Dad bands

[TIMKEYS]

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.

With ophelia the focus to me is not so much the riff as much as it is driving the chord progression. WP was really draggin that song bad. I will take the band over WP any day of the week.

[Vito Corleone]

With ophelia the focus to me is not so much the riff as much as it is driving the chord progression. WP was really draggin that song bad. I will take the band over WP any day of the week.

 

 

Yeah, I think that's what often happens when someone gets too familiar with one particular version of the song---other interpretations just end up sounding 'wrong' or 'bad', but for someone not intimately familiar with any particular version it is much more a six-of-one-half-a-dozen-of-the-other deal.

 

When I was a kid the Elton John version of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was a big hit. I had never heard The Beatles' version at that time, but I had certainly heard a lot of people complain that they thought the EJ version was horrible and was downright sacrilege. When I first heard The Beatles' version I couldn't believe how draggy and dredgy and dated I thought it sounded in comparison. Over the years I've learned to love that version as well, of course. And I still like the EJ version.

 

Which I presume John Lennon did as well since he played guitar and sang on it.

[TIMKEYS]

Yeah, I think that's what often happens when someone gets too familiar with one particular version of the song---other interpretations just end up sounding 'wrong' or 'bad', but for someone not intimately familiar with any particular version it is much more a six-of-one-half-a-dozen-of-the-other deal. When I was a kid the Elton John version of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was a big hit. I had never heard The Beatles' version at that time, but I had certainly heard a lot of people complain that they thought the EJ version was horrible and was downright sacrilege. When I first heard The Beatles' version I couldn't believe how draggy and dredgy and dated I thought it sounded in comparison. Over the years I've learned to love that version as well, of course. And I still like the EJ version. Which I presume John Lennon did as well since he played guitar and sang on it.

 

 

we do ophelia ,,, and the way we handle it is to drive the progression hard and speed it up a little from the band version. What killed WPs version for me was trying to play that horn section lick with guitar with the guitar player trying to sing it at the same time ,, they totally missed the important thing about the song. That song is chord progression driven, not really lick driven.

[wardjames]

poor girl! Did she cover her face in embarrassment?

 

 

Absolutely. The worst time he got so drunk that she had to call her mom up to pick her up early. We finished the last set with him making random callouts and starting off songs that no one knew the lyrics too. I wish I could've called MY MOM to pick me up early, LOL.

[pinkfloydcramer61]

I don't particularly care any more, and would be happy to see this thread die.

 

..and I will be glad to help you with that- I'm more than happy to suck the oxygen out of this godforsaken thread with my special thread-killing talents! All I have to do is post my worthless opinions (worthless because I'm not a music mogul, just someone who pushes keys down).

 

Opinion #1: The Doors were pure cheeZ, Jim Morrison was full of {censored}, and Ray Manzerak was a joke compared to any semi-famous keyboard player in the era before Flock of Seagulls. But I love them anyway- Morrison had a great voice and Manzerak's Farfisa organ fit the band perfectly (a B3 would have just been WRONG). Manzerak's "Light My Fire" intro was great but not great enough to make up for the mind-numbingly boring solo that followed. BTW I loved David's comment about listening to it while riding a merry-go-round/carousel while drunk/stoned/whatever (I'm not drunk or stoned enough to dig through the last 24+ pages just to quote it, sorry).

 

Opinion #2: It's nice (and necessary) to acknowledge a bias in favor of music from your "coming-of-age" era, but I doubt that the music still listened to 30 or 50 years from now will represent all the decades equally. Not unless there is an "affirmative action music appreciation" law in the works. There will obviously be winners and losers (decade-wise)- although this thread proves the futility of arguing which will be which. If good musicians can prefer Guns & Roses/rap/whatnot over the Beatles, ANYTHING is possible.

 

OK that should do it! Glad to be of help!

[Agitator]

That was wonderful.

[3shiftgtr]

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.

 

 

Your a pop snob. Aesthetic-o-phobe.

[Invader.CC]

I'm 44 and i'm a vocalist / part time guitar player in a rock n roll blues band we do hardly anything modern ..Now with tha said everything we play is played the way we think it should be played and not note for note original..We all make our living for 7 months out of a year doing this...

