Geezer cover band question: Which is lamer?

[TrickyBoy]

I honestly don't understand this emphasis on "stage presence". Mostly I've played with musicians who could play, and the confidence automatically produced a comfort level that the audience could relate to. I suppose there are really good players who don't like being on stage, but hopefully you're playing with trained players who like to share their music with others. The "show" doesn't have to go beyond that. The music comes first. I've seen too many ego maniacs who are all about the performance but have little actual musical training and talent. Spare me those folks . . . at any age.

 

 

In my experience, the importance of "stage presence" varies depending on your target audience. We play to a young, generally drunk, party crowd. A bunch of amazing musicians staring at their instruments are going to lose this crowd quickly. We make a concerted effort to constantly engage the audience - just playing onstage confidently isn't enough. I would say that to our crowd, the VISUAL aspects of what we are doing is equally as not more important that the MUSICAL aspects. For our crowd it's more of the total experience we provide, not simply how well we play our instruments.

 

All that being said, you need to be able to play - there's no substitute for that.

[wheresgrant3]

I honestly don't understand this emphasis on "stage presence". Mostly I've played with musicians who could play, and the confidence automatically produced a comfort level that the audience could relate to. I suppose there are really good players who don't like being on stage, but hopefully you're playing with trained players who like to share their music with others. The "show" doesn't have to go beyond that. The music comes first. I've seen too many ego maniacs who are all about the performance but have little actual musical training and talent. Spare me those folks . . . at any age.

It of course depends on the style of music, the age group your playing to. I wouldn't expect someone playing blues or jazz to value style over substance. Nor would I expect that type the audiences to respond to great musician who still thrive on owning the stage.

'Sharing' is caring... but again to attract large audiences night after night (we're not talking open mic night here) then a little showman ship doesn't hurt to help sell the package.

I don't know of any 'ego maniacs' that are all about performance and have little musical training or ability. I'd love to meet them. All of the musican's I know that may have a little 'tude' have the talent and ability to back it up. It doesn't mean they're not pricks to work with... but the musicians I've met that may have their compass set to 'N' for narcassism can play circles around most players. It's how they found their confidence in the first place.

I'm not debating whether a band is filled with talented musicians or not. You don't have to light yourself on fire or start humping the stage to command attention. A great musician is a great musician. However if your sitting on a stool in between songs, taking 1-2 minute breaks in between songs and reading lyrics from a songbook to perform "Enter Sandman".... well then you are probably not connecting with large audiences no matter what your talent level is. The average rock fan just turning 40 grew up on Metallica, Bon Jovi, U2. the average rock fan just turning 50 grew up on Boston, Cheap Trick and AC/DC. And the average rock fan turning 60 this year grew up on the Beatles and the Stones. That's not exactly music that you'd sit back to listen to in 'awe' of the talent being exhibited.

[rhat]

In my experience, the importance of "stage presence" varies depending on your target audience. We play to a young, generally drunk, party crowd. A bunch of amazing musicians staring at their instruments are going to lose this crowd quickly. We make a concerted effort to constantly engage the audience - just playing onstage confidently isn't enough. I would say that to our crowd, the VISUAL aspects of what we are doing is equally as not more important that the MUSICAL aspects. For our crowd it's more of the total experience we provide, not simply how well we play our instruments. All that being said, you need to be able to play - there's no substitute for that.

 

 

I guess it all depends on what you call stage presents. the jumping around and head bobbing and physical gyrations on stage are over rated. You take a front line in a band that can actually play and sing backup.. and you wont see much in the way of that. Face it they are too glued to the mic and have way too much musical going on to really pull off the mics and get too physical. Good musicans typically dont shoe gaze or have to watch their hands to play. I honestly think alot of young bands over rate the stage presents thing because they cant bring the vocals to the game strong enough so they try to make up with stage moves.

[TrickyBoy]

I guess it all depends on what you call stage presents. the jumping around and head bobbing and physical gyrations on stage are over rated. You take a front line in a band that can actually play and sing backup.. and you wont see much in the way of that. Face it they are too glued to the mic and have way too much musical going on to really pull off the mics and get too physical. Good musicans typically dont shoe gaze or have to watch their hands to play. I honestly think alot of young bands over rate the stage presents thing because they cant bring the vocals to the game strong enough so they try to make up with stage moves.

