Playing the Standards

[DevilRaysFan]

As someone who probably has the biggest list-o-standards going, I have to vehemently disagree. Nothing about our songlist, or the way we play it is about being quick and easy. It doesn't take any more work or effort to learn a "recognizable song that is not standard" as it does a "standard". I've done scores of the former only to jettison them from the songlist in favor of standards because they don't work as well.

 

guido, as ive said earlier, I understand that your situation (showband) is a little different: You are getting paid to put asses on the dancefloor and make them happy all the way around. Showbands need songs with guarantees: you dont have the luxury to experiment...in exchange for that luxury (among other things),you make the big bucks

 

It could also be a vernacular thing too...in my area, we've done just the oppositte: We have better results with non-standards and have jettisoned the standards unless by request. Thats our niche for our area...

 

...and we are a club band that does sporadic corporate gigs/weddings...and, yes, historically (as in this band or previous ones) I get more generic the higher the function and wider the demographic: thats just common sense

[jeff42]

 

Well, it might have been a dick move in this particular situation, but is this so bad in general? I mean, as the new person in a band, you might as well tell everyone the stuff you already know, and if you get a strong set list from that, well, now there's one less thing for everyone to worry about.

 

 

I should have not been in such a hurry before and added: he wouldn't learn to play anything we had already learned. It was just his master selection of songs and that's it. he wasn't willing to learn the keys for anything we already had in place.

[SeniorBlues]

I should have not been in such a hurry before and added: he wouldn't learn to play anything we had already learned. It was just his master selection of songs and that's it. he wasn't willing to learn the keys for anything we already had in place.

 

That's extreme, of course. . . except that the opposite often happens. Keys are expected to learn the preexisting repertoire, despite the fact that it is often a band that had no keys.

 

I think it's ridiculous to assert that songs that any particular band won't consider are "B" songs. Come on folks, there are thousands of "A" songs - songs that were hits by artists everyone knows. The reason they aren't played by most bands is because they're perceived to be more difficult to learn than what they're already doing.

 

Why is it that when a song doesn't go over well, there's very little discussion about the possibility of a substandard performance of that song. Every band has things they do well, and others that just don't work very well with the talents and musical roots of the musicians in the band. Figure out what you do well.

 

If a song doesn't do well, don't blame the song.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I think it's ridiculous to assert that songs that any particular band won't consider are "B" songs. Come on folks, there are thousands of "A" songs - songs that were hits by artists everyone knows. The reason they aren't played by most bands is because they're perceived to be more difficult to learn than what they're already doing.

 

 

Some are, I suppose. Most songs that aren't played are not played because they don't work. I really can't think of that many songs that WOULD be standards except they are too hard for bands to play.

 

 

Why is it that when a song doesn't go over well, there's very little discussion about the possibility of a substandard performance of that song. Every band has things they do well, and others that just don't work very well with the talents and musical roots of the musicians in the band. Figure out what you do well.

 

 

I think MOST bands have that discussion. Pretty much every song we've ever jettisoned is only AFTER playing it at a few different gigs and making sure we have it pretty tight. But if a song isn't working after 3 or 4 shows...there's no need to beat a dead horse. Why? Because somebody in the BAND likes it? Big deal. Last time I checked, nobody in the BAND was hiring us for the gig.

 

 

If a song doesn't do well, don't blame the song.

 

 

The opposite of saying it is "all about the material" is saying the material has nothing to do with it. Of course it does. The material chosen is at LEAST as important as any other element of the band. The idea that any cover band is so {censored}ing cool that they can play ANYTHING and the crowd will love it is waaaaay to arrogant for me to even get my head around. Who are you going to blame if the crowd doesn't like a particular song? THEM? They're too stupid to get how cool your band is? Nah. I don't think you want to go THERE do you? PLEASE tell me that's not what you're trying to say, anyway.

 

It's a combination of many things. Of COURSE the song choices are important.

[Vito Corleone]

guido, as ive said earlier, I understand that your situation (showband) is a little different: You are getting paid to put asses on the dancefloor and make them happy all the way around. Showbands need songs with guarantees: you dont have the luxury to experiment...in exchange for that luxury (among other things),you make the big bucks It could also be a vernacular thing too...in my area, we've done just the oppositte: We have better results with non-standards and have jettisoned the standards unless by request. Thats our niche for our area... ...and we are a club band that does sporadic corporate gigs/weddings...and, yes, historically (as in this band or previous ones) I get more generic the higher the function and wider the demographic: thats just common sense

 

Exactly. I know you get it and appreciate your compliments and comments. My only beef with anyone on this topic is the idea that playing the standards is somehow a lazy way out of things or an indication that a band is somehow weak.

