On stage attire, music stands, "Dad bands", etc...

[Lee Flier]

 

I think part of the bigger problem which causes the arguments is not that the band playing a local bar "doesn't give a {censored}" but simply that they won't spend $1000 on a fantastic light show, sound man, play thru a $10k sound board, or even spend $150 per man for ass-tacular threads for a gig that ultimately will break down to $80 per man. Even when you consider playing out 2-3 times a month, that really breaks down to breaking even when considering the costs of a band-van, mediocre PA gear, individual gear, and then lighting, etc.. I personally play somewhere between amateur and semi-pro .. I do "get it" when it comes to pride, professionalism, and presentation. I'm just trying to play the devils advocate in the context of why some bands who really do give a {censored} might act or seem like they don't.

 

 

I don't think it's necessary to spend a whole lot of money to give a {censored}. We don't. You can buy used gear and get clothes from thrift shops. You don't have to spend money to actually keep your material fresh, spend time practicing, play it like you mean it, and engage with the audience. Lots of bands have made a huge impression on their audiences playing through {censored}ty PAs etc... again no one will care if it's obvious that you give a crap.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Acting like you don't give a {censored} is a defense mechanism, cause if you don't care, then you haven't really failed.

 

 

That pretty much nails it.

 

The problem is that most people can't pull off the "I don't give a {censored}" attitude with complete confidence. (If they could, they probably wouldn't need to rely on a defense mechanism in the first place.) They might THINK acting like they don't give a {censored} gives them a pass, but pretty much everyone can see through it and all pretty much everyone sees is a joker who is too lazy or too scared to take care of business.

[Lee Flier]

I'm with you, Lee, 98%...but I don't think most people are able to judge accurately how important music is to another person or their passion or honesty just based on how that person presents themselves on stage or even how well they know the songs/pieces. I think that's presumptuous bull{censored}, to be honest, but that's just my opinion.

 

How exactly is it presumptuous bull{censored} to go see a band that doesn't know their material, obviously hasn't practiced, and doesn't act like they care whether they're in front of an audience or on the couch in front of the TV set, and conclude that they don't really care about the music or the audience? Seems like a very easy conclusion to draw. Sure, there are exceptions, but there are always exceptions.

 

I think the bottom line with musical performance is: If it sounds good to you, and touches you in some positive way, it's a good performance, regardless of whether it follows your predetermined "rules of presentation".

 

OF COURSE. I think I made that point clear in my post: if I go see a band and they're wearing shorts or flubbing notes, and yet they've somehow managed to communicate their passion to me, then there's nothing wrong with it! Context is everything. I said that in my post. Being moved is the whole point of music. How was I unclear about that?

 

But the fact is there are certain predictable ways in which many people who lack level of commitment necessary to put their music across, tend to manifest themselves. And my point was that when people here complain about "music stands," "dad bands," "shorts onstage," etc. what they are really complaining about is not necessarily that in itself, but the attitude that is very often behind it.

[Lee Flier]

 

It is. But the thing to remember is the venue has a lot of things to be committed to. The music is just one of those things. The band has nothing else to worry about. So any band that allows themselves to take a "why should I give a {censored} if the club doesn't?" attitude is dropping the ball big time. The band STILL has the responsibility of delivering a quality product. And no--I don't care if the musicians have "other commitments" in their lives. That still doesn't excuse delivering a half-assed product. Any more than I'd accept drinking a {censored}ty beer because the brewer has a wife and kids and a day job.

 

 

Exactly.

[Lee Flier]

 

This is why you have to use that long laundry list when you're looking for band mates. Virtually all of us "give a {censored}" . . . . just not about the same things. A "light show" is not an essential component of my musical presentation. Arranged and rehearsed harmony is.

 

 

Absolutely. I think a big part of "giving a {censored}" is knowing what really matters to getting your point across, and you have obviously thought that through and realized that a light show isn't essential. Again, "giving a {censored}" isn't really tied to any one specific thing, as long as you do, and can get that across.

