How many song to learn is reasonable for an initial try-out?

[jmattbassplaya]

I am a 20-year-old college student, 5 years into being a bassist, with a very mediocre skill level. I am sure I have vastly less experience than most people on this thread,

A bandleader I know threw together a cover band to play a block party. Mostly modern
alternative rock, with some older stuff. 15 song set. We met the day before and learned the whole set cold (took all afternoon and evening). We had a short rehearsal the day of, and then absolutely nailed 14 of the 15 songs (We flubbed David Bowie's "Starman" pretty horribly).

My point is, if a bunch of college kids can learn 15 songs in a day, then I am absolutely positive that working pros with decades of experience can learn 50 in a week.

There are quite a few things I will never know, because I was born too late, but I don't think bluewhine knows them either.

I'm actually just one year ahead of you - 21 years old with 6 years of experience

Actually, it'd be easy to tell if it's been done. We all wait until either myself or another person says, 'okay let's start the 2 week count down (for example) tomorrow', and then have a set list sent to myself (or whoever is participating), Jive, Blue, and whoever else might be interested in seeing this pan out. Then we'll have the guy upload the videos before the 2 week point is up. I also have access to WSJ's at my apartment complex, so I can show them in the videos so you know what day I'm playing the songs on.

I've only got two questions: Is the list only going to be composed of 50 songs, or will it have 60-70, which will give the person participating some room to choose what songs he or she wants to play?

Also, will these have to be note-for-note renditions, or will a song count so long as the bassist gets the major points across?

 

[jmattbassplaya]

I'm one of those who agree this can be done, easily. However, how would that be proved on video? Having 336 hours worth of footage?

Nah, 3-4 minutes per song x 50 songs = 150-200 minutes of footage. It all just needs to be done before the 2 week mark

 

[Dave W]

So just a video of the person playing the songs, or parts of the songs will suffice.

I personally don't think playing parts of songs would suffice...tons of people can play a riff or two in a song, but couldn't get through the whole thing to save their life...

For whole songs, 50 of em' would probably be a good 3-4 hours. That's a long video to sit through and make sure someone "learned" all the songs...

Nah, 3-4 minutes per song x 50 songs = 150-200 minutes of footage. It all just needs to be done before the 2 week mark

Ok...2.5-3.5 hours. Still a long video to sit through...

I just don't see anyone devoting that much time to watch, especially the person you're trying to prove this to.

 

[jive1]

Well, I don't think I could sell Yes to a bar audience, but if I were to try, I would approach their songs much like they did.

As for the Sex Pistols, we did "Anarchy," and I think we captured the spirit of the original very well. It has left the set list, however, as it didn't really fit, and I don't think a majority of the audience liked it much. There were always those few who showed their warm appreciation, but in some more upscale places, that song showed a few people to the door.

I think you missed my point....

Both bands had commercial success, but both bands had different approaches. On one hand you had a band with virtuoso musicians, the other a group that could hardly play their instruments. But for some reason, both have been influential in their style of Rock.

 

[jive1]

Rock and roll is my religion.

I want more than just pleasing the audience. I want to please the audience, so I can play more. But I want to play something that satisfies my SOUL.

These two things are not mutually exclusive, agreed?

For me music is a form of communication and expression, and Rock is a language. My goal in playing any kind of music is to make a connection with the listener, and my bandmates. If I am not connecting, then I may as well just stay home and play by myself. Connecting satisfys my soul, and music is just one of the ways I do it.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Seems like our boy Blue has been Temp'd.

 

[Jarrett]

Bummer, Blue's posts bring so much light into my days

 

[mellowinman]

I think you missed my point....

Both bands had commercial success, but both bands had different approaches. On one hand you had a band with virtuoso musicians, the other a group that could hardly play their instruments. But for some reason, both have been influential in their style of Rock.

Ah, but that is EXACTLY my point. Each played something uhnique, and something that had THAT MAGIC. That's what I'm mostly talking about here; the intangeible factors that make Rock and Roll what it is.

You chose to very different bands, but both were very much definitive of their respective genres. Neither was really an imitation of anything else.

