Jump to content

Your Band's IMAGE. What works, what does'nt?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

That's kind of a bogus argument, since I wouldn't have had to mention anything about it at all if you hadn't chimed in with your smarmy "isn't it ironic" comment.
:rolleyes:

 

Sorry if you found it smarmy, but it made the point. It's completely silly to deride the need for a band to focus on how they dress and then talk about how much you admire The Ramones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I know you don't. That's been apparent pretty much from the beginning.

 

The problem isn't that I don't see the difference. I do. And I've spoken much about it.

 

The problem is you haven't yet given even the slightest indication that you see the similarities.:wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No, it caught on because people were sick of self-indulgent country crap rock like hotel california. Way to have some insight into the culture, though.
:rolleyes:
"punk only caught on because you didn't have to be good to cover it." Like the idea of starting a punk band was to cover other punk bands. That would be the surest way not to be punk.

 

 

The truth of the matter is that a song like hotel california was so far above the majority of cover bands in skillsets that it took to cover it that people made up excuses like you are doing to try to hide from the reality that no way could they handle a song like HC. You had to be a real muscian and have multiple singers to cover eagles and do it right. Good cover bands from the late 60s had those skillsets ,, but they also had vietnam and most of them got out of bands to go to college. Alot of things fed into the punk deal ,,, but poor skill sets were the biggie. The only place where you see those tough to cover skillsets today is in modern country.

 

Face it , a band with a single screamer singer isnt a very good band. Never has been and never will be. You can dress up like a freak show and it wont change anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Sorry if you found it smarmy, but it made the point. It's completely silly to deride the need for a band to focus on how they dress and then talk about how much you admire The Ramones.

 

 

I never talked about "how much I admired the Ramones." You jumped at me with your smarmy irony comment and then just couldn't let it go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The truth of the matter is that a song like hotel california was so far above the majority of cover bands in skillsets that it took to cover it that people made up excuses like you are doing to try to hide from the reality that no way could they handle a song like HC. You had to be a real muscian and have multiple singers to cover eagles and do it right. Good cover bands from the late 60s had those skillsets ,, but they also had vietnam and most of them got out of bands to go to college. Alot of things fed into the punk deal ,,, but poor skill sets were the biggie. The only place where you see those tough to cover skillsets today is in modern country.


Face it , a band with a single screamer singer isnt a very good band. Never has been and never will be. You can dress up like a freak show and it wont change anything.

 

That sounds more like Led Zeppelin than the Ramones. :cop:

 

And elitist attitudes like yours are a good reason why punk emerged. I guess Buddy Holly sucked, too, because he only played 3 chords and a couple of note leads and was "easy to cover." Give it a rest. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That sounds more like Led Zeppelin than the Ramones.
:cop:

And elitist attitudes like yours are a good reason why punk emerged. I guess Buddy Holly sucked, too, because he only played 3 chords and a couple of note leads and was "easy to cover." Give it a rest.
:rolleyes:

 

Buddy Holly was a roots rocker from way back no doubt before you were born. The bar got raised pretty damb high in the late 60s into the 70s as far as skillsets. I dont have an elitist attitude ,, i played in bands with people who could handle hard vocals. The guys I play with now can handle hard vocals. But then they are all old guys. Freekin ramones was like the stuff I got paid to play when i was 15 ....by 18 were were covering blood sweat and tears and sam and dave. I have always been lucky enough to play with quite good musicans. I was out the band thing for years.... and when I got back in ,, i was able to hook up with some great players and singers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Saying everyone in the band has to wear dockers so the douche at TGIF or wherever will give you a gig is a completely different mentality. Pretty much the opposite mentality, in fact (in my opinion).

 

 

Actually the identical mentality, except it was to fit in at CBGB's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Buddy Holly was a roots rocker from way back no doubt before you were born. The bar got raised pretty damb high in the late 60s into the 70s as far as skillsets. I dont have an elitist attitude ,, i played in bands with people who could handle hard vocals. The guys I play with now can handle hard vocals. But then they are all old guys. Freekin ramones was like the stuff I got paid to play when i was 15 ....by 18 were were covering blood sweat and tears and sam and dave. I have always been lucky enough to play with quite good musicans. I was out the band thing for years.... and when I got back in ,, i was able to hook up with some great players and singers.