 

 

Absolutely, stage presence doesn't just mean "rockin out with your cock out". IMO, what's important (at least for what we do) is actively ENGAGING the crowd through eye contact, what you say, and how you act. My point was simply that for some crowds, they just want to sit and listen/watch the band play. For our crowd, they want to become part of the show, and for that "stage presence" is required to draw them in.

[Kino]

Which is lamer?: 1. A bunch of geezers playing old songs they learned years ago. 2. A bunch of geezers trying to stay modern and playing newer songs that don't fit them?

 

 

Play songs you learned years ago. Don't even bother and waste your time playing modern music. There is no heart in it.

[TrickyBoy]

Play songs you learned years ago. Don't even bother and waste your time playing modern music. There is no heart in it.

 

 

Reminds me of my grandfather... When the beatles came out.

[rhat]

It of course depends on the style of music, the age group your playing to. I wouldn't expect someone playing blues or jazz to value style over substance. Nor would I expect that type the audiences to respond to great musician who still thrive on owning the stage.

'Sharing' is caring... but again to attract large audiences night after night (we're not talking open mic night here) then a little showman ship doesn't hurt to help sell the package.

I don't know of any 'ego maniacs' that are all about performance and have little musical training or ability. I'd love to meet them. All of the musican's I know that may have a little 'tude' have the talent and ability to back it up. It doesn't mean they're not pricks to work with... but the musicians I've met that may have their compass set to 'N' for narcassism can play circles around most players. It's how they found their confidence in the first place.

I'm not debating whether a band is filled with talented musicians or not. You don't have to light yourself on fire or start humping the stage to command attention. A great musician is a great musician. However if your sitting on a stool in between songs, taking 1-2 minute breaks in between songs and reading lyrics from a songbook to perform "Enter Sandman".... well then you are probably not connecting with large audiences no matter what your talent level is. The average rock fan just turning 40 grew up on Metallica, Bon Jovi, U2. the average rock fan just turning 50 grew up on Boston, Cheap Trick and AC/DC. And the average rock fan turning 60 this year grew up on the Beatles and the Stones. That's not exactly music that you'd sit back to listen to in 'awe' of the talent being exhibited.[/QUOTE]


Hmmm the guys getting ready to turn 60 prolly grew up on stuff that most 40 year old bar bands cant even come close to cutting musically . The vocals would eat them alive. While that stuff was short on lead guitar ,, it had multiple part vocals up the ying yang and horns and stuff. Vocals are the weak part in most 40 sumthing bar bands. that has just been my observation ,,, the typically fuzz buster bar band is lucky to have one person that can stay on pitch just on lead vocals.

[TrickyBoy]

Hmmm the guys getting ready to turn 60 prolly grew up on stuff that most 40 year old bar bands cant even come close to cutting musically . The vocals would eat them alive. While that stuff was short on lead guitar ,, it had multiple part vocals up the ying yang and horns and stuff. Vocals are the weak part in most 40 sumthing bar bands. that has just been my observation ,,, the typically fuzz buster bar band is lucky to have one person that can stay on pitch just on lead vocals.

 

 

First off, a lot of stuff from 40-50 years ago is pretty freakin easy to both play and sing. I mean Run Around Sue ain't exactly ground breaking stuff. That isn't to say there wasn't some music that would be difficult to pull off, but the same can be said for any era's music.

 

That aside, and avoiding the pissing match that will result if we get into a "this era vs. that era" debate, the reality is that a band that has decent talent, but a charismatic front person who can engage the crowd get them up and dancing and singing along will generally do better than a band with exceptional talent that can hit all the 4-part harmonies and has no stage presence. "Stage presence" is, in my experience, the factor that delineates between the "me too" cover bands and the ones that really stand out and attract a following.

