Band Image With Extreme Musical Diversity? What Do You Think?

electracoyote · #1 01-22-2010, 09:23 AM

I wanted to bounce this off my TB brothers and sisters. It's a little long, please bear with me, and I appreciate you sharing your experience and/or opinions.

I joined a classic rock/dance pop/blues band a few months ago. We're all mature, experienced players, and it really sounds good. We get along and have become fast friends. I believe we genuinely enjoy each other's company. We are having fun at rehearsals and gigs, getting booked plenty to satisfy all of us, and the venues are nice clean places.

However, we're struggling with image and musical direction. The lead singer wants to rename the band and design new logo, website, and promotional material, but we are stumped over a name and direction.

Part of the problem is that we are a classic rock/dance pop/blues band. That covers a lot of ground, and we are trying to be all things to all people, give everyone in the band equal say about songs, and we can't get any continuity or momentum. Everything we play, we play well, audiences generally appreciate us, but we sense the diversity is a little disorienting, and it dilutes the overall impact.

At rehearsal last night, I suggested the following:

Why not have two or three distinct musical identities and directions?

For example, looking over our set lists, we could be (1) a fist-pumping headbanging classic arena rock band. No pressure to make people dance, just rock out, (2) a dance/pop/funk/R&B band, guaranteed party starters and rump shakers all night long from start to finish, or (3) a kick-arse blues band, no mainstream pop, just all blues, all night.

I feel we could be successful and competitive in all three of those areas, we already do a lot of material from each category, we could market ourselves better to different clubs and clients, and we would have more concise musical direction(s) allowing us to come up with band names and image much easier.

There's always room for a little cross-pollination at the gig as well. Let's say we're in dance/pop/funk mode, and someone shouts out "Led Zeppelin!" If it fits, why not whip out a little "Rock And Roll?"

Anyway, every band member got very pumped up about this, I was amazed at the level of enthusiasm.

Thanks for staying with me. Your thoughts?

ThatGermanDude · #2 01-22-2010, 09:27 AM

This may be what you're talking about, but why not have three different set lists and play whatever fits the venue best? This would give you so many more options to play out.

electracoyote · #3 01-22-2010, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatGermanDude

This may be what you're talking about, but why not have three different set lists and play whatever fits the venue best? This would give you so many more options to play out.

Yes, I think you're on the same page. We're going to segregate our exisiting material into three categories, and then proceed to fill out those categories with more similar material until we have three-plus sets of music (an evening's worth) for each.

Each category represents a more concise musical direction, and we will market ourselves based on those three musical identities. Seperate names, images, websites, etc.

cbrophy · #4 01-22-2010, 09:38 AM

There is no reason at all why this would not work(If everyone is in agreement).....go for it!

shirky · #5 01-22-2010, 09:47 AM

I gotta say that if I was a band member, I would vote against having multiple identities.

I think it would confuse your audience...they'd see a pic for band Y, and say "Why does that say band Y? Did band X break up or something?" Or people who might otherwise come to see band X might not feel like leaving the house to see band Y. Or someone at work asks "What's your band's name?" and you answer "well, that depends..."

Granted that my ideas are based on the notion that clubs care about how many people come out to see your band...if you could care less about drawing a crowd, then heck - do whatever you want.

IMHO bands should only change names when:
1. There are legalities involved (i.e. you found out there's a band with the same name in the next city over)
2. Drastic change to personnel
3. Things went downhill and you want to get a fresh start, leaving the old band name behind and making some other sort of change to justify new identity.

I wish you luck with whatever path you choose. Cheers!

DudeistMonk · #6 01-22-2010, 09:52 AM

You could have 3 different band names/logos/images combined under one common link, because you are really planning on being 3 different bands...Sort of like how the Daptones rename themselves every time they work with a different vocal artist "The Daptones", "The Daptaries (sp?)", "The Dap Kings."

electracoyote · #7 01-22-2010, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shirky

I gotta say that if I was a band member, I would vote against having multiple identities.

I think it would confuse your audience...they'd see a pic for band Y, and say "Why does that say band Y? Did band X break up or something?" Or people who might otherwise come to see band X might not feel like leaving the house to see band Y. Or someone at work asks "What's your band's name?" and you answer "well, that depends..."

Granted that my ideas are based on the notion that clubs care about how many people come out to see your band...if you could care less about drawing a crowd, then heck - do whatever you want.

IMHO bands should only change names when:
1. There are legalities involved (i.e. you found out there's a band with the same name in the next city over)
2. Drastic change to personnel
3. Things went downhill and you want to get a fresh start, leaving the old band name behind and making some other sort of change to justify new identity.

I wish you luck with whatever path you choose. Cheers!

Hey, thanks for the feedback. Food for thought.

We have a local entertainer here in the Denver area by the name of Lannie Garrett. She has three or four distinctly seperate acts. She does a country-western revue, a disco show, and a big band show (torch ballads and uptempo swing).

She is one of the best paid entertainers in the Denver area. She works constantly, and only for top-dollar corporate clients, large rooms and theaters. A couple of years ago she was able to finance the opening of her own club downtown.

It's absolutely true that people who might otherwise come to see band X might not feel like leaving the house to see band Y. And that's why I'd like to be in bands X, Y, and Z. As long as a roomful of people come to see whatever band happens to be playing that night, I would consider it a success.

jive1 · #8 01-22-2010, 10:02 AM

I've considered this, and the main issue is that you have to multiply your work in terms of promotion.

