Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

  • Members

"Being sold a product" has nothing to do with anything. Everything's a product, so what? The Village People had their shtick, the Ramones had theirs.

 

But aside from that, you seem to want me to say that two different things are the same thing. Yeah - that makes a lot of sense: "they're two different mindsets - but they're also the same!"

 

:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

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.

 

 

I dont think the Ramones had a bring back the basics vison . It was all that they could do just to play the stuff. They were very short on musical skills and talent. They got lucky in my opinion. Nothing wrong with getting lucky ,,, most bands that make it get lucky in one way or another. Getting lucky with marginal musical ability is really getting lucky. :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I dont think the Ramones had a bring back the basics vison . It was all that they could do just to play the stuff. They were very short on musical skills and talent. They got lucky in my opinion. Nothing wrong with getting lucky ,,, most bands that make it get lucky in one way or another. Getting lucky with marginal musical ability is really getting lucky.
:thu:

 

Nah, because it still all comes down to great songs. Chuck Berry was huge because those were great songs with great hooks, even if they were all simple 3 chorders with no bridge.

 

The Ramones were just as good in a different time for a different audience. But for the same reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

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.

 

 

Except they were creating the culture. You act like everyone at the time was walking around or going on stage wearing leather jackets and converses. Guess what? They weren't. Coming up with that shtick was unique, and it fit their image perfectly.

 

AGAIN, if wearing dockers and polo shirts fits the image of your music - FINE!!! I'm happy for you, you've found your niche. Great! But don't pretend it's the same thing, because it isn't. The Ramones did what they did and MADE it cool. The guy wearing the corporate uniform is just doing it to gain acceptability within a pre-existing corporate culture. Those are two different mentalities. Since you're speaking of masters, we can say one is artist/OWNER mentality - the Ramones OWNED their look - one is houseboy/SLAVE mentality. Conform, and please your masters. As much as folks like you and guido want to conflate the two, they're really not the same thing. Thank god! Or else we wouldn't be able to know creative geniuses like the Ramones from every cover band in dockers who ever played a hokey suburban bar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Refuse to acknowledge? You mean like where I say stuff like:




But aside from that, you seem to want me to say that two different things are the same thing. Yeah - that makes a lot of sense: "they're two different mindsets - but they're also the same!"


:facepalm:

 

 

~sigh~ We've discussed your "two different mindsets" argument. I've also gone into detail to explain to you how that is irrelevant. Because REGARDLESS of what you percieve as the "mindset" behind the intent, the RELEVANT point is that both The Ramones and a modern cover band are dressing to help define their image and achieve greater success.

 

THIS is the point you refuse to acknowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Nah, because it still all comes down to great songs.
Chuck Berry was huge because those were great songs with great hooks, even if they were all simple 3 chorders with no bridge
.


The Ramones were just as good in a different time for a different audience. But for the same reasons.

 

 

 

Chuck Berry was great because they were some of the only songs. That stuff was bottom of the barrel music by 68. Now its getting a second rhetro wind. Chuck was a cutting edge lead player when he was charting that stuff. He and BB king were the hot guitar slingers when I was first starting to play in bands. Now we both know how they rank today as lead players. BB King has age , class and grace on his side ,,, but hot chops ,, na not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Chuck Berry was great because they were some of the only songs.

 

 

No they weren't. There were a thousand songs out at the same time. Most with much more musicianship and technical skill involved in both the writing and performing. Of course, those songs weren't ROCK songs. (Just like the other stuff out at the same time as the Ramones weren't PUNK songs.)

 

Berry's song's weren't popular because of his skill, but in spite of them. He was the "anti-establishment" dude playing music that rebel teens related to.

 

Same exact thing the Ramones did twenty years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

No they weren't. There were a thousand songs out at the same time. Most with much more musicianship and technical skill involved in both the writing and performing. Of course, those songs weren't ROCK songs. (Just like the other stuff out at the same time as the Ramones weren't PUNK songs.)


Berry's song's weren't popular because of his skill, but in spite of them. He was the "anti-establishment" dude playing music that rebel teens related to.


