Jump to content

Last night I was asked "How can you live with yourself?"


jeff42

Recommended Posts

  • Members
My objection is not in the dressing up. It's in mixing "comedy" with music.



Frank zappa did it. :poke: I like Frank.


showing your tits is the height of entertainment for drunk people too.



that's the part I like! :lol:

The other bands posted seem to mix comedy in and do well. I'm cool with it all actually. uber serious to utterly silly. If I like it, it's cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 209
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Isn't that what you are doing when you call people who hate shtick "sad little elitists"? Aren't you being a "shtick elitist'?

 

 

No, I'm being an attitude elitist. As I've said here a couple of times already, my problem with Jeff's friend isn't that he THOUGHT "how can you live with yourself?" it's that he chose to SAY it. IMO, it wasn't about JEFF, it was about HIM.

 

Like I said, I might be more APT to say that to a guy working at 7-11, but I never actually WOULD. I've never put down whatever gig ANYBODY is doing, unless maybe if it was illegal. You do what you gotta/wanna do in life. It might not be a path I would personally choose, but I'd never put down another person for theirs. And CERTAINLY not a friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Frank zappa did it. :poke: I like Frank.


But we are not a comedy act.
:idk:



Frank wasn't a dance band with yucks. His humor was groudbreaking. From bottom of the rung potty humor to very enlightened insightful commentary. Is that what you guys are doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

...my problem with Jeff's friend isn't that he THOUGHT "how can you live with yourself?" it's that he chose to SAY it. IMO, it wasn't about JEFF, it was about HIM.

 

 

^^^I agree with this. The reason I'm saying this, and I never would, face to face, to a guy doing it out, the reason I'm making my point, is because I see too many people going there and I'm hoping the trend doesn't continue. I'm going on record. I'm 51 and bemoaning the state of things.

 

I like Lada Gaga. I like Bowie, Alice Cooper, Mott, T. Rex, Elton, Fee Wyabil and Tubes, Rob Halford, Marilyn Manson. That is cool. That is art.

 

Puttin a lamp shade on your head and getting drunks to laugh so you can continue gigging, is not art. It's showing your tits and getting tips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Dave, it's interesting to me that you chose a 7-11 gig as the alternative. Would you feel any differently if his non-musical gig was a doctor, CEO . . . . or piano technician? FWIW, all but one of the guys I used to play with in my last two bands prior to my "retiring" continued to play as a career. I think they can make a better case for doing shtick because it's their primary source of income, whereas most of us don't need the money. . . . or at least that's your claim.


Now if you're claiming to do shtick because you genuinely enjoy doing it, that's fine - I can be a bit of a ham myself - but 3shiftgear is right to point out that if you put the music first - surely you accept that that as a reasonable attitude - then you have to concede that shtick may not compliment your musical aspirations.

 

 

Couple of different things here: 1) I chose 7-11 because it's a "do it for extra cash" sort of gig, not really a career. Which is much more analoguous to what Jeff does with his band. Obviously being a doctor isn't a side gig. 2) I don't really consider what I do to be a "schtick" band. Sure, we implement a few show gimmicks into our set and get the audience involved, but we're not a hats-and-wigs act. We most CERTAINLY put our music first and I'm very proud with how well we play and sing and how good we sound first and foremost. If you don't put the music first, you've got nothing to build your show upon.

 

And as I've said many times, you're free to think whatever you want to think about what I do, but I do it because I ENJOY it, first and foremost. There isn't anything we play or do that I don't enjoy doing. What we do is all geared towards pleasing the audience, but that's what I enjoy doing. It's no fun for me at all to play much of anything that the audience isn't digging. And the more they dig it, the more I enjoy playing it. That's why I do it in public rather than just sit at home and do it. I also enjoy being paid well for doing it because A) it's a measure of success and B) I like money. So getting a decent paycheck at the end of the night is very enjoyable to me as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

People are wired differently. What's the big deal? If I am in a cover band, I don't really care what I play. I'm much more concerned with how the vibe is among the band, i.e. is everyone capable of having a good working relationship without all the drama.

The older I get, the more inclined I am becoming to following what I want to do and what got me started in this entire mess when I was 13-14. Not everyone came up in the rockstar, life of the party thing. I was more inspired by musicians who I felt were genuine in what they are playing. To me it came across in a way that scrapped off all the BS and got right to the core. I wanted to rock, I didn't want to play what I considered cheesy pop songs.

