Dumbing down: a slight rant

[murph7489]

Play That Funky Music - Wild Cherry.

ha ha...yeah my band added this one to our song list...so we are rehearsing it..the lead guitar player looks at me while we are playing the intro..glaring at me as if I'm playing it totally wrong..we stop to talk about some parts of the song and he says to me, you're playing that wrong, and he proceeds to play his part..which IS different from what the bass part is doing..I said no, I don't play the same thing you do..I have a totally different part...lol. So we put the song on and listen, he realizes he's wrong..then says..oh sorry...

However I have seen bands play this where the bass player plays the same thing as the guitar player and it makes me cringe...it sounds sort of okay I guess to the average listener but to me, its on the level of an error such as a construction company leaving out a few bolts on the I beams of the main frame of the structure to cut corners and meet a deadline, but then the building collapses killing bunches of people....

 

[delta7fred]

However I have seen bands play this where the bass player plays the same thing as the guitar player and it makes me cringe..

It only makes you cringe because you know how it should go, to those that don't it sounds normal - Ignorance is bliss!

 

[btmpancake]

You can only dumb down a song so much that it kills the spirit of the song.

 

[LBS-bass]

I feel like I should admit here that, for as much as I'm unhappy with being asked to do it in a band I am in, there are times when it's appropriate. When you have a group of beginners you don't start them out with complicated material. A kid's ensemble recital, for example, is going to be arranged in such a way that all the parts are within the reach of the players' skill level.

A group of teenagers in a garage band might be comparable in terms of skill and there is a lot of music that they can choose that doesn't need to be dumbed down in order to be playable.

I think that one thing that bugs me about dumbing down requests is that they seem to imply a lack of willingness to work on something that might improve someone's abilities. Add an extra measure so that you don't have to think about that one strange hiccup in the song? Why not just learn to anticipate and play that little hiccup? And so forth. But there is a lot of laziness out there that I don't really understand because, for me, half the fun of playing music involves challenging myself. And I get that not everyone is like that, so I try to find like-minded people to play with.

 

[Joe Nerve]

Doing the wedding band thing we dumb down lots of songs. Makes life a whole lot easier and, nobody cares. Helps us to be able to prepare lots more songs lots more efficiently. Knocking out complicated bridges and stuff also creates room to get more songs played.

We don't dumb down challenging songs or play parts differently - we just edit out bridges and parts that really aren't worth the rehearsal time or possible train wrecks. We only rehearse 3 or 4 times a year.

 

[LBS-bass]

Doing the wedding band thing we dumb down lots of songs. Makes life a whole lot easier and, nobody cares. Helps us to be able to prepare lots more songs lots more efficiently. Knocking out complicated bridges and stuff also creates room to get more songs played.

We don't dumb down challenging songs or play parts differently - we just edit out bridges and parts that really aren't worth the rehearsal time or possible train wrecks. We only rehearse 3 or 4 times a year.

That actually makes sense to me because it's a cost/benefit thing with a working band. Sometimes the perfect can be the enemy of the good.

 

[oldrocker]

Doing the wedding band thing we dumb down lots of songs. Makes life a whole lot easier and, nobody cares. Helps us to be able to prepare lots more songs lots more efficiently. Knocking out complicated bridges and stuff also creates room to get more songs played.

We don't dumb down challenging songs or play parts differently - we just edit out bridges and parts that really aren't worth the rehearsal time or possible train wrecks. We only rehearse 3 or 4 times a year.

You may not be in a position to know is anyone cares. I doubt that during a wedding anyone would come up to the bass player and complain about a song that didn't sound right.

For me, If I was paying top $$$ for a wedding band I would expect that they would care enough to not edit out parts that are too much trouble for the band to get right.

A bar band is one thing - but again, for me If I was paying top $$$ for a wedding band I would also expect that they would rehearse more than 3 or 4x a year.

This could be the reason a lot of weddings are using DJs instead of live bands.

 

[Joe Nerve]

You may not be in a position to know is anyone cares. I doubt that during a wedding anyone would come up to the bass player and complain about a song that didn't sound right.

For me, If I was paying top $$$ for a wedding band I would expect that they would care enough to not edit out parts that are too much trouble for the band to get right.

A bar band is one thing - but again, for me If I was paying top $$$ for a wedding band I would also expect that they would rehearse more than 3 or 4x a year.

This could be the reason a lot of weddings are using DJs instead of live bands.

Well... a few things.

