What "wows" you about hearing a new band?

[Tedster]

I posted this over on MP, just 'cause it happened to occur to me when I was there...(no offense...), but, I want to hear what the HCers have to say...

 

I suppose I could make this a poll, but I'd rather have a discussion. What factor or factors wow you the most when you see a great band? Or, you can rate these if you like...add your own. And also discuss what's least important. BTW...keep in mind that we're musicians. How do you think your answers would differ from Joe Doakes, the welder?

 

1. Musicianship

2. Physical appearance of members (hot chick singer, etc.)

3. Tightness of the group

4. Song selection

5. Vocal ability (backing vocals too)

6. Stage presence of band members

7. "Gee whiz" equipment...sound system, instruments, lighting.

8. The "act"...going from song to song without a big debate onstage. This differs from tightness in that a band can be well rehearsed on individual songs, but poorly rehearsed as far as putting it together in a cohesive "show". This also includes audience rappor..

9. Anything I've left out.

 

When you're done rating these elements, take a look at your own band and discuss how to improve any shortfalls in the major areas.

[Badside]

For me it's always been: if I want to listen to the CD, I'll listen to the CD!

 

It's ok with me if you don't play the song note for note, as long as you give me one hell of a show! But please do not sing overly flat or sharp, do not play your guitar in the wrong key for 2 minutes before realizing, and try to keep your guitar in tune! False notes are like nails on a chalkboard to me.

 

I don't care about looks, and I don't really care whether you play a Crate or a Diezel if everything works together.

 

The best show I've seen in my entire life (really) was Story of the Year, and I don't even like their CD! It was a combination of multiple things: first the songs are crafted for live playing! They're full of small breaks and tempo changes to keep your attention, they have catchy melodies and breakdowns where the crowds sing along. Their stage act is also phenomenal, the two guitarists are freaking maniacs and do backflips from the top of their cabs, rotate the guitar over the shoulder, do 360degree jumps, throw their guitar from each side of the stage. And despite all of this, the band IS tight!!! And the lighting program is so well crafted.

 

Bottom line is: they give a good show and they write their songs thinking more about the stage than the studio.

[THX1138]

1. Musicianship

I notice the level of musicianship, but I don't put too much stock in individual's playing abilities. Some of the best players I've ever heard made for the {censored}tiest band members.

 

2. Physical appearance of members (hot chick singer, etc.)

Yeah I think appearance is kinda important, more specifically if they have a somewhat unified image.

 

3. Tightness of the group

VERY important. Much moreso than musicianship.

 

4. Song selection

Not as important to me. Just do what you do, and do it well.

 

5. Vocal ability (backing vocals too)

Always a big plus. Personally, I think the better bands out there, be they cover or original, are the ones who have a strong vocal prescence.

 

6. Stage presence of band members

Bigtime important. In my genre (rock) live performance is much more about the visual aspect than the audio. I don't care if you can rip off side one of 2112 without flaw. If you put no emotion into your playing, you lose me real quick. I also don't care for forced prescence. I have to believe that you mean what your doin.

 

7. "Gee whiz" equipment...sound system, instruments, lighting.

Yeah somewhat. Its always cool to see the big show cause not enough bands put the effort into it these days. But if the band can't back it all up with their performance, its useless. If the band CAN back it up, then it takes the show to another level.

 

8. The "act"...going from song to song without a big debate onstage. This differs from tightness in that a band can be well rehearsed on individual songs, but poorly rehearsed as far as putting it together in a cohesive "show". This also includes audience rappor..

This IMHO is what seperates pros from bands who should stay in the basement til they get a clue. I HATE HATE HATE dead air. Keep the show flowing, work the crowd, keep the party jumpin, etc.

 

9. Anything I've left out.

I dunno, you covered it pretty well.

[Tedster]

Originally posted by THX1138 1. Musicianship Some of the best players I've ever heard made for the {censored}tiest band members.

 

 

Ahhh, you have spoken wisely!

 

[Lee Flier]

I answered this on MP , but I'll say it here too...

 

I can't really answer that, because it varies from band to band and is often hard to define. It's a gut response. Either a band has the ability to move me or they don't... and those that have moved me have varied so much that I couldn't put my finger on why they did. They have ranged from tight to sloppy, great showmen to shy introverts, great musicians to "can barely play 3 chords"... and the same goes for bands that DIDN'T move me. I guess the unifying factor is passion and conviction, the ability to do whatever it is you do to the fullest, and play like you mean it. And of course, the songs themselves matter a lot.

