Dad bands

[Vito Corleone]

These guys are highly regarded, aren't they? "Ophelia" starts out with a nice groove, but what happened to the chords??

 

 

Again, I think that's the same thing a lot of people said about The Beatles and most early rock. Rock has always been about 'keeping it simple'. That there have been some bands and offshoots genres that have had some success over the last few decades by making things more complex is probably more the anomoly than anything else. Rock, at it's core, is about the energy and attitude. All the extra notes and changes are often the superfluous stuff and often only of interest to other musicians. It's always going to keep coming back to the basics and that is always going to be the main source of connection with the fans.

[SeniorBlues]

Again, I think that's the same thing a lot of people said about The Beatles and most early rock. Rock has always been about 'keeping it simple'. That there have been some bands and offshoots genres that have had some success over the last few decades by making things more complex is probably more the anomoly than anything else. Rock, at it's core, is about the energy and attitude. All the extra notes and changes are often the superfluous stuff and often only of interest to other musicians. It's always going to keep coming back to the basics and that is always going to be the main source of connection with the fans.

 

 

The chord changes in the original "Ophelia" are not superfluous. They are literally an extension of the melody. I'm afraid that "keeping it simple" is often a euphemism for "dumbing down." Maybe it's an artistic choice . . . . maybe it's all they know.

 

I see no reason who energy and attitude need to be sacrificed in the pursuit of the right chord.

[Vito Corleone]

I'm afraid that "keeping it simple" is often a euphemism for "dumbing down." Maybe it's an artistic choice . . . . maybe it's all they know.

 

 

Or maybe it's part of the definition and appeal of rock and roll. Seriously...I've been listening to people with more "sophisicated" tastes tell me that a lot of the music I listen to is "dumb" and obvious played by people with lesser skills and abilities since the 60s. Why am I supposed to be believe, or be concerned, that things have changed when nothing you tell me sounds any different than what my parents complained about?

[Vito Corleone]

The chord changes in the original "Ophelia" are not superfluous. They are literally an extension of the melody.

 

 

But they still could be considered superfluous.

 

Listen to this version of "Over The Rainbow". The artist takes all sorts of liberties with the melody, chord changes and lyrics. All towards the direction of "simplification" and all in a manner that suits his personal style and a style of music that, for the most part, is more "simple" in and of itself. Does that make him more talented than others who have played this song in other version? Less so? Does he do so because of a limitation of his singing, playing and lyrical abilities? Does it matter? Or is the point that he is able to relate a great song in a style that relates to people who enjoy and respond to music of this genre and culture?

 

 

[SeniorBlues]

 

Or maybe it's part of the definition and appeal of rock and roll. Seriously...I've been listening to people with more "sophisicated" tastes tell me that a lot of the music I listen to is "dumb" and obvious played by people with lesser skills and abilities since the 60s. Why am I supposed to be believe, or be concerned, that things have changed when nothing you tell me sounds any different than what my parents complained about?

 

 

Of course your parents were right . . . at least with regard to understanding of harmony. What I'm sure we can agree on is that even moderately sophisticated harmonic understanding isn't a necessary weapon in your R&R arsenal, and I will even concede that it is often inappropriate.

 

But there are subgenres of R&R where it does sounds good . . . and I really don't think you want to try to convince me that the version of Ophelia I just uploaded is as good as the original. You could assert that a lot of people wouldn't notice . . . . . but maybe a lot of people didn't notice how bad the SYTYCD performance was either.

[SeniorBlues]

 

 

 

I like his version.

 

He takes liberties, but the result is musically cohesive. The melody and the chords work together.

[Vito Corleone]

and I really don't think you want to try to convince me that the version of Ophelia I just uploaded is as good as the original.

 

 

"Good" is subjective. I certainly won't try to convince you one version is 'better' or 'superior' to the other because ~surprise!~ the version you think is "good" is the one that appeals to your personal tastes. Are there any versions of songs that you don't particularly enjoy because of the style or genre but that you concede are BETTER than the versions played in styles YOU prefer? I would doubt it.

 

What I push back against is the assumption that anyone who might prefer the Widespread Panic version either has inferior tastes, is an inferior musician, or just doesn't care about or notice good music simply because it doesn't have the sophisticated chord changes that make another version more appealling to you.

