Dad bands

[Agitator]

 

I've tried to address this by doing what you've suggested - breaking down music into its components: melody, harmony, rhythm, tone, structure, etc. What I'm finding is that guys don't really accept those as valid, preferring a more subjective approach. There's also a certain amount of anti-intellectualism. "Simple is good" seems to be an adequate defense of what you like, coupled with some sort of connection to cultural relevance. End of discussion.

You're conflating two different things here. On the one hand, there's the objective musical discussion of what's being played. On the other hand, there's whether or not you like it. Those are completely different things. The objective musical discussion can't even tell you if a song is "good" or "bad", just that it's "harmonically complex" or "rhythmically uneven" or something like that.

 

And it's really hard to remember that these are different things, and it's very tempting to use words that describe our personal like or dislike of a particular song instead of the objective words that actually describe what's happening in the music. To put it another way, you may hate a certain song because the guitarist can't keep a beat, but that might be exactly the thing that someone else loves about it. If you want to discuss the song with other musicians, it's more helpful if you can describe what's happening objectively, instead of just complaining about or praising "that crazy drummer".

 

 

(Well, not quite. I can't separate what I'm listening to as a song being offered for my consideration from the issue of "what do you want me to play on this tune?" As a keyboard player, the answer is often . . . nothing. Maybe lean on a chord or two while everyone else wails away. Good for you; not so much for me.)

Well, you should be careful about the gigs you take, I guess. I've played reggae bass for fifteen years, so I don't have a lot of sympathy for the "I can't play the same three notes over and over again" complaint.

[SeniorBlues]

And it's really hard to remember that these are different things, and it's very tempting to use words that describe our personal like or dislike of a particular song instead of the objective words that actually describe what's happening in the music. To put it another way, you may hate a certain song because the guitarist can't keep a beat, but that might be exactly the thing that someone else loves about it.

I understand your point, but it's hard to adopt your approach and reject mine when your example suggests that someone might love a song because a guitarist can't keep a beat.

A better argument might be that a lot of people simply like simple music, but it's also true that a lot of people don't listen to music very often, or very closely, or very critically.

Another argument worth considering is that some music is really more about the visual and the criteria I mentioned all take a back seat . . . . like California Gurls.

[SeniorBlues]

I'm not talkking about what you play in a band; I'm just talking about what you can listen to and enjoy.

Maybe it's possible to outgrow R&R.

You still like the old stuff from HS and recognize that it's mostly for sentimental or cultural reasons, as we've discussed. Remove those influences and the obvious fact that as you age, you're further and further removed from the target demographic.

I like a lot of music recorded since my formative years, but very little of it is pop/rock.

[BATCAT]

Maybe it's possible to outgrow R&R. You still like the old stuff from HS and recognize that it's mostly for sentimental or cultural reasons, as we've discussed. Remove those influences and the obvious fact that as you age, you're further and further removed from the target demographic. I like a lot of music recorded since my formative years, but very little of it is pop/rock.

I dunno, some of the stuff I liked in high schoo I can't stand now... and some of it I still listen a lot. I also like a lot of stuff from before I was born, and I'm totally in love with an album that came out two days ago.

It's not that I'm not discriminating; I'm actually probably picky to a fault... and yet as picky as I am I don't have trouble finding stuff I like from any decade of the last 200 years of music.

[vanlatte]

 

TrickyBoy, this isn't really directed at you in particular. I just find it interesting that it's OK for younger guys to make statements like " I've TRIED to force myself to listen to it, and I just don't like it at all." about Beatles or music from the 60s 70s or whatever, but when I say "I listen to today's music and TRY to like it but I just don't" I'm a close minded old fart that's stuck in the past. I guess it would be fair to say then that anyone that likes today's music and thinks the 60s 70's music is crap is close minded and stuck in the "NOW" .

 

 

Very well said.

 

*golf claps*

[Vito Corleone]

Another argument worth considering is that some music is really more about the visual and the criteria I mentioned all take a back seat . . . . like California Gurls.

