Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

  • Members

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 never said that, or anything like that. That's what makes it a straw man. I merely said there's a different mentality when it comes either to creating culture or to conforming to corporate culture. And I stand by that, of course. Because there is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

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.

 

 

And that was the main gripe the punkers had with Top40 rock in the 70s---not that they couldn't play it, but that they didn't even WANT to because it was 'square'.

 

I have no doubt that the guys in The Ramones had talent and, had their musical inclinations been the same as the guys in the Eagles, they would have been playing the same stuff just as well.

 

Berry, had he been so inclined, certainly could have done what ANYBODY else was doing with the guitar. But his inclinations were towards Rock 'n Roll, so his chops only progressed to the degree they made him successful in that genre.

 

Again, many many more similarites to the Ramones than differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But I never said that, or anything like that. That's what makes it a straw man. I merely said there's a different mentality when it comes either to creating culture or to conforming to corporate culture. And I stand by that, of course. Because there is.

 

I would say it doesn't matter enough to argue over it, or cause your band to implode.

 

Earlier in this thread, people talked about different "tiers" - bringing up "semi pro" or "hobbyist".

 

You know, that's all well and good to think that way, but really it is all just a state of mind.

 

You're going to get those situations where you have ONE GUY that wants to be more serious than the other guys, wants to be a rock star, wants to promote and be promoted, wants more than the band is currently giving.

 

Who wants to step up and be THAT guy? Ask THAT guy how that is working for him; THAT guy is usually the one getting kicked out of the band, or quitting in disgust.

 

Of course, that guy will have nothing but derision for the "hobbyists" that shatter his dreams and hold him back.

 

Something to think about. You can't ride a horse any further than it wants to go, and you can't push a band in a direction that any one person in it is unwilling to go.

 

Not all pros got that way by being hardcore serious about success; in fact, I would argue that most just kind of stumbled onto it, by doing what they do best.

 

But there's no fun in that, is there? I mean - it's just so much COOLER to be intense and motivated for success - to really LIVE music, man - live the dream, be a rock star. It kind of adds a mystique, and of course sets you apart from those damn "hobbyists" that have lives outside of making music.

 

Is all that necessary for success? How is that working for those of you that do things that way?

 

Maybe the hobbyists are actually in some way closer to reflecting true musicality than some pros: at least you can say that they allow for a well-balanced life, which can then be reflected in their music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But I never said that, or anything like that. That's what makes it a straw man. I merely said there's a different mentality when it comes either to creating culture or to conforming to corporate culture. And I stand by that, of course. Because there is.

 

 

No. That's the strawman. Nobody argues that there is a difference between creating culture and conforming to culture. The strawman is when you've continually offered this as a response when we're trying to discuss the idea of cover bands "dressing for success".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I would say it doesn't matter enough to argue over it, or cause your band to implode.


Earlier in this thread, people talked about different "tiers" - bringing up "semi pro" or "hobbyist".


You know, that's all well and good to think that way, but really it is all just a state of mind.


You're going to get those situations where you have ONE GUY that wants to be more serious than the other guys, wants to be a rock star, wants to promote and be promoted, wants more than the band is currently giving.


Who wants to step up and be THAT guy? Ask THAT guy how that is working for him; THAT guy is usually the one getting kicked out of the band, or quitting in disgust.


Of course, that guy will have nothing but derision for the "hobbyists" that shatter his dreams and hold him back.


Something to think about. You can't ride a horse any further than it wants to go, and you can't push a band in a direction that any one person in it is unwilling to go.


Not all pros got that way by being hardcore serious about success; in fact, I would argue that most just kind of stumbled onto it, by doing what they do best.


But there's no fun in that, is there? I mean - it's just so much COOLER to be intense and motivated for success - to really LIVE music, man - live the dream, be a rock star. It kind of adds a mystique, and of course sets you apart from those damn "hobbyists" that have lives outside of making music.


Is all that necessary for success? How is that working for those of you that do things that way?


Maybe the hobbyists are actually in some way closer to reflecting true musicality than some pros: at least you can say that they allow for a well-balanced life, which can then be reflected in their music.