 

Oh yeah, the top bands ALSO have multiple singers, very good musicians, etc. etc. But I see a lot of bands with all the musical ingredients that never progress beyond "just another cover band" status due to the fact that they never can connect with the crowd.

[jeff42]

IMO, what's important (at least for what we do) is actively ENGAGING the crowd through eye contact, what you say, and how you act. My point was simply that for some crowds, they just want to sit and listen/watch the band play. For our crowd, they want to become part of the show, and for that "stage presence" is required to draw them in.

 

 

This is a very important thing for us. Make that crowd enjoys the show and help them be part of the show.

 

Some bands are "sit down and listen" bands playing "sit down and listen" music. We are not like that... we don't jump around like monkeys either but we try and get the crowd to be part of the show. It's all good and there's room for it all.

[rhat]

First off, a lot of stuff from 40-50 years ago is pretty freakin easy to both play and sing. I mean Run Around Sue ain't exactly ground breaking stuff. That isn't to say there wasn't some music that would be difficult to pull off, but the same can be said for any era's music. That aside, and avoiding the pissing match that will result if we get into a "this era vs. that era" debate, the reality is that a band that has decent talent, but a charismatic front person who can engage the crowd get them up and dancing and singing along will generally do better than a band with exceptional talent that can hit all the 4-part harmonies and has no stage presence. "Stage presence" is, in my experience, the factor that delineates between the "me too" cover bands and the ones that really stand out and attract a following. Oh yeah, the top bands ALSO have multiple singers, very good musicians, etc. etc. But I see a lot of bands with all the musical ingredients that never progress beyond "just another cover band" status due to the fact that they never can connect with the crowd.

 

 

Whatever guy ... You get into the latter 60s music and dive into some top 40 stuff and pretty well all of it took 3 part vocals. Tie into some byrds...or CSN&Y or sam and dave or temps, the list goes on and on. I dont care to start a pissin match ,,just pointing out the obvious. The dynamic front person with no one capable to back them up vocally will only get you so far. Typically its the local bar. Its not the kind of thing high dollar gigs are built on. Its your average bar band we see today. At least a band should have a lead singer that isnt all over the map pitch wise. If they cant do that ,,, no matter how well they work a crowd ,, it screams weak. Just my opinon

[TrickyBoy]

Whatever guy ... You get into the latter 60s music and dive into some top 40 stuff and pretty well all of it took 3 part vocals. Tie into some byrds...or CSN&Y or sam and dave or temps, the list goes on and on. I dont care to start a pissin match ,,just pointing out the obvious. The dynamic front person with no one capable to back them up vocally will only get you so far. Typically its the local bar. Its not the kind of thing high dollar gigs are built on. Its your average bar band we see today. At least a band should have a lead singer that isnt all over the map pitch wise. If they cant do that ,,, no matter how well they work a crowd ,, it screams weak. Just my opinon

 

 

In a way we agree - my last post stated that of course the top bands have multiple singers great musicians, etc.

 

Both "stage presence" and "musicianship/vocal ability" are necessary ingredients to making it to the high paying gigs. A significant deficit in either dooms you to typical bar band status, as you put it.

 

BTW - listen to contemporary R&B and Hip Hip stuff. While I know that most of these vocalists don't have the singing talent that many of the 60's bands had, thanks to technology, many of these songs can still be a bear to pull of live without 3-4 good singers.

[goosefartfan]

It all depends on the crowd ,,, Its demograhpics. one of the big fails of cover bands is that so many average bar bands are all made up of 40 year olds ,, and get stuck in the classic rock rut. Rule one,,, play the crowds music , not yours. We played to packed bars of retired people ,, ages 55 to pushing 70. While we did all kinds of stuff, including original trop rock music , we alway threw in some old nuggets that a 60 year old knew by heart. Now one thing you need to realize, these peole had lots of disposable income, no schedule or job.. they drank like fish and typiclly did dinner and the sunset show and stay on for full band show that went from 7 to10. Demograhpics is everything when it comes to set lists. I never played one of these gigs that was not standing room only. face it we are talking geezer rock. If you want to clear a bar of older people ,, just drill them for an hour of classic guitar based rock and roll that every 40s sumthing fuzz buster band plays. Yea even freeking gloria will work on the right crowd,,, now dont get me wrong ,, that is pretty low level rock in my opinion ,, but a few of those things will win the right crowd over if you do it well. The idea is not to be the same band that every other band is trying to be. gigs like bike nights have alot of older riders ,, so that old crap can fly. You have to be willing to take chances ,,,,just my opinon ,, but then we were the kids that would play a polka at a prom in 1970 too and do a couple country and western songs. dare to be different.