 

What I find weak is musicians who take an attitude of being somehow better than any song or audience.

[Rezrover]

Been reading this all day and... haven't you had a weekend off and wanted to hear something that hasn't been done that makes you want to rethink your set list?

 

I've seen bands that try something new that bombs and, "Hurry up and play a Journey song!" to get people back out on the dance floor but to see something that some other band took the time to stray from the path and still keep the audience captivated. That's worth it.

 

If not, might as well keep a check-list and start checking them off as the band plays.

[SeniorBlues]

 

The idea that any cover band is so {censored}ing cool that they can play ANYTHING and the crowd will love it is waaaaay to arrogant for me to even get my head around. Who are you going to blame if the crowd doesn't like a particular song? THEM? They're too stupid to get how cool your band is? Nah. I don't think you want to go THERE do you? PLEASE tell me that's not what you're trying to say, anyway. It's a combination of many things. Of COURSE the song choices are important.

 

 

Maybe the world has changed.

 

When we were in school, musicians and dancers all pretty much listened to the same stuff. The R&R catalogue was pretty small. What we liked wasn't too much different from what they liked, including deep album cuts from well known groups - Beatles, Hendrix, Chicago, etc. Then I went out on the road and got turned on to a much broader spectrum of musicians and musical styles. We picked songs we liked, but it was still more about what we thought we could play well. "Cool" is an effect you're trying to project - that's not what this is about, Dave.

 

It's about people's overall impression of the band, not about over-analyzing how well or how poorly a song goes over. We never had a discussion about dropping a song because it wasn't going over in any band I played with. That's my experience. And much of it was at show venues, not local bars.

[Rezrover]

 

Exactly. I know you get it and appreciate your compliments and comments. My only beef with anyone on this topic is the idea that playing the standards is somehow a lazy way out of things or an indication that a band is somehow weak. What I find weak is musicians who take an attitude of being somehow better than any song or audience.

 

 

Don't know about weak but if it's such a standard but; how are you not a shadow of some other band? There's always someone there going to say that "they" do it better.

[DevilRaysFan]

Maybe the world has changed. When we were in school, musicians and dancers all pretty much listened to the same stuff. The R&R catalogue was pretty small. What we liked wasn't too much different from what they liked, including deep album cuts from well known groups - Beatles, Hendrix, Chicago, etc. Then I went out on the road and got turned on to a much broader spectrum of musicians and musical styles. We picked songs we liked, but it was still more about what we thought we could play well. "Cool" is an effect you're trying to project - that's not what this is about, Dave. It's about people's overall impression of the band, not about over-analyzing how well or how poorly a song goes over. We never had a discussion about dropping a song because it wasn't going over in any band I played with. That's my experience. And much of it was at show venues, not local bars.

 

 

Back then, bands all sounded different: Boston didnt sound like ELO, ELO didnt sound like Queen, Queen didnt sound like Fleetwood Mac, etc...and they were all under one category in the Record Store: "Rock"....because of this, it wasnt uncommon for both a 16 year old and 40 year old to own the same Fleetwood Mac record. This became real apparent in the 80s when REO Speedwagon, Kool & The Gang, Lionel Ritchie, and Toto were all selling records to both teenagers and seniors alike...This fact made the job of "Cover Band Musician" easier to handle

 

Fastforward to nowadays: theres a billion different "genres" and "subgenres", and most are trying to funnel down to streamlined subset target audiences. The funny part is how many of these bands sound similar (some even clones of another band) but all priding themselves about how different they are because of minute inconsequential differences. If the singer passes gas in the vocal booth, somehow this band is now the inventor of a whole new genre called "Grind Emo Stink Core" (because you cant be a legitimate sub-genre unless you have "-core" as a suffix)

[SpaceNorman]

If a song doesn't do well, don't blame the song.

 

 

Why does anything need to to be blamed? If a song ain't working for ya ... don't waste time blaming anything. Don't beat yourself and/or your bandmates up over it. Don't squander your time and energy trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. Move on and find one that

does

work! There's millions to choose from!

 

[Vito Corleone]

 

It's about people's overall impression of the band, not about over-analyzing how well or how poorly a song goes over.

 

 

And you don't think it affects people's overall impression of a the band if a song goes over poorly?

 

 

 

We never had a discussion about dropping a song because it wasn't going over in any band I played with.

 

 

You would just continue to play songs that didn't go over and not discuss it??

 

I had no idea such bands even EXISTED. Why on earth would a band want to be so disconnected from their audience?

[Vito Corleone]

 

Don't know about weak but if it's such a standard but; how are you not a shadow of some other band? There's always someone there going to say that "they" do it better.