Same exact thing the Ramones did twenty years later.

 

 

 

Guy you are quite a bit younger than I am ,, Trust me ,, barry was known for hot guitar chops in his day. Barry was a black guy playing rock and roll for white kids. He also was a hot lead guitar player back then. I was giggin then and all the lead players were amped into his style. He was like hendrix ,,, the guitar player whos licks you nabbed. His and BB king. Things moved real fast back then .... barry only had a few years on top of the heap. you have to figure , ,set lists went from chuck barry and johnny rivers and ventures ,, to blood sweat and tears in like 4 years. stuff in bands like the association, grass roots , and byrds and stones ,, and you had a really fast moving pace for rock and roll evolution. It was the fastest moving scene prolly in rock history ...... in freeking 4 years the evolution was huge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

~sigh~ We've discussed your "two different mindsets" argument. I've also gone into detail to explain to you how that is irrelevant. Because REGARDLESS of what you percieve as the "mindset" behind the intent, the RELEVANT point is that both The Ramones and a modern cover band are dressing to help define their image and achieve greater success.


THIS is the point you refuse to acknowledge.

 

So are you saying that if the Ramones went to XYZ bar to get a gig, and the owner said they had to wear khakis and polo shirts and cut their hair, they would do it?

 

I don't think so. :rolleyes:

 

But the khaki/ polo shirt/no cargo shorts crowd would basically do anything they were told to do. That's the difference. Or one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Guy you are quite a bit younger than I am ,, Trust me ,, barry was known for hot guitar chops in his day. Barry was a black guy playing rock and roll for white kids. He also was a hot lead guitar player back then. I was giggin then and all the lead players were amped into his style. He was like hendrix ,,, the guitar player whos licks you nabbed. His and BB king. Things moved real fast back then .... barry only had a few years on top of the heap. you have to figure , ,set lists went from chuck barry and johnny rivers and ventures ,, to blood sweat and tears in like 4 years. stuff in bands like the association, grass roots , and byrds and stones ,, and you had a really fast moving pace for rock and roll evolution. It was the fastest moving scene prolly in rock history ...... in freeking 4 years the evolution was huge.

 

 

 

Please. There were a ton of guitar players who could play circles around Berry at the time. The difference was that they weren't ROCK players. He was known for his 'chops' but only among ROCK fans who obviously didn't care all THAT much about 'chops' or they wouldn't have been listening to that simplistic stuff in the first place.

 

Read what you're posting: take out "Chuck Berry" for "Ramones" and "Rock

for "Punk" and you're making the exact same argument you're arguing AGAINST!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So are you saying that if the Ramones went to XYZ bar to get a gig, and the owner said they had to wear khakis and polo shirts and cut their hair, they would do it?


I don't think so.
:rolleyes:

If their goal was to play that sort of music for that sort of crowd, yeah they would.

 

 

But the khaki/ polo shirt/no cargo shorts crowd would basically do anything they were told to do. That's the difference. Or one of them.

 

No they wouldn't. Would they dress punk just to get into CBGBs? No. It's not their intended crowd.

 

Seriously, the only argument you seem to be making is that one conformity is acceptible and the other is not based on your own definition of "cool".

 

Either you're being deliberately obtuse, or you seriously have no understanding of music as a business.

 

Good thing you didn't play in the Ramones because they never would have gotten past the bars with your level of business acumen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If their goal was to play that sort of music for that sort of crowd, yeah they would.





No they wouldn't. Would they dress punk just to get into CBGBs? No. It's not their intended crowd.


Seriously, the only argument you seem to be making is that one conformity is acceptible and the other is not based on your own definition of "cool".


Either you're being deliberately obtuse, or you seriously have no understanding of music as a business.


Good thing you didn't play in the Ramones because they never would have gotten past the bars with your level of business acumen.

 

Uh huh, right, sure.