It's just the way I approach it. It could be different than you. Jeff's friend may have different goals than Jeff. I read most of the post in this thread and I didn't see anyone say anything about the fact Jeff's friend came out to support live music, told Jeff his band sounded good, and told Jeff he was an awesome drummer. So, his buddy wouldn't want to play Lady Gaga. Is that really more important than the fact he came out to see live music and complimented Jeff and his band on their performance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Frank wasn't a dance band with yucks. His humor was groudbreaking. From bottom of the rung potty humor to very enlightened insightful commentary. Is that what you guys are doing?



hahaha. No , no one has ever come close to Frank IMO. But some people don't "get" him either. Some people just think he is stoopid.

What we do is play fun dancable songs from every genre. We pop a wig on for a few. Our crowd likes it and we do too. We also are very careful not to take it too far and we decide what too far is.

To copy and paste from another post: I'm very proud with how well we play and sing and how good we sound first and foremost- I feel the same way.

Some other musicians may not want to take the stage in anything other than jeans and a tshirt and would never put a silly hat on. That's cool with me. As long as the band is good and entertaining that's all that matters. Like everyone always discusses here. there are MANY ways to do it and they are all right.

Some guy giving me {censored} about the songs I play, that's not OK with me and that is what this was about. Yeah the wig didn't help my discussion with him but it was the pop music we were playing that really got him since that's all we do. To him I should have been ripping into Peace Sells But Who's Buying or at least Holy Diver.
:thu:

I think Kerry King from Slayer wearing an afro wig would take away from the awesomeness that is contained in their song Angel Of Death. But if Slayer was playing Shake Your Booty I'm ok with them wearing afro wigs... plus Slayer playing disco would be MIND BLOWING TOO! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And regarding Elton... that silliness worked because he was so
great!
Juxtaposition. Wit. Irony. Contrast. Like Einstein's hair or Dali's mustache.

 

 

Hmmm, I dunno. I was a HUGE Elton fan as a kid, but I never saw his silly wardrobe as wit or irony. Simply him just trying to be over-the-top and outrageous and showy in the glam era. As a kid who loved his music, I was actually a bit put-off by the costumes. I got into the Tumbleweed/Madman-era Elton. All the "Captain Fantastic" persona stuff was just silly to me. Then later he 'came out' and it all made more sense, I suppose.

 

But I loved it with Alice Cooper and Bowie. Maybe it was because that's how I first knew those artists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

We most CERTAINLY put our music first and I'm very proud with how well we play and sing and how good we sound first and foremost.


What we do is all geared towards pleasing the audience, but that's what I enjoy doing.


I also enjoy being paid well for doing it because A) it's a measure of success and B) I like money. So getting a decent paycheck at the end of the night is very enjoyable to me as well.

 

 

This has been your mantra seems like several times a day ever since I've joined this forum. How you manage to keep both of the first two items solidly in first place is quite a feat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Hmmm, I dunno. I was a HUGE Elton fan as a kid, but I never saw his silly wardrobe as wit or irony.

 

 

We agree. I never bought into it either. But he's gay. I'm not. His sensibility is sort of pushing that "fabulous darling" aesthetic into the way-too-much realm. Like I said, I didn't' like it either, but I get the context. A lot of people like Bette Midler and Wayne Newton and Liberace. I didn't for those same reasons.

 

I think it was Elton's way of coming out big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

hahaha. No , no one has ever come close to Frank IMO. But some people don't "get" him either. Some people just think he is stoopid.

 

 

I read a critique of Zappa once years ago that I found to be somewhat true and interesting: this reviewer was noting that while pretty much every other artist is someone that people get into at a certain age and then they continue to grow with as the artist and the listener both age, that Zappa is someone that people get into when they are 18 and whatever-album he released then is that listeners 'favorite'. That Zappa never matured but instead always maintained that same immature humor/social commentary balance throughout his career that is very appealing to boys of a certain age.

 

I certainly know that was true for me. I was about 18 when I got into Zappa with "Joe's Garage" and love that album and the few right before and after it. And although I know that his earlier stuff is mostly what is regarded as his "classic" work, I just never really developed more than a passing taste for most of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
This has been your mantra seems like several times a day ever since I've joined this forum.



Sorry to be repetitive, but the subject seems to keep coming up and needing to be addressed, at it did in your prior post to me.

How you manage to keep both of the first two items solidly in first place is quite a feat.




:lol: Not sure if that was intended as a compliment or as a back-handed insult, but since I can't fully decipher the intent, I'll assume the former and thank you very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We agree. I never bought into it either. But he's gay. I'm not. His sensibility is sort of pushing that "fabulous darling" aesthetic into the way-too-much realm. Like I said, I didn't' like it either, but I get the context. A lot of people like Bette Midler and Wayne Newton and Liberace. I didn't for those same reasons.


