have you. 95% of the time we come up with ideas that enhance each other's vision rather than take away, because we're all good at listening to each other and getting our egos out of the way and just making the song something we'd really want to listen to. For the other 5% of times when there isn't a consensus about what works best, we defer to whoever wrote the song. That system works really well for us and we pretty much never fail to have a great time working up new songs.

 

If people are wanting to change or cover up things that are fundamental to what makes a song good, out of their own ego as a musician, then they are obviously not mature enough to be in this type of situation. There are tons of musicians out there who are really technically adept but don't understand what makes a good song or arrangement to save their lives. People like that are better off being in cover bands or being a hired gun who reads charts that someone writes for them. I don't like to work with people like that too often, unless it's somebody we are bringing in for a specific session to do a specific part, not as a full time band member. The person who is a successful collaborator in an original band tends to be someone who maybe doesn't play rings around everyone in a technical sense, but has a unique style they bring to the table which meshes well with the other writer(s)' styles.

 

Our drummer is one of those rare cases who can play in any style, can play rings around most people technically, AND is really good at listening and recognizing the elements of a song that make it work. He can geek out on his King Crimson as much as anybody, but he adores a good simple pop song. And he would certainly never write a piece that sounded like King Crimson and expect our band to do it. That's the thing, you've gotta know what is appropriate to the situation.

[Kramerguy]

 

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.

 

 

Yep, I pretty much knew that was my direction, I was really hashing out the story to support the OP in the idea that it's not impossible, or even a bad thing to strive for that 'pefection'.. just different than the status-quo.

[BATCAT]

 

Yep, I pretty much knew that was my direction, I was really hashing out the story to support the OP in the idea that it's not impossible, or even a bad thing to strive for that 'pefection'.. just different than the status-quo.

 

 

It's a fine line. I've known songwriters who got so into the "striving for perfection" thing that they never really got much finished. It was like the "perfect" goalpost kept moving with time. You can also miss out on a lot of "real life" obsessing over musical "perfection" only to discover years later you would have done it differently anyhow.

 

I'm not advocating settling for something you feel is inferior, but it IS a balancing act. My usual philosophy is to try to make something perfect but to also impose hard deadlines on myself, like booking studio time a couple months out when I feel an album is maybe 60% "there". So I can work as obsessively as i want, but theres a timeframe, and when it's over, I have to just accept what I've created.

 

I've recorded three (about to be four) proper studio albums of my own stuff and without exception I feel they are imperfect. But that's what gives me motivation to make the next one better. I'd rather put stuff out there and have it be a flawed best effort than stew over stuff forever.

[SLScott86]

 

It's a fine line. I've known songwriters who got so into the "striving for perfection" thing that they never really got much finished. It was like the "perfect" goalpost kept moving with time. You can also miss out on a lot of "real life" obsessing over musical "perfection" only to discover years later you would have done it differently anyhow. I'm not advocating settling for something you feel is inferior, but it IS a balancing act. My usual philosophy is to try to make something perfect but to also impose hard deadlines on myself, like booking studio time a couple months out when I feel an album is maybe 60% "there". So I can work as obsessively as i want, but theres a timeframe, and when it's over, I have to just accept what I've created. I've recorded three (about to be four) proper studio albums of my own stuff and without exception I feel they are imperfect. But that's what gives me motivation to make the next one better. I'd rather put stuff out there and have it be a flawed best effort than stew over stuff forever.

 

 

This, on the other hand, is message board perfection.

[pickinatit]

 

NEW TRAIL: "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."

 

I'm trying to decide whether this is "wanking" or "phoning it in" on the solo.

[Kramerguy]

 

It's a fine line. I've known songwriters who got so into the "striving for perfection" thing that they never really got much finished. It was like the "perfect" goalpost kept moving with time. You can also miss out on a lot of "real life" obsessing over musical "perfection" only to discover years later you would have done it differently anyhow. I'm not advocating settling for something you feel is inferior, but it IS a balancing act. My usual philosophy is to try to make something perfect but to also impose hard deadlines on myself, like booking studio time a couple months out when I feel an album is maybe 60% "there". So I can work as obsessively as i want, but theres a timeframe, and when it's over, I have to just accept what I've created. I've recorded three (about to be four) proper studio albums of my own stuff and without exception I feel they are imperfect. But that's what gives me motivation to make the next one better. I'd rather put stuff out there and have it be a flawed best effort than stew over stuff forever.

 

 

Yeah sure, I've thought about that. I especially don't want to waste the time writing 8 songs that I could have written 100 others in.. so I do split my time, still write normal catchy 3 adn 4 note tunes, and I still learn 5-10 covers weekly for fill-ins and coverband stuff.

 

My point is that I actually will obsess over those 8-10 songs and even take my sweet time with them, and why not? Certainly there are other musicians past, present, and future, who have or will slave over a work until it is perfect in their eyes, and of course some will find success from their efforts where others will only find heartbreak. I like to think my aspirations are for personal satisfaction only so I only have myself to disappoint. I do hope someday to deliver a masterpiece to you guys on a silver platter and get forum-high-fives for the rest of my life , but hey.. no big deal. I can't change who I am, and every time I have in the past accepted something 'less' that perfect, I've only regretted it.