 

Maybe when it's not a band that conveniently fits your argument you will have some other explanation. Like say, the Allman Brothers, or Grateful Dead, two of the most successful touring bands in US rock history. Jerry Garcia basically wore some kind of nondescript jeans and a t-shirt most of his performances. That was "dressing for success" and "dressing for the crowd," too, right? :rolleyes:

 

Basically he wore whatever he wanted and probably didn't give a {censored}. If someone had told him not to wear jeans so he would match the ferns better or whatever he probably would have wtf/laughed. And yet they were probably one of the biggest money earning bands most years they toured, drawing in huge revenues. Good thing they were so concerned with their "image," right? Otherwise they probably never would have made it. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Please. There were a ton of guitar players who could play circles around Berry at the time. The difference was that they weren't ROCK players. He was known for his 'chops' but only among ROCK fans who obviously didn't care all THAT much about 'chops' or they wouldn't have been listening to that simplistic stuff in the first place.


Read what you're posting: take out "Chuck Berry" for "Ramones" and "Rock

for "Punk" and you're making the exact same argument you're arguing AGAINST!

 

 

 

You are kinda flailing with this. How old were you in say 65 and 66? As for chops ,, chet couild spank most guitar players up until the day he died. BB king was the top of the heap blues player back then. Were you playing in working bands in the 60s? The ramones were a huge step backwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Uh huh, right, sure.


Maybe when it's not a band that conveniently fits your argument you will have some other explanation. Like say, the Allman Brothers, or Grateful Dead, two of the most successful touring bands in US rock history. Jerry Garcia basically wore some kind of nondescript jeans and a t-shirt most of his performances. That was "dressing for success" and "dressing for the crowd," too, right?
:rolleyes:

Basically he wore whatever he wanted and probably didn't give a {censored}. If someone had told him not to wear jeans so he would match the ferns better or whatever he probably would have wtf/laughed. And yet they were probably one of the biggest money earning bands most years they toured, drawing in huge revenues. Good thing they were so concerned with their "image," right? Otherwise they probably never would have made it.
:rolleyes:

 

 

The dead wore the uniform of the day..... how old ar you anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Most of his career he basically just wore a plain t-shirt onstage.

 

 

 

Jeans and a t shirt was the uniform of the 60s and the whole scene that the dead evolved out of . The difference between you and me is that I acutally saw elvis's first appearance on sullivan ,, and the beatles , and lived through pretty much the birth of rock and roll and its evolution. You got to the party late is my best guess. There was a time when no band would have ever taken the stage in a T shirt and jeans. During the whole drugs sex and rock and roll deal ,,, the t shirt and jeans became the uniform of the day. When I first started playing in bands ,,, you pretty well had to have a collar on your shirt and wear dress slacks. By the late 60s jeans and t shirts were ok to wear. We alway did stick with collared shirts even into 1970 ,, but then we were an up scale type band that had more of a clean image going.

 

we were at the top of the pay scale back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Uh huh, right, sure.


Maybe when it's not a band that conveniently fits your argument you will have some other explanation.

 

Maybe when you stop trying to defend that same band for THEIR use of dress for success over all others, I won't find them so convenient.

 


Like say, the Allman Brothers, or Grateful Dead, two of the most successful touring bands in US rock history. Jerry Garcia basically wore some kind of nondescript jeans and a t-shirt most of his performances. That was "dressing for success" and "dressing for the crowd," too, right?
:rolleyes:

 

Like that picture of the Allman Brothers on stage I put up a few pages ago? Yeah, right. No dressing for success there.... :facepalm:

 

Good thing they were so concerned with their "image," right? Otherwise they probably never would have made it.
:rolleyes:

 

You SOOOO don't get it that it just astounds me.

 

Is this really all the argument you have left: that because The Grateful Dead were successful while still dressing like slobs, that refutes the argument that proper attire CAN and DOES help a band's success at ALL levels?

 

Because you still haven't addressed this point I keep making.

 

A few exceptions to a rule doesn't negate the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

You are kinda flailing with this. How old were you in say 65 and 66? As for chops ,, chet couild spank most guitar players up until the day he died. BB king was the top of the heap blues player back then. Were you playing in working bands in the 60s? The ramones were a huge step backwards.