 

Because that's the EXACT same BS I listened to from my parents who thought that because they didn't hear anything that THEY connected to in the Rolling Stones records I liked that this simpler form of music (which in many ways it was) was therefore INFERIOR to the stuff they liked (which it was not.)

[Vito Corleone]

I like his version. He takes liberties, but the result is musically cohesive. The melody and the chords work together.

 

 

 

 

But can you imagine that there are people who might not like it? Maybe because he simplified the chords so much? He didn't have to just because he playing a ukelele or doing the song in the style of Hawai'ian music. Certainly there are players of that instrument and muscians who play that style of music who could have handled an arrangement with the full original chords that are an extension of the melody.

 

But also, maybe doing so would have actually DETRACTED from how most people who enjoy Hawai'ian music relate to the music? Maybe doing so would have detracted from the way he is able to use his voice to connect to those listeners?

 

Maybe the same things could be said about the Widespread Panic version of Ophelia?

[SeniorBlues]

 

"Good" is subjective. I certainly won't try to convince you one version is 'better' or 'superior' to the other because ~surprise!~ the version you think is "good" is the one that appeals to your personal tastes. Are there any versions of songs that you don't particularly enjoy because of the style or genre but that you concede are BETTER than the versions played in styles YOU prefer? I would doubt it. What I push back against is the assumption that anyone who might prefer the Widespread Panic version either has inferior tastes, is an inferior musician, or just doesn't care about or notice good music simply because it doesn't have the sophisticated chord changes that make another version more appealling to you. Because that's the EXACT same BS I listened to from my parents who thought that because they didn't hear anything that THEY connected to in the Rolling Stones records I liked that this simpler form of music (which in many ways it was) was therefore INFERIOR to the stuff they liked (which it was not.)

 

 

Dave, what you're missing is that they simply aren't playing it very well. That's very different from not liking a song because the composition doesn't have certain attributes that you are normally attracted to. I can play and enjoy a lot of three chord R&R because it's internally consistent to my ear. Sometimes internal consistency is taste, nothing more, but sometimes you can point to something very specific and explain why something doesn't work because it violates basic rules of music theory. What amuses me is reading comments about how sloppy playing or lack of understanding of basic music form can be somehow transformed into an asset. That's some serious rationalization.

 

I'll put it another way. I seriously doubt that if WP fixed the changes that anyone would like the song less.

[Vito Corleone]

What amuses me is reading comments about how sloppy playing or lack of understanding of basic music form can be somehow transformed into an asset. That's some serious rationalization.

 

 

You mean like, The Rolling Stones?

 

Are you going to tell me that the Stones doing "Satisfaction" is somehow inferior to say, Jo Stafford doing "You Belong To Me" because the chord changes aren't as sophisticated, or because Jagger is by no means as skilled a vocalist as Stafford or because the Stones are sloppier musicians than the ones on the Stafford record?

 

Because all those things could be considered to be objectively true, but BOTH recordings are wonderful classics.

 

Or at least, are considered so by people who have an innate understanding of both styles of music.

[SeniorBlues]

 

You mean like, The Rolling Stones?

 

 

No.

 

Done.

[Roy Brooks]

Because of the many hours I have spent with The Doors studio music and the concert footage I would say first of all that Ray Manzarek has a style that doesn't match the rest of the rock players so in most cases you would be comparing apples to a very unique orange. He blended his cabaret style with jazz fusion. He's not playing soulful B-3 or southern rockabilly, or even the bland but busy classical rock styles of Wakeman or Emerson. What you will find with Manzarek is endless creativity. I still marvel at Light My Fire because he comes up with fifty different ways to play a two measure phrase.

 

 

There is nothing bland about Rick Wakeman or Keith Emerson.

[richardmac]

guido61, I've noticed two things about a lot of your participation in topics. One is that I almost always agree with you. Two is that you are almost always arguing with someone! I'll toss my two cents into this discussion.

 

I have been studying music since I was 8. As a high school student I studied piano and music theory at the Eastman School of Music, and I got a Bachelor's Degree in Music and Business (dual major) from SUNY Fredonia where I minored in Classical and Jazz Guitar. So I'm not the usual self taught rock and roller who knows 4 chords on a guitar. I gots me a edumacation in music.