 

[Brad Johnson]

That's a bummer to hear about Chuck. I really wish I would have maintained that relationship. He's a good guy and I wish him well.

Jimmy Page was sloppy and anyone can play Rock n' Roll. Saying Rock n' Roll is something special that takes a special type of player to do reminds me of that line out of Joe Dirt, "Don't try and church it up, son." It's just Rock n' Roll

Same here. If you're looking for a carbon copy of Zep, including the vocals, sure... most bands don't do that. But why would that be the bar for playing that song?

For a listener like that heck, Zep probably didn't "play it" every time.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Seems to me we have one guy who can't learn 50 songs in two weeks, yet a host of others who don't see what the hang up could possibly be.

I do believe the answer is self-explanatory.

With regards to rock and roll...Rock music is all about attitude, not virtuosity. I saw a wedding band do covers of a few AC/DC tunes. They played them flawlessly, note for note. Not one mistake could be detected. They also sucked on those songs, really BAD.

All the rehearsing on their part would make no difference whatsoever because while you can master a rock song in very little time, one cannot "learn" to be passionate about it. Two completely different things that don't even belong in the same discussion.

This. It's what I really dislike about most wedding bands. A lot of "right" notes with the wrong intent. Very plastic.


I'd rather see your take on the song than trying to sound exactly like the track.

True story: I once had a guy give me a setlist. It was two 45 minute sets of cover tunes and it was timed to the minute... they used the times of the original recordings. Seriously.

When I pointed out that we probably wouldn't play song "A" for exactly 2 minutes and 43 seconds and that there might actually be some space between the songs (who knows... people might actually applaud or something), it looked like that hadn't actually dawned on them.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I'm one of those "note for note like the album, UNLESS you are IMPROVING upon the original" guys.

I just think many people misunderstand the point of rock and roll completely.

I agree. Who is to say what an improvement is?

Seriously no offense intended... it sounds like you treat the music like a classical performance. IMO that ain't rock and rock.

 

[mellowinman]

I agree. Who is to say what an improvement is?

Seriously no offense intended... it sounds like you treat the music like a classical performance. IMO that ain't rock and rock.

It seems to me you have missed a post or two, or projected another conclusion not in evidence.

Rock and roll songs that become iconic HITS have iconic PARTS to them. The way to improve them is to offer another take on the song, not to do a pale imitation of them.

As I said, cover bands frequently leave things out simply because they do not hear them in the first place, and I attribute that more to laziness than interpretation.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Well, I don't think I could sell Yes to a bar audience, but if I were to try, I would approach their songs much like they did.

As for the Sex Pistols, we did "Anarchy," and I think we captured the spirit of the original very well. It has left the set list, however, as it didn't really fit, and I don't think a majority of the audience liked it much. There were always those few who showed their warm appreciation, but in some more upscale places, that song showed a few people to the door.

I actually played "Roundabout" with a funk band at a bar and they loved it probably in no small part because we looked like we were having a ball too. Funny thing was that we'd never performed it before but we all knew it. I can think of many times over the years I've done the same thing with lots of non-standard fare. That's a hazard of playing with musicians who like to have fun and simply love music minus the baggage.


As far as the SP song, ever try not playing it exactly like them? In all seriousness, that was likely a factor in the reception. Gauge your audience and play to your strengths with them. Spontanaeity isn't a bad thing with the right musicians.

One more true story: I hooked up with a guitarist as a sub several years ago. a real stream of consciousness player, you never knew where he was going next. the first time I played with him there was no setlist, we did stuff ranging from James Brown, AC/DC, Neil Diamond, didn't matter. And about half of the songs were originals that I learned while playing them live for the first time.

Aderenaline rush to say the least. I had a ball and it was far more fun IME IMO than playing the same song the exact same way for the 413th time. Not that there's anything wrong with tribute bands.

 

[jive1]

For a listener like that heck, Zep probably didn't "play it" every time.

I've heard lots of live recordings by Zep, and you are correct. According to some, they didn't always get their songs done right. Jimmy Page always played with a Les Paul live, even though he did recordings with an acoustic or with a Telecaster. And what about the songs where there were more than one guitar track? They would have been doing it wrong.