 

 

Neither Chet nor BB played rock n roll (And actually, BB King was always much more about popularity than chops. He was far from the best blues guitarist of his day from a strictly 'chops' standpoint.) 50s rock was considered a HUGE step backwards by 'real' musicians at the time. The guys writing and playing those Sinatra albums in the 50s completely laughed off Chuck Berry and "Johnny B Goode" as anything more than huge musical step backwards that only appealed to the raw instincts of teenagers.

 

You know, kinda like how "sophisticated" rock musicians in the 70s laughed off punk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Jeans and a t shirt was the uniform of the 60s and the whole scene that the dead evolved out of . The difference between you and me is that I acutally saw elvis's first appearance on sullivan ,, and the beatles , and lived through pretty much the birth of rock and roll and its evolution. You got to the party late is my best guess. There was a time when no band would have ever taken the stage in a T shirt and jeans. During the whole drugs sex and rock and roll deal ,,, the t shirt and jeans became the uniform of the day. When I first started playing in bands ,,, you pretty well had to have a collar on your shirt and wear dress slacks. By the late 60s jeans and t shirts were ok to wear. We alway did stick with collared shirts even into 1970 ,, but then we were an up scale type band that had more of a clean image going.


we were at the top of the pay scale back then.

 

I see, jeans and a t-shirt were the "uniform of the day." That's your answer? Then why did Bob Weir regularly wear polo shirts at the very same gigs? :confused:

 

And if jeans and t-shirts were the "uniform of the day," then how come all performers didn't wear jeans and t-shirts onstage?

 

I'm sorry, I'm having a really hard time taking most of your comments seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Neither Chet nor BB played rock n roll (And actually, BB King was always much more about popularity than chops. He was far from the best blues guitarist of his day from a strictly 'chops' standpoint.) 50s rock was considered a HUGE step backwards by 'real' musicians at the time. The guys writing and playing those Sinatra albums in the 50s completely laughed off Chuck Berry and "Johnny B Goode" as anything more than huge musical step backwards that only appealed to the raw instincts of teenagers.


You know, kinda like how "sophisticated" rock musicians in the 70s laughed off punk.

 

 

There might have been blues players that were better ,, but BB was making the money. Punk was a musical joke ,, but it did make some guys alot of money. Its garage rock at best. But whats wild is that you can play real low level rock and keep an older crowd happy these days. In 70 gloria would have almost gotten you laughed off a stage ,, today you can sell it to that same crowd that would have laughed you off the stage. I guess its got a second life. The key to it is play stuff your peeps know by heart.

 

As an soon to be geezer rocker ,, you will see this trend. I dont see any ramones on our set list any time soon though......But You prolly will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I see, jeans and a t-shirt were the "uniform of the day." That's your answer? Then why did Bob Weir regularly wear polo shirts at the very same gigs?
:confused:

And if jeans and t-shirts were the "uniform of the day," then how come all performers didn't wear jeans and t-shirts onstage?


I'm sorry, I'm having a really hard time taking most of your comments seriously.

 

 

Jerry was prolly too high to change into gig clothes. How old are you ,, you never answered that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Maybe when you stop trying to defend that same band for THEIR use of dress for success over all others, I won't find them so convenient.




Like that picture of the Allman Brothers on stage I put up a few pages ago? Yeah, right. No dressing for success there....
:facepalm:



You SOOOO don't get it that it just astounds me.


Is this really all the argument you have left: that because The Grateful Dead were successful while still dressing like slobs, that refutes the argument that proper attire CAN and DOES help a band's success at ALL levels?


Because you still haven't addressed this point I keep making.


A few exceptions to a rule doesn't negate the rule.

 

Yeah, sure - it's just a "few exceptions." I figured you would go there, no big surprise.

 

As for your straw man argument, I never once said anywhere that dressing a particular way can't help in a band's "success." If you can find where I said that, please post it. Otherwise, stop with the straw man arguments.