 

 

Words of wisdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And that was the main gripe the punkers had with Top40 rock in the 70s---not that they couldn't play it, but that they didn't even WANT to because it was 'square'.


I have no doubt that the guys in The Ramones had talent and, had their musical inclinations been the same as the guys in the Eagles, they would have been playing the same stuff just as well.


Berry, had he been so inclined, certainly could have done what ANYBODY else was doing with the guitar. But his inclinations were towards Rock 'n Roll, so his chops only progressed to the degree they made him successful in that genre.


Again, many many more similarites to the Ramones than differences.

 

 

 

 

The ramones did what they did and did well with it. No way in hell could they have covered an eagles song. Hell they had a hell of a time just getting one guy to sing on key. I doubt that chuck could have played jazz or chet style either. He was the hot rod rock and roll lead player for a short time though. Today you can get traction at a gig with his stuff ... back when he was dropping off the musical map ,, no way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The ramones did what they did and did well with it. No way in hell could they have covered an eagles song.

 

 

I'm not saying they could. What I was saying was, considering they were all about the same age as the guys in the Eagles, had they had the same musical inclinations as those guys and went down the same path, they could have been as good of players as those guys.

 

Hell, even as they WERE, the drummer in The Ramones was probably a better drummer than Henley.

 

But they thought that sort of playing and singing was 'square' and never even CARED about being good at it. Just like those early 50s rockers probably thought Nat King Cole was nothing but an old fuddy duddy.

 

Doesn't mean the basic musical talent wasn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm not saying they could. What I was saying was, considering they were all about the same age as the guys in the Eagles, had they had the same musical inclinations as those guys and went down the same path, they could have been as good of players as those guys.


Hell, even as they WERE, the drummer in The Ramones was probably a better drummer than Henley.


But they thought that sort of playing and singing was 'square' and never even CARED about being good at it. Just like those early 50s rockers probably thought Nat King Cole was nothing but an old fuddy duddy.


Doesn't mean the basic musical talent wasn't there.

 

 

 

Whatever.....If the musical talent was there ,, she sure did a good job of hiding it. The eagles are some of the highest skilled players and singers in rock and roll history. Saw them live twice back in the day. Amazing band.

 

I do think that alot of guys slag the eagles because there is no way in hell that they could ever bite off one of their songs and actually handle it with any degree of skill. Pretty well any group of slugs can do ramones covers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Whatever.....If the musical talent was there ,, she sure did a good job of hiding it.

 

 

Having written a recorded at least a dozen rock standards would be a pretty good argument to the contrary, wouldn't you say?

 


The eagles are some of the highest skilled players and singers in rock and roll history. Saw them live twice back in the day. Amazing band.


 

 

I saw them once on their "Hell Freezes Over" tour. Would go see them again, but can't afford the ticket prices. Great singers. Decent players. Henley is a hack of a drummer, at best. Their biggest skill was their songwriting and sense of melody. Without all those hits they'd still be playing backup for Linda Ronstadt. Don Felder's guitar solos are legendary, but mostly because they are so damn MELODIC. Not because he was 2nd coming of John McLaughlin or anything.

 

 

I do think that alot of guys slag the eagles because there is no way in hell that they could ever bite off one of their songs and actually handle it with any degree of skill.

 

 

That, and I think a lot of people DO genuinely find them boring and formulatic.

 

Pretty well any group of slugs can do ramones covers.

 

 

Any group of slugs can do Berry covers too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Great singers. Decent players. Henley is a hack of a drummer, at best. Their biggest skill was their songwriting and sense of melody.
Without all those hits they'd still be playing backup for Linda Ronstadt.
Don Felder's guitar solos are legendary, but mostly because they are so damn MELODIC. Not because he was 2nd coming of John McLaughlin or anything.




That, and I think a lot of people DO genuinely find them boring and formulatic.



Any group of slugs can do Berry covers too.

 

 

 

LOL yea all those pesky hits that are a problem when one goes to slaggin on the eagles. I know they kicked ass live when I saw them at morris civic in south bend. Amazing acoustics in that place.