Well, the posts have migrated from this, but I haven't been online for a while.......
I'm with you a hundred percent!
It just kind of knocked me off kilter when I saw someone's playing a song in front of a crowd that I haven't even heard for forty-five years!!

Like everyone has said, "selling" it takes:
1. a consumer (the age group that wants to hear song "X")
2. a seller (the band that can musically and theatrically provide the goods)
3. a currency system

We now return control of your television set to you...

[rhat]

In a way we agree - my last post stated that of course the top bands have multiple singers great musicians, etc. Both "stage presence" and "musicianship/vocal ability" are necessary ingredients to making it to the high paying gigs. A significant deficit in either dooms you to typical bar band status, as you put it. BTW - listen to contemporary R&B and Hip Hip stuff. While I know that most of these vocalists don't have the singing talent that many of the 60's bands had, thanks to technology, many of these songs can still be a bear to pull of live without 3-4 good singers.

 

 

I have been hangin out in one of the countries best knows spring break meccas .... you know what happens when the the kids all hit town? the live musicians pretty well all get laid off and they bring in DJS. The Sound sytems are all pumpin out the hip hop thump through the big subs , and the kids get drunk and party. Live music is pretty well a lost cause with them.

[modulusman]

Whatever guy ... You get into the latter 60s music and dive into some top 40 stuff and pretty well all of it took 3 part vocals. Tie into some byrds...or CSN&Y or sam and dave or temps, the list goes on and on. I dont care to start a pissin match ,,just pointing out the obvious. The dynamic front person with no one capable to back them up vocally will only get you so far. Typically its the local bar. Its not the kind of thing high dollar gigs are built on. Its your average bar band we see today. At least a band should have a lead singer that isnt all over the map pitch wise. If they cant do that ,,, no matter how well they work a crowd ,, it screams weak. Just my opinon

I would rather listen to and play a deep purple song than a temptations song any day.:poke: Smoke on the water may be over rated. Listen to "lazy" and get back to me next month when you get the keyboard part figured out.

[SeniorBlues]

I would rather listen to and play a deep purple song than a temptations song any day.:poke: Smoke on the water may be over rated. Listen to "lazy" and get back to me next month when you get the keyboard part figured out.

Every era has multiple popular genres; a lot of it is a matter of geography and culture. Every musician, dancer, barfly, whatever has his/her own ideas about the elements of a really great song. I'll give John Lord his chops and his wonderful monster rig, but listening analytically to "Lazy" - structure, melody, harmony, rhythm - there are lots of other songs/musicians/composers that I find more enjoyable.

[rhat]

I would rather listen to and play a deep purple song than a temptations song any day.:poke: Smoke on the water may be over rated. Listen to "lazy" and get back to me next month when you get the keyboard part figured out.

No doubt about the keyboard chops ,, but its still basically a wank fest type song. Guys your age are more impressed with that stuff i guess. That stuff was the beginning of the end of rhythm section tough vocal based music. The stuff that followed was fuzz buster driven and the solos took a back seat to vocals. I think where we might agree is on modern country ,, its nice to see vocals really back in to modern music in a big way. Harmony kicks ass and culls out alot of the pack. I guess i am kinda old school.... right down to the ampeg B-15 stashed away in my goodie closet.

[modulusman]

No doubt about the keyboard chops ,, but its still basically a wank fest type song. Guys your age are more impressed with that stuff i guess. That stuff was the beginning of the end of rhythm section tough vocal based music. The stuff that followed was fuzz buster driven and the solos took a back seat to vocals. I think where we might agree is on modern country ,, its nice to see vocals really back in to modern music in a big way. Harmony kicks ass and culls out alot of the pack. I guess i am kinda old school.... right down to the ampeg B-15 stashed away in my goodie closet.