 

 

Is THAT what this is about? Being afraid to play the same songs as someone else? Competition?

[DevilRaysFan]

'm not buying the "...they're perceived to be more difficult to learn..." thing. The average band has a total playlist of what .. 100 active songs? ... all of which were picked out of the thousands of possible songs. Tunes get selected for the playlist on a wide variety of rationales - and bands agonize over their choices doing what they feel is best for them at the time. Citing a single "the reason" scenario grossly over-simplifies the decision making process.

 

I disagree to some extent - at least in my area and my observations over the years (even in other areas). There are many bands and musicians that I can think of personally that are apathetic.... As you said, there is no one "the reason" but this one is a big one............

 

also, our active list has well over 400 songs

[SeniorBlues]

 

And you don't think it affects people's overall impression of a the band if a song goes over poorly? You would just continue to play songs that didn't go over and not discuss it?? I had no idea such bands even EXISTED. Why on earth would a band want to be so disconnected from their audience?

 

 

 

This thread was really starting to bug me, but from my perspective at least, we're starting to get back on track. It's easy to forget that different circuits and different eras have different views about what makes a good band. Back in the school days, everybody seemed to dance to everything, even if the band was mediocre. I remember playing the Stones' "Last Time" and it sounded terrible, yet they never missed a step.

 

The road band I keep referring to was a different kettle of fish. Most rooms had a three dance set / two show set format. In 1970, we made about $250-275 per week, which is roughly $1500 in today's dollars. People came to see and hear the band, not just dance to it. Packing the floor all night wasn't necessarily the objective. So we didn't use that as the primary measuring stick to determine whether or not a song was a success or a failure. We relied on our own musical intelligence.

 

. . . . that and the size of the crowd at the end of the two weeks . . . . and whether or not your agent was able to book you there again.

[SeniorBlues]

 

I disagree to some extent - at least in my area and my observations over the years (even in other areas). There are many bands and musicians that I can think of personally that are apathetic.... As you said, there is no one "the reason" but this one is a big one............

 

 

A lot of guys are subconsciously trying to recreate their last successful band.

 

Most set lists at least start out by adopting the songs that the lead singer knows. The bands that I enjoyed the most (and which were the most successful) started their set lists pretty much from scratch. I understand that in this gigging climate, where so many guys have several bands going in order to fill up their calendar, and day gigs and family obligations compete, that's not practical.

[maxnew40]

 

Been reading this all day and... haven't you had a weekend off and wanted to hear something that hasn't been done that makes you want to rethink your set list? I've seen bands that try something new that bombs and, "Hurry up and play a Journey song!" to get people back out on the dance floor but to see something that some other band took the time to stray from the path and still keep the audience captivated. That's worth it. If not, might as well keep a check-list and start checking them off as the band plays.

 

 

I would enjoy that, but I am a musician and I listen to stuff different than a non-musician. That kind of thing would not be all that special to the average person. There are not enough musicians to attend my gigs to make that kind of thing a paying proposition.

 

I would be happy to hear a band play nothing buth Steely Dan and Frank Zappa. Being a musicina I can really dig that stuff. However I would be digging that stuff with a total of about 5 other people, mosl likely other musicians.

 

Max

[Vito Corleone]

 

It's easy to forget that different circuits and different eras have different views about what makes a good band. Back in the school days, everybody seemed to dance to everything, even if the band was mediocre. I remember playing the Stones' "Last Time" and it sounded terrible, yet they never missed a step. The road band I keep referring to was a different kettle of fish. Most rooms had a three dance set / two show set format. In 1970....

 

 

Well, that was 40 years ago. I agree that differences in circuits and genres and audiences is important to consider. But different ERAS?

 

It's nice to reminicse about the 'good old days' once in a while I suppose, but doesn't really have much relevance when trying to keep a good band working TODAY, does it?

[Vito Corleone]

 

I would be happy to hear a band play nothing buth Steely Dan and Frank Zappa. Being a musicina I can really dig that stuff. However I would be digging that stuff with a total of about 5 other people, mosl likely other musicians.

 

 

A good friend of mine (and former bass player of mine) put together a Steely Dan tribute band a few years ago. He struggles to keep the band together and keep them working---he ends up using a lot of fill in musicians and Steely Dan isn't the easiest stuff to just 'sit in' on-- but he gets a handfull of good gigs--about 12-18 a year. What he calls the "wine and cheese circuit". It's a 9-piece band and by the time he gets done paying everybody there's not a lot of cash left. A lot of times he doesn't even pay himself. Seems like a lot more trouble than it is worth to me, and he seems frustrated a lot, but he keeps going with it.