 

 

I don't think the appeal of that song is about the visual. (Unless you're talking about any imagery than might be drawn from the lyrics.) But what I DO think is the appeal of that is largely due to such features of the song such as the rap break. Now how are supposed to judge songs from different eras based on objective criteria when some of things in certain songs didn't even EXIST in previous eras?

[SeniorBlues]

I don't think the appeal of that song is about the visual. (Unless you're talking about any imagery than might be drawn from the lyrics.) But what I DO think is the appeal of that is largely due to such features of the song such as the rap break. Now how are supposed to judge songs from different eras based on objective criteria when some of things in certain songs didn't even EXIST in previous eras?

I'm referring to the youtube video. Don't know what percent of fans have seen it, but I imagine it's pretty high.
The Snoop section struck me as superfluous. The song doesn't rely on it, IMHO, but I think the whole thing is so much fluff, so I'm not the one to ask.

Your point would be better made on a recording limited to rap and a beat. No melody, no harmony.

But that still doesn't complicate the discussion at all. We've had words set to music before. If there's no melodic interest in the "lead vocal", the other musical components will have to be strong enough to appeal to you on their own.

I liked the beat, I'll give it an "8". . . . . .

[Agitator]

I understand your point, but it's hard to adopt your approach and reject mine when your example suggests that someone might love a song because a guitarist can't keep a beat.

Sorry if I blew your mind, man. You ever see John Lee Hooker? He barely played 12 bars of straight 4/4 time consecutively. Some people genuinely love art that is "imperfect". Whether it's a little slip-up that didn't get edited out, or even an artist whose entire approach to his instrument is "unorthodox". You should have seen the thread that erupted over at TGP when someone deigned to criticize Jimmy Page as a "sloppy" guitarist! I know, right? Mr. Metronomic Time-keeper right there but he still can't "keep a beat" well enough to suit some people.

 

Sorry for the extreme sarcasm. I'll show myself out. The point is, yes, people can, actually, genuinely enjoy music that is objectively "imperfect" by some standard of "proper" music theory.

A better argument might be that a lot of people simply like simple music, but it's also true that a lot of people don't listen to music very often, or very closely, or very critically.

A better argument might be that there's no objective aesthetic distinction between simple music and complex music.

 

Another argument worth considering is that some music is really more about the visual and the criteria I mentioned all take a back seat . . . . like California Gurls.

I guess that explains the appeal of the Ramones, too? Sorry, there's that sarcasm again. It's been that kind of day.

[SeniorBlues]

Sorry if I blew your mind, man. You ever see John Lee Hooker? He barely played 12 bars of straight 4/4 time consecutively. Some people genuinely love art that is "imperfect". Whether it's a little slip-up that didn't get edited out, or even an artist whose entire approach to his instrument is "unorthodox". You should have seen the thread that erupted over at TGP when someone deigned to criticize Jimmy Page as a "sloppy" guitarist! I know, right? Mr. Metronomic Time-keeper right there but he still can't "keep a beat" well enough to suit some people. Sorry for the extreme sarcasm. I'll show myself out. The point is, yes, people can, actually, genuinely enjoy music that is objectively "imperfect" by some standard of "proper" music theory. A better argument might be that there's no objective aesthetic distinction between simple music and complex music. I guess that explains the appeal of the Ramones, too? Sorry, there's that sarcasm again. It's been that kind of day.

 

 

JLH drops beats . . and this is news? And this is the SOURCE of his appeal? Please . . .

 

JP has problems with time other than what he's used to, but again that's not the source of his appeal. (I heard an mp3 with him playing with Jaco . . . totally lost. Jaco's imploring him in a friendly supportive way to "just play the blues.")

 

The Ramones is about attitude. If you relate to his attitude, great. What else is there going on? Break it down for me.