Yeah bands that followed like Kansas, Journey, Head East etc. were just wank-fest bands with no vocal harmonies. I listened to the bass part for "My girl" twice and nailed it for a sub gig. The band I was in back in the early 80s played lazy and that took some work to get it right. We had a great Keyboard player who had 5 keyboards onstage and he could play 2 at a time. He was the best keyboard player I ever worked with. He quit playing music, sold his gear and has worked in a grocery store for the last 25 years.

[JoeDirt]

Yeah bands that followed like Kansas, Journey, Head East etc. were just wank-fest bands with no vocal harmonies.

 

Don't forget Boston, they couldn't sing their way out of a paper bag.

[rhat]

Yeah bands that followed like Kansas, Journey, Head East etc. were just wank-fest bands with no vocal harmonies. I listened to the bass part for "My girl" twice and nailed it for a sub gig. The band I was in back in the early 80s played lazy and that took some work to get it right. We had a great Keyboard player who had 5 keyboards onstage and he could play 2 at a time. He was the best keyboard player I ever worked with. He quit playing music, sold his gear and has worked in a grocery store for the last 25 years.

didnt James Jamerson play the bass on my girl? Soul isnt all that hard until you really get in to the real subtle parts ,, the most difficult thing for a bass player in a soul band is that they better be able to hold down their harmony part as well as play their insturment. 5 boards was unheard of back when I was playing ... You either played a B3 or used a vox combo organ with a big bass amp rig and a leslie. The rhodes had not even come out yet ,, so the whurly was the electric piano of choice. Key rigs were crazy expensive ,, If i remember right ,, just my vox was like 800 bucks and that was when you could buy a new car for 2000. The hard part on that purple song seems like it would be getting the guitar and the organ to jive together ,,, i am sure that took some major work. I would guess cooter could nail that organ lead ,, he is pretty handy with the black and whites. Even today ,, I just use a 88 stage piano. Multiple boards are some guys cup of tea , but like I said ,, I am old school. we run a two guitar and keys deal so the deal is not to cut up the bass player and be able to work with the two guitars. Mr busy fingers will kill a band like that. I can see why he bailed ,,, Not many guys can actually make a living at playing in a band as a side man. Most dont want to tie up every weekend and work a day job. To make a living you pretty well need to be a full on studio pro , or work solo. Sounds like you had a good keyboard player ,,,, too bad he pulled the plug ,, but I can see why he did. I hit the crossroads of going to college or the band going into the studio with our band and taking a chance on the draft. I saw too many of my friends got drafted after a few months on the road. Some of those 60s bands were real revolving doors. The guys who charted california sun were from my home town......they had major draft turn overs. It pretty well tore that band apart in a couple years. Just the difference in our ages made a huge difference when it came to making the decison on what to do after high school.

[TrickyBoy]

 

I have been hangin out in one of the countries best knows spring break meccas .... you know what happens when the the kids all hit town? the live musicians pretty well all get laid off and they bring in DJS. The Sound sytems are all pumpin out the hip hop thump through the big subs , and the kids get drunk and party. Live music is pretty well a lost cause with them.

 

 

Head down here - what you are describing is not the case at all. As a matter of fact, I'm in a huge college town and they are constantly replacing DJs with live music.

 

EDIT: Not to be a dick, but go to places like South Louisiana or Austin and you'll see that live music is alive and kicking and DJs are not taking over live music spots. And there are lots of really good bands playing to the college crowds... Coincidence??? I don't think so at all. But as I've stated in earlier posts, you have to get beyond the "good musicians will win the day" mentality and ENTERTAIN! YMMV

[rhat]

Head down here - what you are describing is not the case at all. As a matter of fact, I'm in a huge college town and they are constantly replacing DJs with live music.