First, of course I'm sure there's a person or 2 who might wish we played a bridge in a song we edited it out of, but as far as the general audience goes - I can near guarantee that the cutting of certain parts works FOR as opposed to against us. I'll explain in a minute, but I want to make clear first that while I said we dumb down lots of songs - 90% or more of what we play is dead on true to the recordings. The "dumbing down," (which I think is a poor choice of words) happens for first dances (where its REQUESTED by the couples), and for songs where it really does just seem pointless to toil over something that's not going to make or break the tune. If we were simply dumbing down everything we did, that would not help us. It would hurt us. We don't do that.

The positive part of it is that the edits we DO make enable us to fit in a wider variety of music. Most of the edits are in dance tunes, where we're cutting out much less than a DJ even would. We also never stop playing once we hit the stage, so every song goes right into the next, always.

RE the rehearsal thing, we're pros. We're incredibly responsible, and we do our homework. The ability to perform without rehearsing is a positive thing, not a negative one. We also play every weekend, sometime 3 nights. I wouldn't say we're unrehearsed. A while back we got asked to do Little Help From my Friends a couple of days before the wedding (none of us knew it or every played it). There was a bit involved in this one, and I kinda got a kick out of the fact that I knew we were going to nail it. I don't generally record us, but I wanted to catch this one cuz I doubt we'll ever play it again...

The mix ain't great as my phone is on my amp, but you can get the idea.

 

[Lagado]

Playing things note for note is not going to quite sound exactly like the other guy anyway, not quite. What it does is give you an insight into how those bassists approached those lines, things that wouldn't be a natural choice for you. It's expanding your vocabulary.

 

[DrMole]

Well... a few things.

First, of course I'm sure there's a person or 2 who might wish we played a bridge in a song we edited it out of, but as far as the general audience goes - I can near guarantee that the cutting of certain parts works FOR as opposed to against us. I'll explain in a minute, but I want to make clear first that while I said we dumb down lots of songs - 90% or more of what we play is dead on true to the recordings. The "dumbing down," (which I think is a poor choice of words) happens for first dances (where its REQUESTED by the couples), and for songs where it really does just seem pointless to toil over something that's not going to make or break the tune. If we were simply dumbing down everything we did, that would not help us. It would hurt us. We don't do that.

The positive part of it is that the edits we DO make enables us to fit in a much wider variety of music. Most of the edits are in dance tunes, where we're cutting out much less than a DJ even would. We also never stop once we hit the stage, so every song goes right into the next, always.

RE the rehearsal thing, we're pros. We're incredibly responsible, and we do our homework. The ability to perform without rehearsing is a positive thing, not a negative one. A while back we got asked to do Little Help From my Friends a couple of days before the wedding (none of us knew it or every played it). There was a bit involved in this one, and I kinda got a kick out of the fact that I knew we were going to nail it. I don't generally record us, but I wanted to catch this one cuz I doubt we'll ever play it again...

The mix ain't great cuz my phone is on my amp, but you can get the idea.

Well done!

 

[LBS-bass]

Well... a few things.

First, of course I'm sure there's a person or 2 who might wish we played a bridge in a song we edited it out of, but as far as the general audience goes - I can near guarantee that the cutting of certain parts works FOR as opposed to against us. I'll explain in a minute, but I want to make clear first that while I said we dumb down lots of songs - 90% or more of what we play is dead on true to the recordings. The "dumbing down," (which I think is a poor choice of words) happens for first dances (where its REQUESTED by the couples), and for songs where it really does just seem pointless to toil over something that's not going to make or break the tune. If we were simply dumbing down everything we did, that would not help us. It would hurt us. We don't do that.

The positive part of it is that the edits we DO make enable us to fit in a wider variety of music. Most of the edits are in dance tunes, where we're cutting out much less than a DJ even would. We also never stop playing once we hit the stage, so every song goes right into the next, always.

RE the rehearsal thing, we're pros. We're incredibly responsible, and we do our homework. The ability to perform without rehearsing is a positive thing, not a negative one. We also play every weekend, sometime 3 nights. I wouldn't say we're unrehearsed. A while back we got asked to do Little Help From my Friends a couple of days before the wedding (none of us knew it or every played it). There was a bit involved in this one, and I kinda got a kick out of the fact that I knew we were going to nail it. I don't generally record us, but I wanted to catch this one cuz I doubt we'll ever play it again...

The mix ain't great as my phone is on my amp, but you can get the idea.