I think it was Elton's way of coming out big time.

 

 

Yes. In retrospect that is certainly what it all was. But at the time, I just didn't much get it. Such a contrast to the Bernie Taupin lyrics that I enjoyed so much that never really seemed to gell. He has gone out of his way to make clear many times in the years since that the lyrics were Bernie's stories and not his. (With the exception of the two "Captain Fantastic" albums where Bernie WAS writing from Elton's perspective.) I guess it's a measure of Elton's talent that he was able to sing all those lyrics so convincingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

this reviewer was noting that while pretty much every other artist is someone that people get into at a certain age and then they continue to grow with as the artist and the listener both age, that Zappa is someone that people get into when they are 18 and whatever-album he released then is that listeners 'favorite'. .

 

 

Don't know how old the reviewer is, but I was 18 when I first heard "Freak Out". Didn't care for it. I had a bit more education when I heard "Hot Rats", which continues to be my favorite, even though it appears to be his least popular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are so many different ways to entertain and that's the bottom line isn't it? Entertaining?

Country is different than metal, jazz is different than bluegrass, folk is different than hip-hop. They are all presented differently and even bands of each genre present themselves differently. its all good to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As far as Zappa goes when I first heard him I didn't get it... Sometime in the mid 90s he clicked with me and I "got it." some of his stuff I love more than others but I resepct it all. If someone doesn't get him, I understand cuz I didn't at first. I would also ask that person to give it another chance.

I am the same way with all music lately. There are some people who say, hip-hop- BLAHHH! That's crap! Or Thrash Metal UUGGGH! Noise! We'll look deeper you may find something you like. A whole vast genre of music can't be all bad can it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

There are so many different ways to entertain and that's the bottom line isn't it? Entertaining?

 

 

Not necessarily. Consider it's origins . . . beating drums around a fire. Singing in church. . . .

 

and it really is fun to play alone (depends on your choice of instruments, I guess) or with a few other musicians just for your mutual enjoyment. That's entertainment after a fashion, but the idea that we should all be about music that caters to people, many of whom aren't even listening, seems sort of bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It seems to me that people who look down on cover bands with gimmicks tend to be the same people who will talk about their music as Art, which it certainly can be, but taking that view ignores the important distinction between the art of song creation and the craft (even, sometimes, art) of performing. Real art is about communicating to an audience. You can write the greatest song ever but if you don't find some way to get it into the ears of people, then it's not going to be effective art.

 

For certain kinds of music, wigs and costumes work well. For other music, not so much. But if gimmicks like that wouldn't work to convey some bedroom genius' profound concepts, all that means is he needs to come up with something that WILL work, or else it's still an art fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Not necessarily. Consider it's origins . . . beating drums around a fire. Singing in church. . . .


and it really is fun to play alone (depends on your choice of instruments, I guess) or with a few other musicians just for your mutual enjoyment. That's entertainment after a fashion, but the idea that we should all be about music that caters to people, many of whom aren't even listening, seems sort of bizarre.

 

 

IMO I am still entertaining, even if it is just myself. I know I get enjoyment out of playing my drums in my home studio. Or when me and a few metal heads get together and bang out Iron Maiden's Piece Of Mind from start to finish... (those were the days. Haven't done that in years) :sigh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

It seems to me that people who look down on cover bands with gimmicks tend to be the same people who will talk about their music as Art, which it certainly can be, but taking that view ignores the important distinction between the art of song creation and the craft (even, sometimes, art) of performing. Real art is about communicating to an audience. You can write the greatest song ever but if you don't find some way to get it into the ears of people, then it's not going to be effective art.


For certain kinds of music, wigs and costumes work well. For other music, not so much. But if gimmicks like that wouldn't work to convey some bedroom genius' profound concepts, all that means is he needs to come up with something that WILL work, or else it's still an art fail.

 

 

If you're suggesting that music isn't art unless you go public, I disagree. Nor do I agree that the bar for the artistic output should be much higher (genius??) just because you're not currently looking for a vehicle to put it out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have a question for you older guys... did you like the premier pop bands of the day when you were a teenager? When I was a teen the big pop acts were stuff like Hanson, N'Sync, Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, Marilyn Manson, Limp Biscuit, Korn, etc. I disliked it and the only inspiration I found in any of it was I wanted to crush it.

Now, I realize there's not much point in given any attention to things you don't like. What's the point? I couldn't tell you a Lady Gaga song from a Katy Perry song, but if I heard them I am sure I would recognize them. I probably wouldn't go see a band play that stuff either unless I was friends with one of the guys in the band. It's not a big deal. I want it that way. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...