 

"How you dress can affect how you are perceived." Wow - what a huge sociocultural insight. Do you have any more cutting edge social psychology observations to enlighten all of us? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

There might have been blues players that were better ,, but BB was making the money. Punk was a musical joke ,, but it did make some guys alot of money. Its garage rock at best.

 

 

Rock in the 50s was considered the same. That's my point. Why did Chuck Berry play rock n roll? Do you really think he had the songwriting chops to compete with the Cole Porters and Harry Warrens and Sammy Fains of the day? Do you really think he had enough guitar chops to compete with the Django Reinharts or Wes Montgomerys or the top studio cats of the period? Do you think he simply chose rock and roll over these other paths?

 

Or do you think that, like The Ramones twenty years later, he played the stuff he did because that was the best his chops allowed him to do?

 

 

As an soon to be geezer rocker ,, you will see this trend. I dont see any ramones on our set list any time soon though......But You prolly will.

 

 

Oh, I'm already a geezer rocker. We don't have any Ramones on our set list, but not for any particular reason other than we just don't. There's at least half a dozen of their songs that would work great in our setlist and would have for years now.

 

Bands don't come up with a bunch of songs that last 35 years simply by accident or by luck. Probably at least a dozen Ramones songs are now considered rock standards. Those guys may not have had chops, but they certainly had talent.

 

And "RamonesMania" is right up there with "The Great Twenty-Eight" in my book as one of the great basic rock albums of all time. There are no doubt a million players who can play circles around the Ramones or Chuck Berry at this point, but the basics of how to do it is all right there.

 

Too many players dismiss the simple stuff and move right ahead to the complex stuff and never understand how what they are missing affects their playing and songwriting and careers.

 

If I were helping out any kid just getting started, I'd give him those two CDs for sure. When you get all this stuff down and understand what they were doing, then we'll move on from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

As for your straw man argument, I never once said anywhere that dressing a particular way can't help in a band's "success." If you can find where I said that, please post it. Otherwise, stop with the straw man arguments.


 

 

It's not a straw man. IT'S THE SUBJECT OF THE ENTIRE THREAD. It was YOUR argument that "dress only matters if you're the Ramones or something similar" that was the straw man here.

 

But I'm glad you've finally acknowledged the point.

 

Glad we can finally move on! Sheezh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Rock in the 50s was considered the same. That's my point. Why did Chuck Berry play rock n roll? Do you really think he had the songwriting chops to compete with the Cole Porters and Harry Warrens and Sammy Fains of the day? Do you really think he had enough guitar chops to compete with the Django Reinharts or Wes Montgomerys or the top studio cats of the period? Do you think he simply chose rock and roll over these other paths?


Or do you think that, like The Ramones twenty years later, he played the stuff he did because that was the best his chops allowed him to do?




Oh, I'm already a geezer rocker. We don't have any Ramones on our set list, but not for any particular reason other than we just don't. There's at least half a dozen of their songs that would work great in our setlist and would have for years now.


Bands don't come up with a bunch of songs that last 35 years simply by accident or by luck. Probably at least a dozen Ramones songs are now considered rock standards. Those guys may not have had chops, but they certainly had talent.


And "RamonesMania" is right up there with "The Great Twenty-Eight" in my book as one of the great basic rock albums of all time. There are no doubt a million players who can play circles around the Ramones or Chuck Berry at this point, but the basics of how to do it is all right there.


Too many players dismiss the simple stuff and move right ahead to the complex stuff and never understand how what they are missing affects their playing and songwriting and careers.


If I were helping out any kid just getting started, I'd give him those two CDs for sure. When you get all this stuff down and understand what they were doing, then we'll move on from there.

 

 

 

We play all kinds of stuff ,,,,simple ,, complex and original. barry played rock because it was his generatons music i would guess. that old stuff was square. The biggest void in modern rock and stuff like the ramones is the lack of vocal chops. Its damb tough to put a band together and have good three part vocals. Its the nut that most bands cant crack ,, hell most cant even conger up two part harmony thats worth a crap.

 

I am lucky to play with a guy that writes great original music. Its fun to play originals that are actually good stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...