 

 

 

Its no big deal ,,, live music rules the roost all year cept spring break. its a zoo on the island any way ,, most guys are glad to not play . Hell we played a gig sunday at the end of texas week and it took me 45 mins just to drive 2 and a half miles to the gig. South padre at spring break is a zoo. way too many beginner drinkers if you know what I mean. Bar owners running in the DJs is fine with me for that week. Its just not fun when you gotta fight your way though traffic to play. The beauty of the place is that all the gigs are just a couple miles from the casa.....Instead of playing all over hells half acre ,, you play the magic mile and the crowd rotates and does the travel. Its the buffet model of giggin ,,, He sat in keywest and let them come to him. Austin kinda sucks from our point of view. We are a bunch of old guys that dig things island style. we got sea breeze and palm trees in our backyards. Neither austin or the island are big on band pay ... so where would you rather hang out?

[TrickyBoy]

Its no big deal ,,, live music rules the roost all year cept spring break. its a zoo on the island any way ,, most guys are glad to not play . Hell we played a gig sunday at the end of texas week and it took me 45 mins just to drive 2 and a half miles to the gig. South padre at spring break is a zoo. way too many beginner drinkers if you know what I mean. Bar owners running in the DJs is fine with me for that week. Its just not fun when you gotta fight your way though traffic to play. The beauty of the place is that all the gigs are just a couple miles from the casa.....Instead of playing all over hells half acre ,, you play the magic mile and the crowd rotates and does the travel. Its the buffet model of giggin ,,, He sat in keywest and let them come to him. Austin kinda sucks from our point of view. We are a bunch of old guys that dig things island style. we got sea breeze and palm trees in our backyards. Neither austin or the island are big on band pay ... so where would you rather hang out?

 

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm currently 38. If I can get to the point where I can move to Padre, live there and play music, I'm there!!

[wades_keys]

What's lame is a bunch of geezers sucking. Almost as lame is a bunch of geezers just getting by musically on the merits of some song list. New or old, disco or blues rock or dance faves or... What rocks is a bunch a real musicians tightening the screws. all the BS about this and that mean jack. Play your ass off in a musical way and none of it matters a bit. as soon as you start sucking, or rather, never stopped sucking, then all of a sudden that song list means a lot, and your shorts and your music stand and your tats and your bitchy girlfriend who your lead guitarist wants to bed and... Christ. Play your ass off in a musically dynamic and meaningful way and drop the bull{censored}.

This is the gospel truth.

But it does suck to face your weaknesses: kinda takes the "we rock" out of the deal afterwards.

I've been spending more time with theory, thinking about secondary dominants and chord tones, trying to incorporate NOTES and not finger patterns into my playing.

Man, it feels GOOD when you can hear a line and then play it on the fly.

But then there's that little thing called consistency: something I've been preaching to my drummer.....I plan to help him and I both achieve that through controlled volume jam sessions.

I'm hoping to at some point attend Jeff Berlin's Players School of Music and really get a fire lit under my ass.

[tado921]

This is taking things out of context; "geezers" in a local band setting can not be compared in any way, shape or form to established acts with any degree of success. Especially when you are talking about bands that are now older, remember most of them started slugging it out when they were much younger. Same thing happens when people ask questions like "Am I too old for this" and get responses like "Look at "

I disagree. I started playing guitar when I was 11. For various reasons (including some of my own decisions) going pro didn't work out for me. Under different circumstances I might be a part of an established act. I do know that my current cover band can keep a crowd engaged all night long.

I will agree that a bunch of old guys doing mediocre covers is lame, no matter what they are playing. So is a bunch of young kids doing the same thing.

The OP used the term "geezers", so I'm pointing out that what the term usually implies (old guys) can be applied to the top two rock bands in the country at this time. The term applies to me too, but I can play a pretty mean guitar. But since I'm not in a world famous band, I'm lame?

I guess the tone of the OP (to me at least) was that "geezers are lame", and should just give it up. By that logic, STP should quit since they are too old.

[wades_keys]

Let's face it guys, most rock and roll really isn't all that demanding to play.

Of course, there is phrasing, touch and tone.

Things that don't mean {censored} to "the audience"

But I don't give a {censored} about all that: I gotta dig what's coming out of my speakers.