 

 

The Ramones stuff was a whole lot more like Buddy Holly than the Eagles were. Saying it "took off" only because it was "easy to cover" is pretty much the definition of elitism. But whatever - this discussion is way off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The Ramones stuff was a whole lot more like Buddy Holly than the Eagles were. Saying it "took off" only because it was "easy to cover" is pretty much the definition of elitism. But whatever - this discussion is way off topic.

 

 

 

What ever ,, we have hotel californa on our set list ,, because we can cover it. Most guys dont have it on theirs because they cant. No shame in that ,, you fit the set list to the band. We do alot of easy stuff too. Not eliteist ,,, we do what our crowd likes to hear. Its an older crowd and they like eagles. we are an older band. we grew up on vocal and rhythm section driven music. You prolly grew up on guitar lead based music. Things took a big shift after hendrix and cream. The crossover country was big when my generation was in college. that stuff had it all ,, rhythm driven , guitar driven and vocal driven. It was prolly the most complex stuff to come along besides jazz rock in the late 60s. Its all rock and roll. Nothing complex about johnny cash but we do alot of it ...we do willie too. he is a little more tricky when it comes to chord progressions. play what your people like and you will be fine. Our crowd would barf on ramones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Right, because everyone at CBGBs were wearing leather jackets and chuck taylors!

 

 

The intent and the result (when done right) is the same at all levels. You earlier made a snide remark about my band's "all neutrals with a splash of uniform color" dress, but the idea there is the same as The Ramones all wearing leather jackets and chuck taylors. No, not everybody at CBGBs was wearing those. And not everybody at the venues we play wear all neutrals with a splash of color. We're not trying to look JUST LIKE everyone else at the places we play---we're trying to fit in with the attitude and vibe of the venue while still standing out as being "the band" without overdoing it or looking hokey.

 

Pretty much the exact same thing The Ramones were doing for the exact same reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What ever ,, we have hotel californa on our set list ,, because we can cover it. Most guys dont have it on theirs because they cant. No shame in that ,, you fit the set list to the band. We do alot of easy stuff too. Not eliteist ,,, we do what our crowd likes to hear. Its an older crowd and they like eagles. we are an older band.

 

Nothing wrong with that. Play whatever you want. I was only making the point that you were slagging on the Ramones saying they were "hacks," and that they only made it because "they were easy to cover," and all your other elitist attitudes trying to equate "hard to play" with "has more musical value."

 

It would be just as legitimate to come at it from a different set of criteria and slag on the Eagles because their songs weren't as much like Buddy Holly/roots rock as the Ramones were. "The Eagles only caught on because people at the time wanted to hear country {censored} and didn't know what real rock and roll was. They were in the right place at the right time and just got lucky that people were so ignorant about rock and roll." :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The intent and the result (when done right) is the same at all levels. You earlier made a snide remark about my band's "all neutrals with a splash of uniform color" dress, but the idea there is the same as The Ramones all wearing leather jackets and chuck taylors. No, not everybody at CBGBs was wearing those. And not everybody at the venues we play wear all neutrals with a splash of color. We're not trying to look JUST LIKE everyone else at the places we play---we're trying to fit in with the attitude and vibe of the venue while still standing out as being "the band" without overdoing it or looking hokey.


Pretty much the exact same thing The Ramones were doing for the exact same reason.

 

Not really. But just keep believing that if it makes you feel better. :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Nothing wrong with that. Play whatever you want. I was only making the point that you were slagging on the Ramones saying they were "hacks," and that they only made it because "they were easy to cover," and all your other elitist attitudes trying to equate "hard to play" with "has more musical value."


It would be just as legitimate to come at it from a different set of criteria and slag on the Eagles because their songs weren't as much like Buddy Holly/roots rock as the Ramones were. "The Eagles only caught on because people at the time wanted to hear country {censored} and didn't know what real rock and roll was. They were in the right place at the right time and just got lucky that people were so ignorant about rock and roll."
:lol:

 

 

I still think they were hacks..... they sounded like a 50 dollar a night garage band from the 60s,, which was pretty sad considering it was mid 70s when they came out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I still think they were hacks..... they sounded like a 50 dollar a night garage band from the 60s,, which was pretty sad considering it was mid 70s when they came out.