 

I will say that appearance, stage show, and other cosmetic stuff are about the LEAST relevant factors to me... unfortunately the same is not true of a lot of average listeners.

[Tedster]

True dat, Miz Lee...and that's one of the things about this, there are going to be almost as many different answers as there are people who respond. A musician's take will be different from most average listeners, and the non-musician who is a music aficionado will answer differently from the "I give it a 95, I can dance to it" type people.

 

One thing that no band can be, even the best of bands, is all things to all people...and it's all about assuming an identity for yourself I guess. Cover, original, mix? Rock, alt country, fusion, klezmer, what have you? Just gotta find your niche and be true to it.

 

Personally, I wanna be in a klezmer fusion band.

[Ryan Turner]

The first thing I notice about a new band (I'm assuming this is live, right?) is the overall tightness of the band's sound and the vocals. I play guitar, but these are the first things I notice. I won't even notice a bad or good guitar sound before I notice these things.

[Lee Flier]

Heh... yeah that's funny I don't usually notice the guitar right off either, and I'm a guitar player as well. The first thing I usually notice about a band is the drummer. If the drummer's great it makes the whole band sound great even if they're not that great; if the drummer sucks it makes the whole band suck.

[Tedster]

I agree with both Fuel and Lee...

 

If the drummer's good and the vocals are good, the band is good. A guitar player or bass player can be average, and the band will still cook...as long as they're not horrible.

 

Cases in point that come to mind...CCR and U2, just a couple.

[Meatball Fulton]

What wows me is the whole package...good songs, good musicianship, good stage show.

 

Making it seem totally effortless while hiding all the hard work that's behind it.

 

Being unusual in any aspect of the above makes it a lot easier to wow me. 35 years ago I watched Alice Cooper throwing dollar bills into the audience while the other band members sprayed each other with fire extinguishers. That got my attention

[riffdaddy]

1. Musicianship

The most important thing, hands down. A good band is a good band. You don't have to be a musician to figure out when cats are swinging and when they aren't.

 

2. Physical appearance of members (hot chick singer, etc.)

Not important, unless I have a shot at the chick singer.

 

3. Tightness of the group

This doesn't really differ from musicianship IMO, unless somebody in the band isn't pulling their weight.

 

4. Song selection

Very important to me; less important to an audience, though I do believe a quality set list produces a much more lasting impression. My band insists on playing "Da Butt" because, according to them, "it gets the crowd dancing." Okay, fine. But we could make them dance by playing Stevie Wonder or Otis Redding instead and they'd be a helluvalot more likely to remember who we were when the drunken haze wears off.

 

5. Vocal ability (backing vocals too)

Gotta have 'em. I've met very few good musicians who legitimately can't sing. If you can carry a tune, you should have a mic in front of you. I believe in doubling and tripling backing parts as much as possible because it creates a bigger sound. A band that can't do backing vocals when they're needed is pretty lame IMO.

 

6. Stage presence of band members

Less important to me. I've seen bands full of wallflowers that still blew me away.

 

7. "Gee whiz" equipment...sound system, instruments, lighting.

An adequate PA and lighting is all I'm looking for. The individual band members should have quality equipment. I don't like seeing a band where everybody has nice equipment except one guy, and he's playing on a Peavey Firenza through a Randall.

 

8. The "act"...going from song to song without a big debate onstage. This differs from tightness in that a band can be well rehearsed on individual songs, but poorly rehearsed as far as putting it together in a cohesive "show". This also includes audience rappor..

I don't understand why this is so difficult for some bands.

[SeanGuitar]

Musicianship, how the set flows (cool transitions between songs / an order that fits with the songs moods etc), and the attitude of the band are most important to me. If a band seems like theyre just trying too hard to rock out it can just come off as fake to me... they have to seem sincere and honest with their music and how they perform. As long as the band can get into the emotion in their own music without looking like their acting I can dig it . Vocal ability is also important but in a weird way. A lot of singers really can't sing all that well technically but it fits the style of the music. Thats ok with me . As long as they can pull it together as a group.

 

And p.s. Story of the Year got caught lip synching a while back. I think they said it was because their singer had pneumonia or something but that kind of turns me off to any live show.