Think about it this way you where watching they where working ..New doesn't always equal good ..I also feel there is a larger market for this type music than say a metal or alternative band...We never play bars other than casino's or very large outdoor bars that hold 1200 plus people....

[Vito Corleone]

Your a pop snob. Aesthetic-o-phobe.

"Pop Snob!" I like that!

The several hundred jazz cds and lps in my music collection would indicate otherwise, but the term has a fun ring to it. Might be a good name for my next band!

[Agitator]

"Pop Snob!" I like that! The several hundred jazz cds and lps in my music collection would indicate otherwise, but the term has a fun ring to it. Might be a good name for my next band!

 

That's awesome. You could do nothing but Big Star and Nick Drake covers.

[StratGuy22]

We are an old guy band, I'm the youngest at 41. We played an opening set this weekend for a rodeo, the set list wasn't too bad. Country isn't really my forté. We were called in last minute, on Thursday for the Saturday gig. The drummers mom passed away, in the band we replaced. It was fun. Here's the setlist. I'm not a country guy, so I don't know how old any of the songs are...


1.** Fortunate Son
2.** Authority Song
3.** Something by Garth Brooks
4.** Jackson
5.** Folsom Prison Blues
6.** Green River
7.** Beer In Mexico
8.* Save a Horse
9.** Pour Me
10.*Dust on the Bottle
11.*Courage
12.* New Orleans is Sinking

And then we ended with TNT lol just to shake it ip a bit. Played from 9 until 10. Pretty decent crowd, a few dancers here and there. We were mostly the band that played, to alert everyone that a band was playing. But hey, at $150/person for one set, with only bringing our personal instruments/amps, it worked for me.

[gspointer]

I like "pour me", good song!

[tequila_titan]

I'm 48 and still play in a metal band. Does that count for something?

[Vito Corleone]

I'm 48 and still play in a metal band. Does that count for something?

 

 

Should it?

[tequila_titan]

Should it?

 

 

No.

[jwlussow]

 

I'm 48 and still play in a metal band. Does that count for something?

 

 

How's your hearing? Lots of damaged friends due to years of metal.

[tequila_titan]

How's your hearing? Lots of damaged friends due to years of metal.

 

 

Tinnitus here.

[Vito Corleone]

Tinnitus here.

 

 

Say what?

[3shiftgtr]

You are also passive aggressive as hell.

The idea behind this statement...

All the extra notes and changes are often the superfluous stuff and often only of interest to other musicians.

...would NEVER conflict with the idea behind this statement...

The several hundred jazz cds and lps in my music collection would indicate otherwise

...would it?

Of course it wouldn't! How could it? You are a reasonable man with reasonable opinions who states them reasonably.....

[Vito Corleone]

You are also passive aggressive as hell.

I won't completely deny that.

The idea behind this statement... ...would NEVER conflict with the idea behind this statement... ...would it?

No, I don't see the conflict. At least not in the contexts that I used either one.

I mean, even taking the most superficial and literal interpretation of those two statements---just the simple fact ALONE that I am a musician might likely be reason enough for me to be interested enough in extra notes and changes so as to be a fan of jazz, wouldn't it?

[kmart]

No, I don't see the conflict. At least not in the contexts that I used either one. I mean, even taking the most superficial and literal interpretation of those two statements--- just the simple fact ALONE that I am a musician might likely be reason enough for me to be interested enough in extra notes and changes so as to be a fan of jazz, wouldn't it ?

 

 

LOGIC WIN!

[3shiftgtr]

 

No, I don't see the conflict. At least not in the contexts that I used either one.

 

 

Of course not! How could you? It's YOU who is saying it! You could NEVER see the conflict.

 

 

I mean, even taking the most superficial and literal interpretation of those two statements---just the simple fact ALONE that I am a musician might likely be reason enough for me to be interested enough in extra notes and changes so as to be a fan of jazz, wouldn't it?

 

 

And even talking in the most superficial and literal interpretation of your point of view, no non musicians could EVER like musical aesthetics....only musicians.

 

So before you begin your inevitably well worded and reasonable reply, don't argue with a point that is ancillary related to the subject so as to obfuscate what is being discussed. You do that a lot.

 

You can't use context of your reply as a fallback argument every time I find a discrepancy. And there is a discrepancy within the idea that only musicians like aesthetics in music. Contextual reasoning not withstanding.

