Absolutely agree.
The band plays a song that they were positive would fill the dance floor.... And most of the bar goes for a smoke or a pee break.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Band Meeting - Lowered the Boom
- Thread starter mellowinman
- Start date
Absolutely agree.
The band plays a song that they were positive would fill the dance floor.... And most of the bar goes for a smoke or a pee break.
My reasons for vetoing a song I particularly dislike (or anyone else in the band doing the same) is I that I won't enjoy playing it. Sure I would be able to learn it and play it correctly, even embellish it a little. But the music is only half of the show. If I don't enjoy it, it'll show, and the audience will notice. Even worse for the lead singer. They are the focus of the group, and if they aren't enjoying what they are singing, it'll definitely notice.
I understand that some of you guys will play anything you're asked to do (I guess you wouldn't have any say if you're session musician), and will enjoy it no matter what. But I'm not like that. We don't have a band leader - it's a democracy, but I wouldn't want to risk spoiling a gig by putting in a potential show wrecker that spoils the atmosphere because one of us hates playing a particular song, and nor do our bandmates.
I should add however, that there's songs we play that we're not overly fond of because they're standards for every pub rock/function band that have been done to death (mustang sally, love shack etc), but they always work so we do them, and put on a happy face. What I'm talking about is real hatred of a song. You know, one that makes you want to staple your eyelids to your feet and attempt starjumps.
There are other song suggestions within the band that aren't quiet vetoed, but just don't make the cut. It might be a great song, but sometimes the person who suggests it doesn't think about the big picture and how we could pull it off. For example, I love 'One day like this' by Elbow. But it's just not going to work with the lush orchestral strings being played on a keyboard. Loses its effect somewhat as part of the 'show'.
I understand that some of you guys will play anything you're asked to do (I guess you wouldn't have any say if you're session musician), and will enjoy it no matter what. But I'm not like that. We don't have a band leader - it's a democracy, but I wouldn't want to risk spoiling a gig by putting in a potential show wrecker that spoils the atmosphere because one of us hates playing a particular song, and nor do our bandmates.
I should add however, that there's songs we play that we're not overly fond of because they're standards for every pub rock/function band that have been done to death (mustang sally, love shack etc), but they always work so we do them, and put on a happy face. What I'm talking about is real hatred of a song. You know, one that makes you want to staple your eyelids to your feet and attempt starjumps.
There are other song suggestions within the band that aren't quiet vetoed, but just don't make the cut. It might be a great song, but sometimes the person who suggests it doesn't think about the big picture and how we could pull it off. For example, I love 'One day like this' by Elbow. But it's just not going to work with the lush orchestral strings being played on a keyboard. Loses its effect somewhat as part of the 'show'.
I agree. If the band's not having fun, audiences do notice. I think some of the people here think all their audiences are fools and musical plebs. I don't think that's the case at all.
We must be a rare band. We get along. More like family than just a band. We all have very similar tastes in music, but none of us would push a song that either a) didn't sound good, or b) someone just couldn't get in to.
And we don't practice. Ever. For a new song usually one of the members will send out a note to the others to learn it, and we do and it works. We have a strong following and are beginning to play major events, so something is working.
I am really glad that we don't have the infighting that so often ruins really good bands.
And we don't practice. Ever. For a new song usually one of the members will send out a note to the others to learn it, and we do and it works. We have a strong following and are beginning to play major events, so something is working.
I am really glad that we don't have the infighting that so often ruins really good bands.
Speaking in absolutes is childish. Or lazy. Or narrow-minded or something to that effect. No offense... it just is.
Unless you've actually heard all hip-hop, how do you know what you think about it? Not thinking far enough into the statement is definitely childish IMO.
Musicians. Bless their tightly wrapped hearts.
If you're talking about being "childish", you just made the most childish musical statement I've ever heard. Of course I haven't heard "every" hip hop song, and neither has anybody on the planet. So what? I can remember the first time I heard "Rap" (as it was called then), and I wanted to smash the radio into pieces. In the 20+ years since then, whenever I hear "hip hop" (or whatever they're calling it this week), I still want to smash the radio to pieces. When I hear it in a movie soundtrack, I mute the f&*%#g television. So as I said, it's all crap to me.
You throw out a lot of words like "lazy" and "narrow minded", but I'm betting you have a day job. Some of us actually make a living playing music, so just be careful those stones you so casually throw don't bounce back and hit you in your one eye.
No doubt lashing out was necessary. Obviously some music really provokes a strong emotional response in you. Practically Pavlovian.
And you'd lose that bet. I stand by what I said... and it's nice to see my points being thoroughly though no doubt unintentionally reinforced.
What does a day job have to do with not having overly emotional responses to music?