 

 

Dave - Yeah, time you're willing to devote to the band is huge. But like some guys are saying, it's not like there's a minimum . . . you just have to be on the same page. One guy who won't practice - ore one guy who's a workaholic compared to everyone else - is a common band killer.

 

 

True. Although I do think there's some minimum amount of time each individual needs to devote in order to stay sharp... it's different for everybody, but that person needs to know honestly what it is for them and make sure they put in that time, so you don't have people learning songs at practice and so forth. Again, that is part of Giving A {censored}.

[TrickyBoy]

I'll just say that I totally agree with Lee on this one... :thu:

[Vito Corleone]

Patron: (spits his beer out of his mouth) "Jeezus! This beer tastes like dog piss!"

 

Bartender: "well, yeah. It's not the best, but the brewer is very experienced. He brewed some AWESOME beer back in the 70s, and he still only insists on using the best quality hops and barley. If you tasted some of his other stuff, you'd know where he was going with this one."

 

Patron: "yeah, but THIS still tastes like dog piss!"

 

Bartender: "well, the brewer doesn't do beer full-time any more. He's busy with his day job and his family. He just brews for fun now. Still, he's one of the best and everybody knows it."

 

Patron: "hard to tell from THIS swill. Hell, look at the can it's in! It's got rust spots and looks like some relic from the 60s"

 

Bartender: "well, nobody buys a beer for how the CONTAINER looks. At least they SHOULDN'T."

 

Patron: "yeah, but really--this isn't very good beer..."

 

Bartender: "true, but look at the bar! The owner has Bud and Coors Light on tap. If he's not going to be concerned about serving quality beer, why should the brewer be concerned about brewing it?"

[guitarguy19]

 

Patron: (spits his beer out of his mouth) "Jeezus! This beer tastes like dog piss!" Bartender: "well, yeah. It's not the best, but the brewer is very experienced. He brewed some AWESOME beer back in the 70s, and he still only insists on using the best quality hops and barley. If you tasted some of his other stuff, you'd know where he was going with this one." Patron: "yeah, but THIS still tastes like dog piss!" Bartender: "well, the brewer doesn't do beer full-time any more. He's busy with his day job and his family. He just brews for fun now. Still, he's one of the best and everybody knows it." Patron: "hard to tell from THIS swill. Hell, look at the can it's in! It's got rust spots and looks like some relic from the 60s" Bartender: "well, nobody buys a beer for how the CONTAINER looks. At least they SHOULDN'T." Patron: "yeah, but really--this isn't very good beer..." Bartender: "true, but look at the bar! The owner has Bud and Coors Light on tap. If he's not going to be concerned about serving quality beer, why should the brewer be concerned about brewing it?"

 

 

This is the dumpy dive bar where there are no customers except for those few people that are friends with the brewer, and they only drink that piss to be nice to their friend, and maybe a little bit because that's their one night out for this quarter and they'll drink anything and still feel like it tastes good since they haven't tasted any good beer in years. There are probably also 5 people who know the bar owner and get to drink that piss for little or no money...so they hang out in the back and get sloppy.

 

And since the bar is in a garbage area of town where locals have no disposable income, it has no customers, and probably really {censored}ty bathrooms to boot. Guess what? That piss ass beer is all they can afford. Another one of the world's vicous cycles.

[Lee Knight]

 

I don't think it's necessary to spend a whole lot of money to give a {censored}. We don't. You can buy used gear and get clothes from thrift shops. You don't have to spend money to actually keep your material fresh, spend time practicing, play it like you mean it, and engage with the audience. Lots of bands have made a huge impression on their audiences playing through {censored}ty PAs etc... again no one will care if it's obvious that you give a crap.

 

 

Yep. I keep reading about light shows and massive PAs and all... And I've done that too, but I can walk into a great dive bar tonight and see world class rock musicians playing through a little pair of Mackies up on stands, a killer tuned drum kit, an old Fender Deluxe,etc. They're mixing themselves, They have a couple of lights pointed at the stage. They're into it and have the crowd totally engaged. And they've lived and breathed their music for years.

 

They will blow you away.