 

As much as I love Steely Dan I think even I would get tired of that being the ONLY music I played. But everybody's got a different motivation.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Back then, bands all sounded different: Boston didnt sound like ELO, ELO didnt sound like Queen, Queen didnt sound like Fleetwood Mac, etc...and they were all under one category in the Record Store: "Rock"....because of this, it wasnt uncommon for both a 16 year old and 40 year old to own the same Fleetwood Mac record. This became real apparent in the 80s when REO Speedwagon, Kool & The Gang, Lionel Ritchie, and Toto were all selling records to both teenagers and seniors alike...This fact made the job of "Cover Band Musician" easier to handle

 

 

I dunno. I remember the 70s and 80s differently and when I was 16 there weren't a whole lot of people over 40, let alone seniors, listening to the same music I was listening to.

[tucktronix]

I'm sympathetic. Scrap those Skynrd, ZZ Top songs.

 

I guess Skynyrd's former keyboardist, Billy Powell didn't exist, eh??

[TrickyBoy]

Reading through this thread, it seems that once again we are getting into a big semantics debate - this time it's "well known" or "recognizable" song vs. "standard". I don't know if we play "well-known" songs or "standards". Personally, I don't care. We played a charity gig last night, I don't have a setlist handy, but some of the songs we played were:

 

I Want You To Want Me

Boys of Summer

Jenny Jenny

Sweet Child O Mine

Your Love

Jesse's Girl

Chicken Fried

Hey Soul Sister

Teenage Dream

Airplanes

What I Got

Santeria

Play That Funky Music

Semi Charmed Life

 

IDK, Standards??? Well Known???

[Vito Corleone]

 

We played a charity gig last night, I don't have a setlist handy, but some of the songs we played were:

 

 

What?? No National Anthem??

 

Oops...wrong thread...

 

But yeah, this thread has gone off on a few tangents, most notably driven by our good friend in the bathrobe.

 

My initial intent was to have a discussion about the idea that songs that are tired for us musicians aren't nearly as tired for the audience. Which I still think is a very valid point for us to consider when determining whether a song is overplayed or not.

[DevilRaysFan]

 

Reading through this thread, it seems that once again we are getting into a big semantics debate - this time it's "well known" or "recognizable" song vs. "standard". I don't know if we play "well-known" songs or "standards". Personally, I don't care. We played a charity gig last night, I don't have a setlist handy, but some of the songs we played were: I Want You To Want Me Boys of Summer Jenny Jenny Sweet Child O Mine Your Love Jesse's Girl Chicken Fried Hey Soul Sister Teenage Dream Airplanes What I Got Santeria Play That Funky Music Semi Charmed Life IDK, Standards??? Well Known???

 

 

LOL - its not semantics - the term "standard" in reference to songs by bands has been around longer than Ive been alive

 

Standards - are songs generally played by many bands and - more often than not - can be found on many bands setlists. These days, standard songs include "Mustang Sally", "Brown Eyed Girl", etc......

 

Well Known - are songs that are just plain ol well known or popular, many of which are not covered by bands

 

In your list above, "Play That Funky Music" is a standard.

"Semi-Charmed Life" is not a standard

 

When I get hired as a sub and the person hiring tells me that the band plays mostly standards, I right away know that Im in for a night of "Margaritaville, Mustang Sally, Keep Your Hands To Yourself, Play That Funky Music, Wonderful Tonight, etc ad nauseum..."

[Vito Corleone]

 

LOL - its not semantics - the term "standard" in reference to songs by bands has been around longer than Ive been alive

 

 

So it's just an age thing determined by YOUR date of birth? :poke:

 

 

It DOES come down to semantics at some point. I don't think a song has to be 40 years old to be a standard. And I think for the point of this discussion we're mostly talking about the reviled "songs that every other band plays" aren't we? Which, while they might not stick around long enough to officially become 'standards', certainly TODAY that list includes songs like "Semi-Charmed Life" and "I Gotta Feeling".

[wades_keys]

IN football, a halfback draw is a halfback draw. The wildcat is the wildcat. Shotgun plays, slants, fades....standard plays.

 

The difference is in attitude and execution.

 

Why get hung up on the "play book", while ignoring attitude and execution?

 

I don't get it: this focus on setlist. I'm with Lee Knight on this one: focus on being great. I for one strive to play with cheerful abandon; music has been a blessing for me - it's not a struggle, it's a blessing. It's fun - so I'm going to have fun and I want everyone else to have fun too.

 

To hell with all this anal retentive bs - THAT'S what makes bands suck: apathy and/or anal-retentive attention to detail. Screw that.