Multiple websites, printings, songlists, promo-packs could be burdensome. Promoting one product is enough work, as is. Promoting 2 or more could detract from the music, as the effort will be substantial.

electracoyote · #9 01-22-2010, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeistMonk

You could have 3 different band names/logos/images combined under one common link, because you are really planning on being 3 different bands...Sort of like how the Daptones rename themselves every time they work with a different vocal artist "The Daptones", "The Daptaries (sp?)", "The Dap Kings."

Good idea, I question the need for three websites. I think that's going a little too far and may distract people.

ThatGermanDude · #10 01-22-2010, 10:03 AM

I think I would stick to one band name. This idea reminds me of something John Mayer did for a concert once. He played one set acoustic, then one with his trio and then one with his regular, pop band. It seems to work out for him.

WalterBush · #11 01-22-2010, 10:21 AM

Identify yourselves through a production company. That same production company books your three separate bands. It's worked out reasonably well for my little group here.

Example: We incorporated under Groovin' Hard productions. Groovin Hard handles our dance band, our rock band, and our jazz/trio/quartet/quintet. People may not recognize the name we're gigging under, but most people who want or need to know identify us with Groovin' Hard productions.

Having separate names for separate acts makes an easier sell to casinos, too. They're not left confused about who we are and what we do, or which incarnation of our band they're getting. No wondering if we're showing up to play rock, disco, or jazz that way, or which singer we're showing up with( we rotate them). Putting it all under one production company means less in the way of printing, marketing, etc.

It has some disadvantages, too, but for the most part it's working out for us.

DudeistMonk · #12 01-22-2010, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electracoyote

Good idea, I question the need for three websites. I think that's going a little too far and may distract people.

Nah I would make one website with 3 banners

Daptones ------ Daptaries ------ Dapkings

Naviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iigation

Content Here

Make it totally clear that all three are the same band, separate the set lists but put them all on the same page, and make it clear that you will do a gig with any combination of set lists. The point is to market the idea that you could be 3 separate bands but are really one, and that people are getting 3X what they pay for, that you have enough talent to play "anything" ect. and I'd treat one name as the "main" name.

This is only if your really into the idea of having 3 separate names, you can always just offer set list choices to club owners and make a statement at your shows like "we cover a wide variety of music from X to Z and you can go to our website for complete set lists"

On a side note I'm now jonesing for some Brooklyn soul...I can't find the name of their bass player but damn is he good, excellent sense of groove/pocket.

electracoyote · #13 01-22-2010, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jive1

I've considered this, and the main issue is that you have to multiply your work in terms of promotion.

Multiple websites, printings, songlists, promo-packs could be burdensome. Promoting one product is enough work, as is. Promoting 2 or more could detract from the music, as the effort will be substantial.

+1

This would involve a lot more work. We would be responsible for a lot more music also, and we'd want each entity to sound as good as possible.

electracoyote · #14 01-22-2010, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeistMonk

Nah I would make one website with 3 banners

Okay, I'm with you now.

electracoyote · #15 01-22-2010, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WalterBush

Identify yourselves through a production company. That same production company books your three separate bands. It's worked out reasonably well for my little group here.

This is good stuff. Our lead singer has been handling the promotion and booking, I will be sure to let her know.

tycobb73 · #16 01-22-2010, 11:09 AM

when you book your band just ask your customer if there is any gnere they wouldn't like to hear or nay they would prefer.

Phalex · #17 01-22-2010, 12:00 PM

Don't change the name of an established band.

There is an established band where I live that has had a major restructuring, and I think they are really going to be a force to be reckoned with.

The core band (Who's name they kept) has been playing country/rock around here for probably 20 years. The bass player (he kicks serious butt) has played in classic/hard rock bands around town for years too. The singer they got (Actually she started out with the band who's name they kept about 15 years ago or so) comes from another great band in the area.

They have incredible depth, as well as talent. I don't think there's a venue that could offer ajob that they couldn't take. Country? Sure. Metal? Sure. Classic Rock? Yep. Funk? Oh they got it.

If you have the depth, I don't think there's anything wrong with doing everything. So long as you do everything well.

sevenyearsdown · #18 01-22-2010, 12:12 PM

I think if your in the whole party rock cover band thing, then I would guess having a wide array of stuff to play is a good thing.

electracoyote · #19 01-22-2010, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sevenyearsdown

I think if your in the whole party rock cover band thing, then I would guess having a wide array of stuff to play is a good thing.

That's what I used to think. But here's what happens:

We do "Sharp Dressed Man," pack the floor. Then we kick into the swing beat blues of "Pride and Joy." The floor clears.

We do "Sweet Home Alabama," pack the floor. We move into the fist pumping "Radar Love." The floor clears.

I like the idea of perhaps keeping one name, but just drawing up three more focused, consistent sets of music and letting venue managers tell us which band they want us to be for the night.

Pbassred · #20 01-22-2010, 02:57 PM

I'm defiantly with three bands/ three names thing. I don't think that anyone is going to get confused because the fans will be different people. If people become fans of both bRands they will at least know what to expect from each. If you are covers bands it will be triple the amount of earning opportunities.

It has even worked for original music. In the late sixties Johnathan King wrote and performed under several names simultaneously because he could release several records at once.

Its what I would do. It might be easier to start and one band name and work up. Good luck.