 

Anyway, my take is this - the entire point of music is to have an impact on you... to make you feel something. And it can accomplish that in many different ways. I listen to a huge variety of music and very rarely do I stop to think about how complicated the chord changes in a song are, or whether it has an odd meter, or whatever. To me, music is a lot like food. Sometimes a really expensive well prepared steak is THE thing to have, but sometimes I'm in the mood for pizza. A song is the sum of its parts. I can listen to Bartok but I'd rather hear "Just What I Needed" by The Cars.

 

You can study and perform all different kinds of music and have an in depth understanding of music theory but it doesn't necessarily make you some type of expert as to what "good" music is. Listen to the opening chords of "What I Like About You" for a very good example of a sloppily plaid riff that would sound worse if it were played with 100% accuracy.

[Vito Corleone]

guido61, I've noticed two things about a lot of your participation in topics. One is that I almost always agree with you. Two is that you are almost always arguing with someone!

 

 

I appreciate that you agree with me! And I'm pretty certain my wife appreciates that I find other people to argue with!

[Vito Corleone]

What amuses me is reading comments about how sloppy playing or lack of understanding of basic music form can be somehow transformed into an asset. That's some serious rationalization.

 

 

I think a better approach would be, rather than be amused because some musicians don't apply the same subjective standards that you do to music appreciation that you instead just admit you don't "get" the appeal of many types of music---just in the same way my parents don't 'get' a lot of the stuff you and I like and understand to be "good" music---and leave it at that.

[TIMKEYS]

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?

 

 

LOL we do ophelia... good progression , it gets around.

[kurdy]

I dunno--to me the WP's "Ophelia" sounds pretty faithful to the original chords. They sped it up, and eliminated the quick little turnaround between verses, for some reason, but that's about it.

[cherri]

I always thought a "dad band" was three teenagers and one old guy, usually one of the young guys' dad's.

[wardjames]

I always thought a "dad band" was three teenagers and one old guy, usually one of the young guys' dad's.

 

 

LOL...the dad always plays bass in those bands.

[gspointer]

 

LOL...the dad always plays bass in those bands.

 

 

I have only seen one. Dad played lead and tried too hard to look young.

[Wenrealityhurts]

I guess it's been missed in 460 replies that the op is judging the playing by the musicians playing and not he quality of the music, etc...

Nice to know that your image down at the bar is really what counts...

I'll leave it at this, as a Dad that plays out...bring it, no really..let's see it...get up at that blues jam and just show us how you kill....


http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandid=1137989

[wardjames]

I have only seen one. Dad played lead and tried too hard to look young.

 

 

Actually, now that I think about it, I was in one where the girl lead singer's dad played second guitar. He'd get ripped on Tequilla, grab her mic, and start blurting out all kinds of nonsense. It was one of those bands that made me cringe at the time, but now I look at it with nothing but fond nostalgia.

[tlbonehead]

Actually, now that I think about it, I was in one where the girl lead singer's dad played second guitar. He'd get ripped on Tequilla, grab her mic, and start blurting out all kinds of nonsense. It was one of those bands that made me cringe at the time, but now I look at it with nothing but fond nostalgia.

poor girl! Did she cover her face in embarrassment?

[rangefinder]

 

I guess it's been missed in 460 replies that the op is judging the playing by the musicians playing and not he quality of the music, etc...

 

 

Actually, it WAS brought up, and as I said later, I WASN'T judging them. I was simply describing the setting. They looked just like dads (or grandpas) and weren't attempting to hide it, for better or worse. And they only played music that they grew up with. And they played to friends and family, and me, and crickets.

 

I personally enjoyed the music and the musicianship, as I have also said in this thread. But I might have enjoyed it more, and they might have kept more of the regular crowd, if they weren't stuck in a time warp. Or not. I don't particularly care any more, and would be happy to see this thread die.

[Vito Corleone]

I dunno--to me the WP's "Ophelia" sounds pretty faithful to the original chords. They sped it up, and eliminated the quick little turnaround between verses, for some reason, but that's about it.

I've never been a particularly big fan of either The Band or Widespread Panic, although I'm certainly familiar with the song. But I thought the WP version sounded fine---good song, nice delivery, solid players---not sure what there is NOT to like or why the song would be considered butchered simply because a riff or two is missing or a couple of chords have been changed.