[Steadfastly]

I'm dealing with a bit of this in my band, so I've done a lot of thinking about this. First, I think it's safe to say that most musicians prefer playing music they like....and likewise, a cover band's song selections are usually driven by the band members' individual listening habits. In my experience, most people start losing interest in "new" music sometime in their 30's or 40's. Partly because, after listening to music for 25-30 years, people have a clearly defined idea of what they like....and by the time a person reaches 35-40 years old, popular music bears little or no resemblance to the music they grew up on. They just can't relate to it. That being said....one could just as easily put the shoe on the other foot, and ask why the younger bands have such little regard for the classics. When was the last time you heard a group of younger guys whip out something by Led Zeppelin, Kansas, Boston, or Rush? Sure, there's always the argument, "Well that stuff is old and tired." But the bottom line is, the younger generation simply doesn't identify with that music, any more than their parents and grandparents identify with the newer stuff.

 

 

This is the best explanation I've heard for this never ending argument about old and new music. You put it very succinctly.

[Agitator]

 

JLH drops beats . . and this is news? And this is the SOURCE of his appeal? Please . . .

When people play that way, they get described as "loose", "earthy", "funky", whatever, but it's frequently in a way that implies that the primitive nature of their playing makes it more appealing than someone else playing the same licks in a more metronomically-correct manner.

 

 

JP has problems with time other than what he's used to, but again that's not the source of his appeal.

Go find the TGP thread about the Heartbreaker solo. The general consensus there is that the solo is "better", e.g., rawer, more "bluesy", because you can hear Page almost stumble. The fact that he's playing at the outer limit of what his technique allows -- and we can hear it -- is part of the appeal, and makes it more aesthetically pleasing to some people than, again, someone else playing a version of the same solo that fit neatly into perfect 4/4 time.

 

 

The Ramones is about attitude. If you relate to his attitude, great. What else is there going on? Break it down for me.

I don't know, um, loud, fast music? Pure distilled essence of rock & roll? Does that seem reasonable? I'm sure there are resources on the internet somewhere that could help you understand (if not appreciate/enjoy) the musical appeal of the Ramones if you're really stumped.

[richardmac]

What was the original topic, again?

[wardjames]

What was the original topic, again?

Speaking of the original topic, WTF is a dad band?

I mean, am I in a dad band because I have kids? Or am I not because I'm 33? Is it an actual having kids thing or an age thing?

[Vito Corleone]

I'm referring to the youtube video. Don't know what percent of fans have seen it, but I imagine it's pretty high. The Snoop section struck me as superfluous. The song doesn't rely on it, IMHO, but I think the whole thing is so much fluff, so I'm not the one to ask.

 

 

I've only ever seen a few seconds of that video. It's pretty horrid, IIRC.

 

 

Your point would be better made on a recording limited to rap and a beat. No melody, no harmony.

 

 

Perhaps. Then again, I don't know how having those othere elements would detract from the importance of a rap or a beat to a song. If I wanted to use "Hotel California" as an example of how important a guitar solo is to a song, would it be "better" to find a purely instrumental version in order to make that point?

 

 

But that still doesn't complicate the discussion at all. We've had words set to music before. If there's no melodic interest in the "lead vocal", the other musical components will have to be strong enough to appeal to you on their own.

 

 

Yes. That is the appeal of rap. The attitude, the energy, the rhythm, the pacing, the lyrics all combine WITHOUT the use of melody or harmony to convey the message to the listener in a manner every bit as powerfully, artistically and successfully (on a good rap, of course) as a great "sung" vocal line.

[Vito Corleone]

Speaking of the original topic, WTF is a dad band? I mean, am I in a dad band because I have kids? Or am I not because I'm 33? Is it an actual having kids thing or an age thing?

I dunno. Since I didn't have any kids until I was 46, I guess I avoided being in a "dad" band longer than others. Definately in one now though....

[Vito Corleone]

WTF is a dad band?