Sounds like you're playing dance medleys. That's not dumbing down in my book, that's just doing medleys.

 

[75Ric]

Luckily I've never been in a band(as a member) that had to dumb anything down, songs were done right, tricky parts were/are a fun challenge.

Tricky parts are a fun challenge. My band was about to try Adrienne & Adrianne by Vulfpeck for the first time. It has a tricky timing part in the chorus. The lead guitarist thought we would have trouble with it and suggested dumbing it down. Since it's mostly a keys and bass song, I looked over at the keyboard player and he winked at me. So, we basically just ignored him. It turned out fine right out of the box. Later the guitarist said he was surprised we were able to play it so well. I said, yeah, we may not be pros, but we have heart.

 

[Shalto]

I'm with you. I joined a band and they did this awful and embarrassing version of Folsom Prison Blues with a screaming, rambling, completely inappropriate guitar solo. I tried to tactfully talk to them about it several times, suggesting that we might try to do it closer to the original. The guitar player was on board, but the drummer kept resisting and when it was on the set list for our first job I finally had to put my foot down and told them I wasn't going to play it as-is. The drummer started whining and moaning and asking what the problem was. When I saw that being nice wasn't going to work I finally said, "Because our version sucks, it's embarrassingly awful and I'm not going to look like an A-- Hole in front of a room of people." Sometimes you just have to put your foot down.

ha ha...yeah my band added this one to our song list...so we are rehearsing it..the lead guitar player looks at me while we are playing the intro..glaring at me as if I'm playing it totally wrong..we stop to talk about some parts of the song and he says to me, you're playing that wrong, and he proceeds to play his part..which IS different from what the bass part is doing..I said no, I don't play the same thing you do..I have a totally different part...lol. So we put the song on and listen, he realizes he's wrong..then says..oh sorry...

However I have seen bands play this where the bass player plays the same thing as the guitar player and it makes me cringe...it sounds sort of okay I guess to the average listener but to me, its on the level of an error such as a construction company leaving out a few bolts on the I beams of the main frame of the structure to cut corners and meet a deadline, but then the building collapses killing bunches of people....

Arguably the bass part isn't right then you aren't playing that funky music...

 

[oldrocker]

Well... a few things.

First, of course I'm sure there's a person or 2 who might wish we played a bridge in a song we edited it out of, but as far as the general audience goes - I can near guarantee that the cutting of certain parts works FOR as opposed to against us. I'll explain in a minute, but I want to make clear first that while I said we dumb down lots of songs - 90% or more of what we play is dead on true to the recordings. The "dumbing down," (which I think is a poor choice of words) happens for first dances (where its REQUESTED by the couples), and for songs where it really does just seem pointless to toil over something that's not going to make or break the tune. If we were simply dumbing down everything we did, that would not help us. It would hurt us. We don't do that.

The positive part of it is that the edits we DO make enable us to fit in a wider variety of music. Most of the edits are in dance tunes, where we're cutting out much less than a DJ even would. We also never stop playing once we hit the stage, so every song goes right into the next, always.

...

To recap:

On a thread where the OP is lamenting his band wanting to dumb down parts of songs you post that you are doing the wedding band thing and dumbing down lots of songs. You further state that you edit out parts because they aren't worth the rehearsal time.

I comment that I would hope if I was paying big bucks for a wedding band that they would care enough to get the parts right even if those parts required some rehearsal time.

You reply that you don't really dumb down the songs.

--

My comment was based on your original assertion of dumbing down songs. Had you explained as revised here I probably would not have commented at all.

Maybe you stated as you originally did hoping to solicit a response such as mine so you could steer the narrative into a different discussion. Maybe, maybe not - either way my comment was based on your original statement and again does not reflect or apply to your revised statement.

What you are doing seems to be working for you so continued good luck with that.

 

[BAG]

What REALLY kills me is subbing in bands who’ve been “dumbing down“ songs for so long they assume they’re playing the song correctly.

That can happen to the original writers of songs too... well, sort of ...... as this (somewhat long) story will show.

I was managing a pub where we had Mental As Anything, an iconic Aussie band, playing. It turned out that their new lead guitarist used to be in Dragon when I was a roadie for them so we had a good chat before the gig and got to know the other members.