 

It's almost as if they give a {censored}! And have for years! Young bands too. There are great ones that gave a {censored} since they were 10. And now they're onstage and they're 20 and they continue to be great. And get greater.

 

And then there are the ones who don't have a clue. And the reason they don't have a clue is cause... really... where it counts... they don't give a {censored}. They'd rather worry about what new song is going to barely keep them in gigs than go about giving a {censored} and getting great. Let's talk about what new songs are crackin' fellas! It's lame. Either you make any cool song smoke or you depend on the novelty of the latest hit to carry your sorry weak ass through the next gig. Who really gives a {censored} between the two?

 

My rant isn't about covers vs. originals, it's about real musicians and ones that just play musicians in the local bar. The distinction is clear to me.

 

I 100% agree with you, Lee.

[SeniorBlues]

 

Yep. I keep reading about light shows and massive PAs and all... And I've done that too, but I can walk into a great dive bar tonight and see world class rock musicians playing through a little pair of Mackies up on stands, a killer tuned drum kit, an old Fender Deluxe,etc. They're mixing themselves, They have a couple of lights pointed at the stage. They're into it and have the crowd totally engaged. And they've lived and breathed their music for years. They will blow you away. It's almost as if they give a {censored}! And have for years! Young bands too. There are great ones that gave a {censored} since they were 10. And now they're onstage and they're 20 and they continue to be great. And get greater. And then there are the ones who don't have a clue. And the reason they don't have a clue is cause... really... where it counts... they don't give a {censored}. They'd rather worry about what new song is going to barely keep them in gigs than go about giving a {censored} and getting great. Let's talk about what new songs are crackin' fellas! It's lame. Either you make any cool song smoke or you depend on the novelty of the latest hit to carry your sorry weak ass through the next gig. Who's really gives a {censored} between the two? My rant isn't about covers vs. originals, it's about real musicians and ones that just play musicians in the local bar. The distinction is clear to me. I 100% agree with you, Lee.

 

 

If 90 out of 100 appear to be oblivious to the music, I'll play for the ten that seem interested. If none of them are, we'll play for ourselves. If the rest of the band isn't really into it, I'll play for my own enjoyment . . . . or look elsewhere . . . . or stay home.

[TrickyBoy]

 

Yep. I keep reading about light shows and massive PAs and all... And I've done that too, but I can walk into a great dive bar tonight and see world class rock musicians playing through a little pair of Mackies up on stands, a killer tuned drum kit, an old Fender Deluxe,etc. They're mixing themselves, They have a couple of lights pointed at the stage. They're into it and have the crowd totally engaged. And they've lived and breathed their music for years. They will blow you away. It's almost as if they give a {censored}! And have for years! Young bands too. There are great ones that gave a {censored} since they were 10. And now they're onstage and they're 20 and they continue to be great. And get greater. And then there are the ones who don't have a clue. And the reason they don't have a clue is cause... really... where it counts... they don't give a {censored}. They'd rather worry about what new song is going to barely keep them in gigs than go about giving a {censored} and getting great. Let's talk about what new songs are crackin' fellas! It's lame. Either you make any cool song smoke or you depend on the novelty of the latest hit to carry your sorry weak ass through the next gig. Who's really gives a {censored} between the two? My rant isn't about covers vs. originals, it's about real musicians and ones that just play musicians in the local bar. The distinction is clear to me. I 100% agree with you, Lee.

 

 

While I agree that investing in a good sound system and light show is a plus, all of that {censored} can only ENHANCE an already good product. You can't shine {censored} with a fancy production.

[rangefinder]

 

Mostly until you try to tell people where they can play.

 

 

+1 to this.

 

It's perfectly fine for the more experienced/knowledgeable members of this forum to point out various aspects of professionalism when it comes to bands/music.

 

That's why most of us are here.

 

But I don't much like the griping about OTHER bands who are "taking" gigs or "sucking" on stage or "undercutting" the market. Because my sentiment there is: "tough {censored}".

 

Control what you can control, and if the market doesn't respond the way you hope/expect, oh well. Join the club of millions who are unemployed/under-employed.