[Steverino]

[Vito Corleone]

Of course not! How could you? It's YOU who is saying it! You could NEVER see the conflict.

 

 

Well, it does help that I probably understand my own intent and context better than the readers do. While I try to be as clear as I can when posting, if I write something that seems confusing to you, just ask me to clarify and I'll do my best.

 

 

 

And even talking in the most superficial and literal interpretation of your point of view, no non musicians could EVER like musical aesthetics....only musicians.

 

 

Of course not. Which is why I was careful to use the word "often" in my original statement.

 

Funny you bring this up because I was thinking about this yesterday and thought about starting a thread on the topic and then kinda thought otherwise: but to what degree are we, as musicians, impressed by and find directly appealing the use of notes and complex-chord changes in music as opposed to non-musicians? I'm thinking about some jazz pieces that both my non-musician wife and myself enjoy. I know she doesn't understand nor appreciate complex music. And while she likes some of it, it will usually be for some indirect thing that particular piece of complex music conveys, not for the complexity itself. At most, she might notice "wow, that's a lot of notes" which might, in and of itself impress her on a superficial level, but doesn't necessarily add to her enjoyment of the music.

 

On the other hand, as a musician, I may not only appreciate the complexity of the piece, but I will also likely enjoy it on the same level she does AND (hopefully) understand and appreciate "how" the music got there.

 

I digress, but maybe that's an interesting point for discussion? Or not.

So before you begin your inevitably well worded and reasonable reply, don't argue with a point that is ancillary related to the subject so as to obfuscate what is being discussed. You do that a lot.

 

 

Wow, sorry, but I guess I just did that again. Yeah, maybe I do that a lot and I suppose that is a fault of mine. I'll work on that. Trust me, I don't really ever try to obfuscate on purpose. But being the verbose individual that I am, it's often an unfortunate side-effect, I suppose.

 

But in the meantime, I think there IS some valuable explanation contained withiin my side-track/obfuscation. I don't think ONLY musicians like aesthetics in music, but I think that is OFTEN true. And I think that many times a piece of complex music enjoyed by both musicians and non-musicians will be enjoyed for different reasons. As musicians, we're probably much more entertained by the process than non-musicians who are often only concerned with the end result.

[3shiftgtr]

Funny you bring this up because I was thinking about this yesterday and thought about starting a thread on the topic and then kinda thought otherwise: but to what degree are we, as musicians, impressed by and find directly appealing the use of notes and complex-chord changes in music as opposed to non-musicians? I digress, but maybe that's an interesting point for discussion? Or not. As musicians, we're probably much more entertained by the process than non-musicians who are often only concerned with the end result.

 

 

Whew...finally. That is the whole point...that is where the conflict in your posts stem from.

 

So to THAT point....process and craft have to have an effect, or they are just process and craft. Case in point...

 

My wife of almost 18 years, has an open mind about music but tastes of a normal person. She wants it spelled out, simple and understandable, and easy to listen to. She's a country fan....American Idol....pop tunes.....and she is not a musician in any way.

 

So on our anniversary several years back, I got us tickets to see Neil Diamond (for her) and Pat Metheny (for me).

 

Neil was great, bless his sparkly little shirts. During one ballad, Neil gave some back story and sang it with full on cheeze and I had a lump in my throat....wifey had full on tears....very effective.

 

Metheny was doing "The Way Up" tour in which the first half of the show was a semi 3rd stream 70 minute piece, with enough complicated crap to choke a horse. And after a big build up and peak 3/4 thru, as it got quiet, with chill bumps running up my back, I look over and wifey's face is red, eyes glassy, patting her chest, and she leans over and whispers in my ear "I think I just came." Spit take funny. Got some looks from the 'serious people' in the section. Point being it was very effective.

 

And in both situations craft and aesthetics WORKED TO AN END. The number and complexity of the chords was a means to an end....one need it and one didn't. And I was no more a Diamond fan as she was a Metheny fan going in. But we both walked out enjoying the experience.

 

The average person person could care less about musical aesthetics, they just want to be MOVED....and you can do it with complicated {censored} if you know what you are doing. So you can't put "technical" in a box...it is just not fair.