Towards the end of the gig I was side stage taking a few photos and next thing I know the tour manager was pushing me up on stage and Greedy (vox/keys) was saying "We're gonna get BAG up to sing a song". Well, I don't sing...at all... and so I tried to stay off stage shaking my head saying "I don't sing". It was then that Martin (vox/guitar) says to Mike (Lead Guitar), "Mike, give him your guitar". Mike hands me his guitar, says "it's in G" and walks off while we launch into playing "Rock'n'Roll Music", the theme song from the movie Young Einstein.

The next time we had them play at this pub i'd done some homework and learned their biggest hit "Nips Are Getting Bigger". When they arrived for the sound check Martin asked if I wanted to play again. I cheekily asked what the chances are of me playing "Nips" with them. He handed me his guitar and asked me to show that I knew it properly. When I started playing the chugging intro he said "that doesn't sound right". I replied that i'd been learning it from their original. He called the other guys over, I dug out the CD, and we all listened to the original. They were all looking at each other commenting about how different they were playing it after all those years without even realising it. So, I got to play one of the best known pub songs in Australia on stage with the actual band in front of a packed house.... the way it was originally played!

 

[BAG]

Anyone else ever have a band member persistently count off a song in 3/4 time as 1, 2, 3, 4?

I've got a good friend who I used to jam with weekly just for fun back home in Australia. He has a great voice and is semi-decent on guitar in the "singer/songwriter/cowboy chords" kind of way. We had good fun, had a few beers and a smoke, and quite a few of the songs sounded really good...... BUT.... his idea of counting in a song was just saying 1, 2, 3, 4 and then playing. His count rarely was anywhere near the actual rhythm of the song, and worst of all he'd do it with one of his original songs which was in 3/4. I tried to explain to him a few times but eventually gave up and just let him start songs and then I'd come in.

Classical musicians call it a "coupure". (we had to leave the piece out to keep it interesting for the audience).
Jazz musicians call it an interpretation. (we caught the spirit of the song.)
Rock musicians call it dumbing down. (half of our group is too stupid to keep the rhythm.)

Who is the smartest ?

FWIW: Keep playing music, play the songs you like, the way you like... How many songs are forgotten because people didn't want to play them exactly as they where recorded by the original performer.

Traditionals and evergreens are created by people that play them wrong

I think I need to save this.

 

[mongo2]

I've got a good friend who I used to jam with weekly just for fun back home in Australia. He has a great voice and is semi-decent on guitar in the "singer/songwriter/cowboy chords" kind of way. We had good fun, had a few beers and a smoke, and quite a few of the songs sounded really good...... BUT.... his idea of counting in a song was just saying 1, 2, 3, 4 and then playing. His count rarely was anywhere near the actual rhythm of the song, and worst of all he'd do it with one of his original songs which was in 3/4. I tried to explain to him a few times but eventually gave up and just let him start songs and then I'd come in.

That's exactly what our guy did with the added attraction of changing tempos during a song and missing beats at random. Watching his tempo challenged foot tapping during a song became a bit of a band joke. I have to say it was a relief when he moved on.

 

[Bob_Ross]

Thread drift: Every time I hear the phrase "dumb it down" regarding music, I remember this:


True story, as told by Barry Manilow at a composition seminar he gave at Berklee College of Music ~25 years ago:

He had just written what he thought was a totally awesome song, the kind of song that makes young composers proud because it uses all those hip, clever techniques that they think imbues their work with depth and smarts. And he plays his hip, clever, deep & smart tune for some suits at his record company and they tell him

"That's nice. Now dumb it down."

So he goes back and does some reharmonization, makes things a little less hip and clever, simplifies, reduces the harmonic density, restricts the melody's range, blah blah blah, and he brings it back to the suits at his record company and plays it for them. And they tell him

"That's nice. Now dumb it down some more."

So he goes back and does some more reharmonization, makes things even less hip and clever, simplifies some more, reduces the harmonic density some more, restricts the melody's range some more, blah blah blah, and he brings it back to the suits at his record company again and plays it for them again. And they tell him

"That's nice. Now dumb it down even more."

According to Barry Manilow, he went through half a dozen revisions dumbing down his once hip, clever pop masterpiece until it was dumb enough to meet the record company suits' standards for A Hit.


That hit was "Copacabana (At the Copa)"

 

[BAG]

That's exactly what our guy did with the added attraction of changing tempos during a song and missing beats at random. Watching his tempo challenged foot tapping during a song became a bit of a band joke. I have to say it was a relief when he moved on.

Damn that'd be painful. At least my mate kept the tempo once he started.....