[SeniorBlues]

 

While I agree that investing in a good sound system and light show is a plus, all of that {censored} can only ENHANCE an already good product. You can't shine {censored} with a fancy production.

 

 

Maybe not {censored} . . . but mediocrity? Afraid so. A lot of people really do seem to listen with their eyes.

[MusicalSchizo]

How exactly is it presumptuous bull{censored} to go see a band that doesn't know their material, obviously hasn't practiced, and doesn't act like they care whether they're in front of an audience or on the couch in front of the TV set, and conclude that they don't really care about the music or the audience? Seems like a very easy conclusion to draw. Sure, there are exceptions, but there are always exceptions.

That's not most bands, though. Even {censored}ty bands tend to try at least a little, and I've filled in with some seriously cheesy "hobby bands" and as unprofessional and "phoning it in" as they may look to some, they really {censored}ing care about what they're doing. That's why I was making my point. The level of "passion" is not as obvious as you may think.

 

OF COURSE. I think I made that point clear in my post: if I go see a band and they're wearing shorts or flubbing notes, and yet they've somehow managed to communicate their passion to me, then there's nothing wrong with it! Context is everything. I said that in my post. Being moved is the whole point of music. How was I unclear about that?

You weren't. I was just rephrasing and restating because I agreed with you on that part. I guess that was confusing to include, right?

 

But the fact is there are certain predictable ways in which many people who lack level of commitment necessary to put their music across, tend to manifest themselves.

True.

 

And my point was that when people here complain about "music stands," "dad bands," "shorts onstage," etc. what they are really complaining about is not necessarily that in itself, but the attitude that is very often behind it.

Natch!

 

Brian V.

[Vito Corleone]

 

While I agree that investing in a good sound system and light show is a plus, all of that {censored} can only ENHANCE an already good product. You can't shine {censored} with a fancy production.

 

 

Agreed.

 

I just recoil from those who seem to take the attitude that it's somehow one-or-the-other. That a band who worries about attire or music stands or lights is somehow not taking the music as seriously. Or that if you go up on stage looking like crap you're somehow putting off the vibe that you're more serious about the music and not some sort of poseur.

 

Yeah, you gotta have the basic. You have to be solid musically first. And, for a band starting out, it only makes sense to prioritize the music FIRST. IF things must be prioritized. There's no reason you can't work on being the best band you can be musically WHILE wearing a decent shirt.

[TrickyBoy]

 

Maybe not {censored} . . . but mediocrity? Afraid so. A lot of people really do seem to listen with their eyes.

 

 

Not going to disagree with you, and since we live in different areas, I'm sure the crowds we play to are different. But I'll say that while there are exceptions to the rule, a great band with modest production is not going to do nearly as well as a mediocre one with great production. The thing is that the market to play here is pretty competitive, so even really good bands need to look to add production, etc. in order to stand out in a pack of other really good bands.

[SeniorBlues]

 

Not going to disagree with you, and since we live in different areas, I'm sure the crowds we play to are different. But I'll say that while there are exceptions to the rule, a great band with modest production is not going to do nearly as well as a mediocre one with great production. The thing is that the market to play here is pretty competitive, so even really good bands need to look to add production, etc. in order to stand out in a pack of other really good bands.

 

 

I can't disagree with that. My point was that you seemed to be underestimating the value of lights, etc. in turning a mediocre band into something marketable.

[Vito Corleone]

 

A lot of people really do seem to listen with their eyes.

 

 

No, that's not it. What it is, is the fact that LIVE music performed in PUBLIC is more than just about the audio portion of the presentation. People don't "listen with their eyes", but they DO use ALL their senses in order to get the full effect of the presentation. Do some bands use "fancy production" to compensate for less-than-steller musicianship? Sure. But so what? What I don't get is the attitude that just because somebody else used production to cover up other weaknesses that THAT is somehow a negative reflection on the use of production. Just because there are some ugly girls who wear too much makeup to try and cover up their ugliness--does that mean NO girls should wear makeup or that most don't look better with a bit properly applied?