 

 

 

Yup chuck isnt that hard to cover... now back when chuck was on top , it took a pretty good lead player to cover him. today na its easy {censored}.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I do think that alot of guys slag the eagles because there is no way in hell that they could ever bite off one of their songs and actually handle it with any degree of skill. Pretty well any group of slugs can do ramones covers.

 

 

Different songs have different elements that may be difficult for a cover band to deal with. There's a classic rock blues jam around here that has no problem with Eagles tunes because we've got a boatload of singers with good ranges who can sing on pitch. The instrumental parts aren't very difficult.

 

Try covering Tower of Power, or Stevie Wonder, or BS&T, or EW&F. . . . but that reflects my interest in rhythm and changes.

 

You like singing, try Take Six.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

LOL yea all those pesky hits that are a problem when one goes to slaggin on the eagles.

 

 

Same damn problem when it comes to slaggin' on The Ramones. 30+ years later a people of now TWO different generations are still rockin' out to at least a dozen of their tunes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

. The instrumental parts aren't very difficult.

 

 

My only problem with their instrumental parts are all the overdubs. To really nail songs like "One of These Nights", "Hotel California" and "Life In The Fast Lane" you need like 3 guitars (one of them sometimes being a 12-string) and an electric piano. Not that other arrangements can't be done, of course. But something always ends up sounding compromised, to my ear.

 

 

Try covering Tower of Power, or Stevie Wonder, or BS&T, or EW&F. . . . but that reflects my interest in rhythm and changes.


Ah yeah...I miss my R&B band days sometimes....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Same damn problem when it comes to slaggin' on The Ramones. 30+ years later a people of now TWO different generations are still rockin' out to at least a dozen of their tunes.

 

 

 

Yup rock took a thowback move and went for a more garage rock type sound. I think part of it was because it had evolved so far that it was very hard to up the bar much higher. I guess I never quite got punk. I was doing other things than music then ,, and I had come out of a band that covered a ton of pretty difficult stuff to play. 7 piece top 40/ soul/ jazz rock band with 3 part vocals. That band was killer and it just kind of fell together like a perfect storm. Increased the money on that one almost ten fold in less than a year. Still freaks me out to think how far we took that one in such a short time being as young as we were. It would be fun to do a re do of it ,, but getting the vocals right would be damb tough. had a killer drummer too.

 

 

Even without the overdubs ,,, eagles vocals are the wicked part to cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My only problem with their instrumental parts are all the overdubs. To really nail songs like "One of These Nights", "Hotel California" and "Life In The Fast Lane" you need like 3 guitars (one of them sometimes being a 12-string) and an electric piano. Not that other arrangements can't be done, of course. But something always ends up sounding compromised, to my ear.


Ah yeah...I miss my R&B band days sometimes....

 

 

We're back to overdubs and replication vs covering. If you get the rhythm and changes right, along with the vocals, of course, it works. I realize you have a different ear and set of priorities.

 

. . . and old school R&B is not dead, as you seem to have implied. Depending on your demographics, you can still find good R&B cover bands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I guess I never quite got punk.

 

 

It ain't that hard to get. I'm sure at some time in your life you went through a period when the music you enjoyed was all about the ATTITUDE and the ENERGY and how it made you FEEL and maybe was even about anger and angst and testosterone and not about how great the players on the record were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We're back to overdubs and replication vs covering. If you get the rhythm and changes right, along with the vocals, of course, it works. I realize you have a different ear and set of priorities.

 

 

Yeah, I know it can 'work'. LOTS of things can 'work'. It can "work" to do "Best of My Love" as a solo act with one voice and a ukelele and it might even kick ass, but that's not the same thing as nailing the parts. There's a reason why The Eagles bring along all those extra players and singers live. Not because they can't make it "work" as a five-piece. But because they want to nail all the parts the way they wrote/recorded them.

 

 

. . . and old school R&B is not dead, as you seem to have implied. Depending on your demographics, you can still find good R&B cover bands.