[SeniorBlues]

When people play that way, they get described as "loose", "earthy", "funky", whatever, but it's frequently in a way that implies that the primitive nature of their playing makes it more appealing than someone else playing the same licks in a more metronomically-correct manner. Go find the TGP thread about the Heartbreaker solo. The general consensus there is that the solo is "better", e.g., rawer, more "bluesy", because you can hear Page almost stumble. The fact that he's playing at the outer limit of what his technique allows -- and we can hear it -- is part of the appeal, and makes it more aesthetically pleasing to some people than, again, someone else playing a version of the same solo that fit neatly into perfect 4/4 time. I don't know, um, loud, fast music? Pure distilled essence of rock & roll? Does that seem reasonable? I'm sure there are resources on the internet somewhere that could help you understand (if not appreciate/enjoy) the musical appeal of the Ramones if you're really stumped.

 

 

Dropping the beat means literally skipping a beat. A friend of mine backed up Chuck Berry and it drove him nuts . . . although I understand why CB did it, given this bass player's Buddy Rich gig chops.

 

It has nothing to do with loose or funky which is more about playing behind the beat. It's fluid, but in time in the broader sense.

 

Now if you like your rock and roll loud and fast, that, of course, is just the opposite. Didn't realize that was the essence of R&R. I'll be sure to add tempo and volume to my criteria for good music.

[richardmac]

A Dad Band is a band with a bunch of older guys, probably all dads, who have a day job and play gigs usually on Friday or Saturday nights. They usually play music that was big when they were younger, and they usually play to small crowds of people who are their age or older.

 

Some people look down on dad bands for being unwilling to learn and play more modern material, and that is essentially what this thread was originally about.

[Agitator]

Now if you like your rock and roll loud and fast, that, of course, is just the opposite. Didn't realize that was the essence of R&R.

If there are any other ways in which I can help continue to expand your knowledge of rock & roll, don't hesitate to ask.

[TIMKEYS]

Speaking of the original topic, WTF is a dad band? I mean, am I in a dad band because I have kids? Or am I not because I'm 33? Is it an actual having kids thing or an age thing?

I am old enough to be our drummers dad,, and he has three kids,, and damb near old enough to be the bass players dad and he has one kid,. the lead player and the lead singer are basically my age but dont have kids,, i am gonna be a grampa in oct. Dad bands are tougher than grampa bands... when you are old enough to be a grampa you are retired and can pretty well do anything you want without causeing friction at home.

[rangefinder]

 

Some people look down on dad bands for being unwilling to learn and play more modern material, and that is essentially what this thread was originally about.

 

 

And some don't look down on them, but still wonder why they don't play more modern material, when it doesn't seem all that hard to do so.

 

But I think we've already beaten that topic to death.

[richardmac]

And yet the thread lives on! It refuses to die. If we'd all stop commenting, then... oh.

[SeniorBlues]

 

And some don't look down on them, but still wonder why they don't play more modern material, when it doesn't seem all that hard to do so. But I think we've already beaten that topic to death.

 

 

It's not about how hard it is. It's about whether or not it inspires you. If you need the money, entertainment, or sex, that's fine. The music is a means to an end.

 

But for some of us, the music itself is what's important, and a lot of it - in your era and mine - isn't fulfilling.

 

I was working on "Ophelia", by "The Band" yesterday to use in a medley with "Nothing from Nothing", by Billy Preston. It's R&R . . . . is anyone recording progressions like that today?

[Vito Corleone]

It's R&R . . . . is anyone recording progressions like that today?

 

 

R&R has never really been a good source for songs based on interesting progressions. You're a self-profressed R&B guy---maybe you should be looking more in that genre?

 

[video=youtube;3F8R-vBB4O4]

[SeniorBlues]

If you want some down tempo, soulful, nice changes R&B, treat yourself to Jill Scott.

 

But it's this sort of thing that makes me wonder what happened. These guys are highly regarded, aren't they?

 

"Ophelia" starts out with a nice groove, but what happened to the chords??