 

Because some jackass band draws a crowd just because of their good light show that means if I want to be considered a GOOD band I shouldn't bother with a light show?

 

The two don't follow.

 

LIVE music in a PUBLIC setting is more than just about the music. That isn't anything new.

[TheRinger]

 

......A "light show" is not an essential component of my musical presentation. Arranged and rehearsed harmony is....

 

 

Why is arranged and rehearsed harmony essential?

[guitarguy19]

 

Why is arranged and rehearsed harmony essential?

 

 

Unless you're genuinely concerned as to why he likes to put extra effort into harmony...he was talking about his musical presentation...who knows. Different people have different ideas on what's essential to their act.

[BATCAT]

 

LIVE music in a PUBLIC setting is more than just about the music. That isn't anything new.

 

 

If this wasn't the case, musicians would just play sitting down in shorts and sandals, in a corner, behind a curtain.

[Vito Corleone]

If this wasn't the case, musicians would just play sitting down in shorts and sandals, in a corner, behind a curtain.

 

Or they'd just play, either live or recorded, on the radio.

 

And on the radio you don't have to worry about what to do with your sheet music

 

[kmart]

Note to self:

 

Design & copyright/patent a light-weight folding music stand that looks like Sinatra & Dean-o...

[SeniorBlues]

 

What I don't get is the attitude that just because somebody else used production to cover up other weaknesses that THAT is somehow a negative reflection on the use of production.

 

 

I never said that.

 

I have heard people describe a band they liked in strictly visual terms, though. Haven't you?

[guitarguy19]

 

No, that's not it. What it is, is the fact that LIVE music performed in PUBLIC is more than just about the audio portion of the presentation. People don't "listen with their eyes", but they DO use ALL their senses in order to get the full effect of the presentation. Do some bands use "fancy production" to compensate for less-than-steller musicianship? Sure. But so what? What I don't get is the attitude that just because somebody else used production to cover up other weaknesses that THAT is somehow a negative reflection on the use of production. Just because there are some ugly girls who wear too much makeup to try and cover up their ugliness--does that mean NO girls should wear makeup or that most don't look better with a bit properly applied? Because some jackass band draws a crowd just because of their good light show that means if I want to be considered a GOOD band I shouldn't bother with a light show? The two don't follow. LIVE music in a PUBLIC setting is more than just about the music. That isn't anything new.

 

 

I agree 100%. But saying people are "listening with their eyes" is obviously just an expression. In a nutshell it means the same thing as "using a big light show to compensate for less than stellar musicianship." Stellar musicianship comes second tier to a big production to the right crowd. This is the reason we get such compliments as "one of the best cover bands we've ever seen here" from people at places that provide the same PA and lighting for all the bands, but we struggled to succeed at the venues where we had to provide everything. I mean we did bring in lights (albeit a modest show...that stuff is expensive), but the crowds at those venues were used to seeing bands with $30k on stage and 9 hours of setup time and a huge production. PAs with literally ten 18" subwoofers in a room that has a capacity of 250...so what if ya can't hear understand a single damn word that dude is singing...the bass is bumpin' lets hit the f'n dance floor ladies!! Aww sheeeeeeit!! Look at those stacks of speakers and that drum riser and that truss with 37 cans, 8 pinspots, 2 lasers, and that fog machine from 1984 smokin' away. This band must be awesome!!

 

And if I make a mistake and muff a note in the middle of a solo, 99% of people won't hear it if my body language doesn't show it...that's another context. Maybe that's a "lack of hearing with their eyes" though...

 

As a band we certainly don't "look down on" the use of production to enhance your show. We just chose not to go what we deemed totally f'n overboard with it (which seemed to be what the standard was for the bands that were most successful in those clubs), but instead we play the places that provide that stuff. I don't think it's coincidence that the best bands I've seen were the ones that went the same route we did. For me personally, it's REALLY cool to be praised to a high degree when most of the production part is taken out of it. We're being compared to other bands with the production side of things being equal...and getting high compliments. To me that's huge.