Now remember, YOU decided to engage me in this tangent. Okay?
Your absolute contends that there is an impossibility that any hip hop would not strike you as crap. Fine. Broad brushes work for some folks. Not me. I listen first, then decide if I like or can "stand" something.
As a professional musician I have what I consider sense enough to not get overly worked up over any music. If there's a legit reason to do so I'm all ears. Otherwise it's just music. You on the other seem to have fits of rage over a genre of music you don't like. And you do this for a living?
I don't think I have to worry about any stones coming my way. And the one eye thing was weird... did you mean "own"?
Seacrest out.
No doubt lashing out was necessary. Obviously some music really provokes a strong emotional response in you. Practically Pavlovian.
And you'd lose that bet. I stand by what I said... and it's nice to see my points being thoroughly though no doubt unintentionally reinforced.
What does a day job have to do with not having overly emotional responses to music?
Now remember, YOU decided to engage me in this tangent. Okay?
Your absolute contends that there is an impossibility that any hip hop would not strike you as crap. Fine. Broad brushes work for some folks. Not me. I listen first, then decide if I like or can "stand" something.
As a professional musician I have what I consider sense enough to not get overly worked up over any music. If there's a legit reason to do so I'm all ears. Otherwise it's just music. You on the other seem to have fits of rage over a genre of music you don't like. And you do this for a living?
I don't think I have to worry about any stones coming my way. And the one eye thing was weird... did you mean "own"?
Seacrest out.
"Overly emotionally responses"? The way you describe music, you're like a musical whore - You play any drivel you're ordered to play. I don't rage over anything, I just have my own tastes, which obviously differ from anybody else's ("taste" is not a dirty word). As for you, you "claim" to have no taste, but if that works for you, best of luck to you.
As for for me "engaging you", please don't credit yourself with such importance. I just responded to a post from an arrogant git. Even worse than that, you're disingenuous: I've never met a single person, musician or otherwise, who didn't "hate" the occasional song.
Just to be fair to your drummer, it's pretty darn difficult to do a song that was recorded with two drummers. If you guys (and gal) are doing songs note for note and beat for beat, it would be nearly impossible for him to pull it off.
You're doing it again. You really can't see that, eh?
I've never been ordered to play anything. Sorry if that's how your gigs work. And I don't play drivel so no point in projecting that on me either. If being a musical whore means I have the ability as a professional to take a song that might otherwise suck and ROCK IT... okay, I'm a musical whore. I don't stand there looking like I'm sucking lemons because I have a strangely personal connection to a song that'll likely be over in less than 10 minutes. Guess I'm a big picture guy... or big picture, well paid musical whore. Whatever you decide to personally call me next. I ain't mad. I'm entertained.
I didn't claim to have no taste, that would take some serious reading gymnastics to come up with that from what I actually wrote. So I'm giving you a 9.8. My tastes don't force me into fits over things I personally don't care for when I'm on the job. I know people like you, I'm glad there are people like you. Seriously.
Strange thing is that some of the best fun I've had on gigs has been with folks like myself who look at playing music we wouldn't choose for our own listening with a sense of humor and actually allow ourselves to have fun with it, sometimes at the song's or artist's expense, more often not. Kind of like the Blues Brothers doing a Tammy Wynette song. I think irony played a role in that shot selection.
I have no idea why any music would piss you off as you say it does and I honestly don't care. I'm just glad I've somehow managed to avoid that.
That would be the "engaging" part, meaning you chose to talk to me, not vice versa, that's all. As far as the people you've met, maybe you should get out more, no offense. I honestly can't think of a song I HATE. There are most certainly songs I don't care for but to take it to the flinging poop at the TV in disgust stage that some of you do? Nope. So the idea that the guy who wanted to smash his radio to pieces doesn't consider that rage is interesting at the very least.
Seriously. Can't think of a single one. I'd explain why but you'd likely call that arrogant too.
Nah, we were going to do our own version. We were going to leave out the keyboards, and only use one guitar. It would've been excellent, but the problem with Whipping Post, even for one drummer, is that it has a section in 11/4 time, with verses, solos etc in 6/4 time. Not only that, but it has the thing he hates most: starts and stops. He wants to chug along in 4/4, and who could blame him?
The main reason I wanted to do the song is because I can sing the heck out of it, and I feel I put a real original spin on it. I have had Southern guys call me "a better version of Greg Allman," and I always took that as the highest compliment. My wife would say, "how is that a compliment when Greg can't hardly sing?" but I don't agree with her; I LOVE listening to Greg Allman, and for the record, I don't think I'm better than him at all.
What I am, though, is DIFFERENT than him, and I think I can bring some emotion, and passion to the song.