 

 

Oh I never meant to imply it was dead. I know a lot of very good R&B bands. And like I said, I miss playing that stuff from time to time. Then again, when I was playing in an R&B band I missed playing the rock stuff I'm doing now. That damn grass on the other side of the fence....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It ain't that hard to get. I'm sure at some time in your life you went through a period when the music you enjoyed was all about the ATTITUDE and the ENERGY and how it made you FEEL and maybe was even about anger and angst and testosterone and not about how great the players on the record were.

 

 

 

Not really. It was more about covering top 40 and getting good gigs. I ran with all jazz band and choir geeks. These people were all serious and trained musicans. I may have been the only junk yard dog in the band. I was the guy that had the rock band experience and knew how to arrange stuff by nabbing it off the record, and get gigs. The last band was more of a teenage wedding band. It functioned at a very high level and could run with the best even bands that you hear today when it comes to soul , old top 40 with wicked vocals and horn driven rock. These kids were all business. No anger , no rage ,, no BS. It was all about taking on the covers that no one else could cover. That was our motivation. We could smoke most club bands back then. Their only salvation was we were too young for the bar gigs..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So you preferred Chuck Berry records to Nat King Cole records because of the more skillful playing and songwriting?

 

 

I was never much of a fan of chuck barry .... I played it for a couple years in teen bands. I was more of a byrds and who and blues magoos and later got into soul and jazz rock and top 40 stuff like the association , grass roots and cryin shames and buckinghams and rascals. We evolved pretty fast back in the day because music changed that fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

. . . and old school R&B is not dead, as you seem to have implied. Depending on your demographics, you can still find good R&B cover bands.

 

The hardest part is finding a good audience for that music.

 

My drummer used to be in a damn fine R&B/Jam band - they were way ahead of their time in the early 90's, getting a real jam band feel mixed with 70's flair, a little sax, great vocals, percussion.

 

I'll see if I can get some recordings of that and post it up here: those cats were GOOD.

 

There's another outfit around here called "The Big Diggity" - they really bring it too, but again, their audience is limited and un-appreciative of the skills.

 

Perhaps that's more a reflection on this area and what people want to hear, and not a reflection on R&B's viability as a live musical form in general?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The hardest part is finding a good audience for that music.


My drummer used to be in a damn fine R&B/Jam band - they were way ahead of their time in the early 90's, getting a real jam band feel mixed with 70's flair, a little sax, great vocals, percussion.


I'll see if I can get some recordings of that and post it up here: those cats were GOOD.


There's another outfit around here called "The Big Diggity" - they really bring it too, but again, their audience is limited and un-appreciative of the skills.


Perhaps that's more a reflection on this area and what people want to hear, and not a reflection on R&B's viability as a live musical form in general?

 

 

 

That stuff sells like hot cakes up here in michigan ,, but then we have alot of roots in that genre ,,, between chicago and detroit and the horn bands of the 60s like chicago. The horn bands make big ass money and get alot of event , corp and wedding work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Perhaps that's more a reflection on this area and what people want to hear, and not a reflection on R&B's viability as a live musical form in general?

 

 

Might be regional somewhat? R&B bands still do pretty well in Northern California. Then again, Tower of Power are still gods around here. The best R&B cover bands in the SF Bay area and Sacramento are still getting $4000-$10,000 for corporate stuff.

 

Blues, on the other hand, is all-but-dead. One of the top blues cats in Sacramento who has been gigging for decades and still has a weekend blues radio show (the guy's a legend around here) has been struggling to get $400 per gig lately from what I hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Might be regional somewhat? R&B bands still do pretty well in Northern California. Then again, Tower of Power are still gods around here. The best R&B cover bands in the SF Bay area and Sacramento are still getting $4000-$10,000 for corporate stuff.


Blues, on the other hand, is all-but-dead. One of the top blues cats in Sacramento who has been gigging for decades and still has a weekend blues radio show (the guy's a legend around here) has been struggling to get $400 per gig lately from what I hear.

 

 

 

from what I understand we are going to start doing more blues on the texas deal . We did a blues set in our jam night last year and it went over really well. Who knows may be we will take that blues set starting line up and start doing full gigs. I know it goes over real well. I think places go through cycles. our winter demograhpics is into blues. We got lots of good blues players down there and a solid rhythm section to back them up.. so who knows what the future will bring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...