 

 

Wow. Okay. Yeah, it's pretty sad to influence an entire generation of music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Not really. But just keep believing that if it makes you feel better.
:thu:

 

Yes. Really. Again, while I've commented much on your argument about the "differences" you haven't even made so much as a single comment to indicate you even UNDERSTAND the similarities. Hell, you won't even acknowledge that I keep asking you to address the topic of the SIMILARITIES as if ignoring the question is the same as refuting the argument.

 

The truth is how a band dresses CAN and DOES affect their image and their resulting popularity at ALL levels of playing and performing.

 

Unless you can provide a reasonable argument as to why it does NOT, than your assertion that the "difference" between The Ramones and a modern cover band is the reason why dress is important for one and not the other is completely without merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Wow. Okay. Yeah, it's pretty sad to influence an entire generation of music.

 

 

 

Well like I said ,, it was easy to cover. The low hanging fruit is easy to pick. it did influence alot of bands. Just because it was popular doesnt make it somthing that it wasnt. It was very low skill level rock and roll. Nothing wrong with it. we play alot of low skill level stuff and people love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes. Really. Again, while I've commented much on your argument about the "differences" you haven't even made so much as a single comment to indicate you even UNDERSTAND the similarities. Hell, you won't even acknowledge that I keep asking you to address the topic of the SIMILARITIES as if ignoring the question is the same as refuting the argument.


The truth is how a band dresses CAN and DOES affect their image and their resulting popularity at ALL levels of playing and performing.


Unless you can provide a reasonable argument as to why it does NOT, than your assertion that the "difference" between The Ramones and a modern cover band is the reason why dress is important for one and not the other is completely without merit.

 

Have fun with all your straw men. I never said half of what you claim. My comments merely were about the reasons people were doing what they do. One reason, like what the Ramones did, was to reflect their music visually and to have cultural cred; the other usual reason is to conform to mainstream/corporate ideas about "looking 'nice'" and all that kind of crap. The "no cargo shorts" mentality.

 

If wearing dockers and polo shirts visually represents your music, then by all means, knock yourself out. It's probably not a show that I would be interested in seeing, but that shouldn't matter to you.

 

:wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Well like I said ,, it was easy to cover. The low hanging fruit is easy to pick. it did influence alot of bands. Just because it was popular doesnt make it somthing that it wasnt. It was very low skill level rock and roll. Nothing wrong with it. we play alot of low skill level stuff and people love it.

 

 

The basics of rock and roll never change. Which is what The Ramones were all about. Bringing it back to the basics of early rock n roll which was more about the attitude than the chops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Have fun with all your straw men. I never said half of what you claim. My comments merely were about the reasons people were doing what they do. One reason, like what the Ramones did, was to reflect their music visually and to have cultural cred; the other usual reason is to conform to mainstream/corporate ideas about "looking 'nice'" and all that kind of crap. The "no cargo shorts" mentality.


 

 

There's no straw men. Just points you either can't understand or refuse to acknowledge.

 

Again, if you can't even acknowledge the similarities than there's nothing to dicuss. You're just intent on being deliberately obtuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Have fun with all your straw men. I never said half of what you claim. My comments merely were about the reasons people were doing what they do. One reason, like what the Ramones did, was to reflect their music visually and to have cultural cred; the other usual reason is to conform to mainstream/corporate ideas about "looking 'nice'" and all that kind of crap. The "no cargo shorts" mentality.


If wearing dockers and polo shirts visually represents your music, then by all means, knock yourself out. It's probably not a show that I would be interested in seeing, but that shouldn't matter to you.


:wave:

 

This is actually funny. "Have cultural cred" - in other words conform to meet the standards that the demographic they were interested in capturing deemed "cool" or "acceptable" or whatever word you want to use. It's no different than wearing Hawaiian shirts and shorts when playing Buffet at the beach or looking "nice" when playing a corporate event.

 

All three are simply confirming to the expectations of the crowd they are entertaining. Just because you think one is "cool" and the other is not is besides the point. All are answering to "masters" (meeting the expectations of their target audience). Different masters yes, but masters nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...