[Badside]

Originally posted by SeanGuitar And p.s. Story of the Year got caught lip synching a while back. I think they said it was because their singer had pneumonia or something but that kind of turns me off to any live show.

 

I guess he must really sing most of the time cause on the live DVD, he's flat the whole time!

The guy should really start using in-ears if he's gonna run around this much.

 

The show I went to was definitely a live performance, not lyp-sync.

[shredhead666]

Band dynamics

Singer's voice (a singer can make or break ya)

Appearance

Sound quality

Technical ability

[miles to go]

I'll approach this from a slightly different angle: I saw a band last night that I was fairly impressed with. I had seen the front woman as a solo act before, but this was the first time I'd seen the "full band" version. Instrumentation was Vox, acoustic gtr, bass and drums. Here's how I'd rate the experience:

 

1. Musicianship

She has a good voice, which is key. Her guitar skills, while nothing fancy, are fine for the style (folksy acoustic-rock.) Rythym section was smokin'! This made a huge difference for me, but I'm a bass player.

 

2. Physical appearance of members (hot chick singer, etc.)

She's attractive in a girl-next-door, kind of way. This definitely helps the overall experience, but is far from imperative.

 

3. Tightness of the group

Top notch. The addition of the rhythm section was seamless. This is often a problem with the solo-artist + backing band scenario.

 

4. Song selection

All originals, Pretty good songwriting.

 

5. Vocal ability (backing vocals too)

She will live or die by her vocal ability and I think she does a pretty good job. Not quite world class, but she's still a little green. No backing vocals. They might have added to the show, but I never really felt their absence.

 

6. Stage presence of band members

She seems a little shy and maybe a bit nervous. Definitely not a rock-star persona, but appropriate given the genre. She does come across as genuine and humble. You really want to like this girl. Banter may have been a bit stilted, but it came across as honest. Bassist and drummer were hamming it up a bit, but they weren't mic'ed so it was hard to hear.

 

7. "Gee whiz" equipment...sound system, instruments, lighting.

Decent equipment onstage, but nothing fancy. Nice house sound and lights. Not really an issue.

 

8. The "act"...going from song to song without a big debate onstage. This differs from tightness in that a band can be well rehearsed on individual songs, but poorly rehearsed as far as putting it together in a cohesive "show". This also includes audience rappor..

Not too bad. There were a couple of tuning breaks (for capo changes) which the bass and drums would vamp through. This seemed a little forced, but at least kept everyone entertained. She seemed to connect with the audience fairly well.

 

9. Anything I've left out.

I used the phrase "nothing fancy" a couple of times, and that describes the show. There was nothing slick or pretentious about it. Just good music performed well. What they lack in polish, they make up for in likeability. There the type of people you'd like to sit and have a beer with, and it shows.

[Preacher Will]

Some things that are important to me include:

 

1) The mix -- heard too many bands where the mix was little more than a wash of sound with no definition between the various instruments. A bad mix will kill a good band.

 

2) Dynamics -- Everything dimed for three sets = sonic shock not a musical experience.

 

3) Playing TOGETHER -- How many times have you been to a show that was multiple solo acts simultaneously sharing a stage rather than a band? Groups need to learn to play together, with each other, off of each other, and out of each other's way.

[Tedster]

That's the Gospel Truth, Preacher!

 

Can we get an AMEN?!?!

 

Which is why I'll have to disagree with Riffdaddy's earlier statement...

 

"3. Tightness of the group

This doesn't really differ from musicianship IMO, unless somebody in the band isn't pulling their weight."

 

Yeah, it differs from musicianship, IMO...for the reason that the Preacher gave above.

 

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Tedster That's the Gospel Truth, Preacher! Can we get an AMEN?!?! Which is why I'll have to disagree with Riffdaddy's earlier statement... "3. Tightness of the group This doesn't really differ from musicianship IMO, unless somebody in the band isn't pulling their weight." Yeah, it differs from musicianship, IMO...for the reason that the Preacher gave above.

 

I disagree. If you're not doing the things PW is talking about, you're demonstrating poor musicianship. Musicianship is about interacting with other musicians, not having the wankiest set of chops ever on your instrument.

[BLAH]

The first song, ive been to gigs where theres a band and their first song is amazing. It really turns my head.

 

I also think a band needs some uniqueness . Most of the bands around my area have decent vocals, tight songs and are generally good.

But they sound like all the balls poppy {censored}e thats out now

Like Bloc Party , futureheads and bravery.... etc