In short, I strongly feel I have something to offer on a song like "Whipping Post," not just in terms of vocal, but in terms of a very specific arrangement I had in mind.
And I strongly feel that if I am going to toil in a cover band, instead of writing and playing originals, I should get SOME MUSICAL GRATIFICATION, especially since the clubs around here don't pay squat, and don't exactly have packed houses, either.
I've gone to see some of the biggest name local acts play 1/2 capacity at the supposed "best" clubs in town more than once. This is a fairly lame scene, and if you fill your setlist with at least 3/4 sure-fire audience pleasing hits, you ought to be able to throw in one or two just because you feel you can do something special with them.
I'm going to tell you all right now that I have a fairly bad attitude about all this, because I've probably swam in the stink a little too much, for a little too long. When a person who has LESS experience than me; who has done LESS to book the band; who is the MOST LIKELY to screw up a rhythm, a change or a feel tells me what will and won't go over, they're lucky I don't just pop them, and to be honest, the time where I won't is fast running out.
So no, I doubt I am going to be "fair" to our drummer.
He's a meathead, and I've already secured a fill-in for our next show, which is at a club for veterans, and which will feature ONLY Classic Rock. Not one song we do will be later than 1989, and that's how they LIKE IT at this club.
He's welcome to come listen, and see how these songs go over. No, we won't have time to work up "Whipping Post" with the fill-in, but we dropped every single Saliva, Velvet Revolver, Theory of a Deadman and freaking NICKELBACK song, and picked up some Rolling Stones, Bob Seger, and Ike and Tina.
I've had it, man. We've got three players with chemistry, and similar work ethic, and just because one guy can keep a beat doesn't mean we should just assume our drummer woes are over.
Once you've played with a certain number of drummers, you start realizing how easy it is to plug in anyone who's good, without missing a beat. Which is kind of the point.
Maybe one day I'll find one that thinks working up his own rendition of "Whipping Post" for one competent drummer is exciting and challenging.
Maybe we'll hire some flying pigs.
You're doing it again. You really can't see that, eh?
You two need to get a room. Believe it or not, I didn't come here for peeing contests with other tbassers. I actually am using this thread to figure stuff out, express myself, and enlist the opinions of other players, whether I agree with them or not.
I don't care whether anyone likes me or doesn't like me, but I do care if someone points something out that helps me come to a decision, or gives me something to think about.
Please refrain from flaming each other, if you don't mind.
Thank you,
Richard Davidson
frustrated musician
You asked what we thought. I told you. Mark has a problem with what I said. And I didn't flame him. Maybe it hit too close to home, which is not my problem. I don't care if anyone likes me either. I gave an honest response.
I also responded to his "thoughts" in an adult manner and didn't resort to what he did. So no, I don't need to get a room.
To recap, here's where I started: "I don't hate any songs so I don't really have a need for rules like this. I'm game... I've been surprised by a few things that worked much better than we thought they should have. And I've seen trainwrecks on songs everyone liked. I will point out the high potential of a trainwreck song, other than that, count it off".
Seems awfully on topic to me. Anyone who doesn't like it can get their own room.
I actually had to go back to the first page (after starting there and reading this far - including my one post somewhere in there) to get refocused on MMs post, which had to do with "band rules", not really with liking or disliking music.
I think the first post really did have "liking or disliking music" at its heart. Just look at mellow's last post...
Mellow, whatever you may have said in this thread previously, your last post made it plain that you're interested in playing songs you like and are not too interested in playing songs you don't like. You and the drummer are butting heads on it, to the point of being ready to "pop" him over it!! This leads me to believe that your rule was invented to stifle the drummer and let your song preferences rise to the fore, since you would have some sway over the other two members, your wife and the young guitar player, and the drummer would have to solicit one of you three to sing his choices...
Why not just get rid of the drummer, if you three are so out of sync with him? Why go this route with the rule construction that is so obviously meant to marginalize him?
But like I told you before, I do think you guys should do Whipping Post. Great song.
There. Still like me?
=======
P.S., I do think you should get some musical gratification, and I ain't got no problem with you wanting to do your song choices.... I'm just saying it appears to me that the "Rule" is really more about getting your way than it is about being a fair process for ALL of your bandmates.
And here seems to be the real focus of the thread.
As ChrisB2 said, you have a problem with your drummer which is the real band issue.
I would only suggest giving his replacement an equal say in band decisions.
Furthermore, Whipping Post rocks and I really like your idea of a re-arrangement.
Passinwind
I know nothing.
- Dec 3, 2003
- 23,087
- 46,068
- Disclosures
- Designer/Toaster Tech @ Passinwind Electronics