If you're looking at doing it like the recording or "improving on it", you can also say that no-one has ever done Hotel California correctly, including the Eagles since it has something like 7 guitar parts and they don't do it that way on stage.

 

[Brad Johnson]

It seems to me you have missed a post or two, or projected another conclusion not in evidence.

Rock and roll songs that become iconic HITS have iconic PARTS to them. The way to improve them is to offer another take on the song, not to do a pale imitation of them.

As I said, cover bands frequently leave things out simply because they do not hear them in the first place, and I attribute that more to laziness than interpretation.

Doesn't sound like I missed a thing. Iconic PARTS seems to be new to this tangent, no?

You can attribute why people do an arrangement to anything you feel like assuming. Talk about projecting.


"For me, you either play it IDENTICAL to the CD performance, or you IMPROVE upon it".

"I'm one of those "note for note like the album, UNLESS you are IMPROVING upon the original" guys.

I just think many people misunderstand the point of rock and roll completely".

Apparently even with including iconic parts, if the arrangement is abbreviated for whatever reason you've already decided what that reason is. A negative one. I agree, people probably do misunderstand what YOU THINK the point of rock and roll is. The question is, does every rocker play for your reasons?

I seriously doubt it.


For the record, through no conscious fault of my own, I'm one of those people who knows songs note for note. To an almost annoying degree. But that's not how I always play them. It's supposed to be about doing your own thing. At least that's what I always thought the point of Rock was.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I've heard lots of live recordings by Zep, and you are correct. According to some, they didn't always get their songs done right. Jimmy Page always played with a Les Paul live, even though he did recordings with an acoustic or with a Telecaster. And what about the songs where there were more than one guitar track? They would have been doing it wrong.

If you're looking at doing it like the recording or "improving on it", you can also say that no-one has ever done Hotel California correctly, including the Eagles since it has something like 7 guitar parts and they don't do it that way on stage.

Maybe some of the performances were improvements.

Good tangent.

 

[AfroCubanFunkMa]

Seems like our boy Blue has been Temp'd.

Well that was sooner than expected

 

[jive1]

Maybe some of the performances were improvements.

Good tangent.

Another tangent....

How about an artist that uses different band members from one album to another? Or one that uses a different band in the studio than on tour? Let's use James Brown as an example. I wonder if Tim Drummond played all the bass lines from the Bootsy era just like Bootsy when he toured with JB. If he didn't would the band be doing it wrong? If it were different, could it really have been an improvement on what one of the most influential bassists of the Funk era did?

 

[fishdreams]

You want to transmit the spirit of the music, and in some cases that means note-for-note, in some cases, to stray away from the recorded versions.

To 'literally play the cd" can get quite absurd at times. Fans of certain bands can have a certain mindset. The Doors were a improvising band , live. But for the Doors Tribute act I played in, where a Doors show was faked incl. our Jim Morrison in full regalia incl wig rolling over the stage and insulting the audience, the fans demanded each and every live bootleg guitar solo being note prefect, all 15 minutes of it. The guitar player was for example not allowed to mix up The San Francisco "light my Fire" concert solo with the New York concert solo. As a musician it's idiotic, and contrary to the spirit of the music -but it's what the fans wanted. And they paid handsomely, I must say

 

[Brad Johnson]

You want to transmit the spirit of the music, and in some cases that means note-for-note, in some cases, to stray away from the recorded versions.

To 'literally play the cd" can get quite absurd at times. Fans of certain bands can have a certain mindset. The Doors were a improvising band , live. But for the Doors Tribute act I played in, where a Doors show was faked incl. our Jim Morrison in full regalia incl wig rolling over the stage and insulting the audience, the fans demanded each and every live bootleg guitar solo being note prefect, all 15 minutes of it. The guitar player was for example not allowed to mix up The San Francisco "light my Fire" concert solo with the New York concert solo. As a musician it's idiotic, and contrary to the spirit of the music -but it's what the fans wanted. And they paid handsomely, I must say

It's a gig.