Well, if you're playing songs nobody knows, maybe you can just say you're an originals band...
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.
Trouble in Band #2!
- Thread starter 51PRI
- Start date
Often rookies and egomaniacs mistakenly believe playing in a band is show off business instead of show business
I was expecting this. I truly hope it works out for you and you can find like-minded musicians to play with.
And therein lies the problem, my friend.
One of many things I have learned in life is to always confirm rather than assume. I discovered long ago that by confirming, life is so much better.
Seconded...or thirded or whatever it is at this point. What's in the booooox?!?!?
The hardest 2 lessons to learn about being in a band:
1. democracy = drama
2. They call it the music business because, if you don't play the music people want to hear, you will have no business
1. democracy = drama
2. They call it the music business because, if you don't play the music people want to hear, you will have no business
It seems the best thing to do is find a band that meets your expectations. Be sure to let them know beforehand that you’re an expert when it comes to picking songs and crowd pleasing.
Agreeing with others that this is a Bands 101 issue.
My band has similar deviations, but we're all old enough and have been in bands long enough that we can debate these topics without it becoming a fight or problem. My previous band, I was the new guy and the youngest at 50yo. Almost entirely classic rock, but lots of non-standard tracks. It was fun and challenging, and we weren't aiming for big shows. A new guitarist was hired who insisted we should play Uptown Funk to get people dancing...I would have...but I was greatly relieved the main founders said no. I just think it would have been an awful track for us to try to pull off, didn't fit with anything else we were doing, etc. Again, nobody got upset, it was just one idea.
This made me curious (and others raised this): do you have any songs rehearsed already? Or are you still pre-rehearsal? I knew after one practice what kind of music to expect from every band I've even been in (if not at audition-time). Are they deviating from other stuff you've rehearsed, or are you really in the initial formative stage?
I'm not taking the harsh view some have, but I think this is just the reality of bands -- the music can be a deal breaker, and sometimes you bite your tongue, play the show, and then have a discussion at the next rehearsal so you can decide your next steps. But just put your best energy into this show, no matter how the setlist develops -- try not to hang them out to dry, and view it as just another chance to sharpen your skills, and try to have fun.
But going all the way back to the top: I consider this a topic guaranteed to arise at some point in a band's existence (and it literally has in every single band I've ever been in).
Good luck, man!
I, personally, want NO part of a cover band that doesn't or doesn't want to play 'POPULAR' well known Top40 music. Have that conversation A.S.A.P.
It's been my experience that decisions by committee NEVER work. You need to designate ONE band director and that person has final say on disagreements and the general direction of the band. If that system can't work, this probably isn't the right band for you.
My experience has been the exact OPPOSITE. Nearly ALL of the bands I've either joined or formed have mostly had decisions made by the collective. Yes, there were times when I and others weren't happy with decisions made, but we all knew that the higher priority was keeping the band together, because it was good. Sure, eventually the bands all broke up, and certainly interpersonal problems had a lot to do with that, but that's the natural course of playing with a group of others: members leave, others replace them, and eventually the survuval of the band loses priority with everyone, and we all go on to join or form other bands. Bands take a LOT of each member's time and effort, and my philosophy is that the band should respect each member's efforts, dedication, and preferences as much as possibe. Conversely, each member should be willing to make a few small sacrifices for the personal relationships formed and the success of the band.
There was an instance where I was asked to record an album with a project formed by the guitarist, with all of the original songs written by him. In that case, I understood my role as a hired gun, and certainly defaulted to his wishes. Learning the songs, rehearsing them together, and eventually getting into the studio to record for my first time was a great experience, and I now have an album that I am proud to have been on. The sole purpose of that was to record; there were no plans afterwards to gig or tour. (Link to the music below.)
Hondo's Revenge
"Ain't No Sunshine" by The Neville Brothers instead of the danceable and known version by Bill Withers
"Schools Oout" by Hollywood Vampires instead of Alice Cooper. Not that much different but not a danceable song IMO
Wanting to do: AI version of ZZ Top doing 'Billie Jean" ZZ/SRV style, which is a guitar jam, basically, instead of the known and danceable Michael Jackson version.
Spanish Castle Magic" by Storyville instead of Hendrix. Neither version is danceable IMO, and probably not all that well known.
There are others, in addition to songs like "Suffragette City and Ziggy Stardust"...they aren't danceable and I question whether people know them.
Yeah, it wasn't discussed. When the drummer and I audicitoned (together) I assumed that there would be a discussion. I also assumed that THEY would want o talk about us and call us later but the guitar player just said, yeah, we're a band.
I really don't know. The guy who books the band (singer and sax) has a bit of a reputation as a good gig booker.
Well, I agree, obviously.
I don't think I ever said that they were necessarily "wrong" but just not what I thought it was going to be.
They are, though....every one of them.
Yes, I am. I know that. If we have that discussion that I intend for us to have, and if it goes how I expect it to go, then I need to step away.
I agree. If we're just playing for ourselves and what WE want to play it may as well be originals.
True. Too late now, though.And therein lies the problem, my friend.
One of many things I have learned in life is to always confirm rather than assume. I discovered long ago that by confirming, life is so much better.
Thanks! Yes, we've been playing full 3 and 4 hour gigs for a couple of years now, with mixed success I would say. We're playing pretty regularly at one local restaurant and have bookings in the Fall at a local Winery but we can't seem to get bookings in the other places in town that cater to dancing. We should have realized that months ago.
Thanks. Yes.
Sorry, concession stand was out of popcorn....had to settle for this...
Two things:
(1) If you’re wanting to do dance music, most of what was suggested ain’t gonna get it no matter which version you decide to do.
(2) No, you never said directly “you are right and they are wrong”, but you definitely implied it strongly.
I actually kind of like those choices and can personally attest that Suffragette City will slay. I was in a band that played that one pretty regularly and when the "Wham, bam thank you man" line came up we would stop and let the entire crowd yell it. Worked every single time.
The cover bands in my area all seem to play many of the same songs so while I agree that you should stick to the hits, the fact is that there are literally thousands of hit songs out there and most of the ones you list are just that. There is no reason to be the Nth band to play Any Way You Want It or Running Down a Dream just like every other cover band does. I would definitely be interested in at least running through those versions of those songs and seeing how the band is performing them. You never know until you try and having a unique set list could really set the band apart.
Opinions differ, especially when it comes to band playlists and what makes the "right" set list for a particular gig. I don't think there's much value in insisting that every song has to be danceable all the time. Context matters...expectations, band and audience demographics, the type of band, and the type of gig all matter. And are these songs already in the band's playlist being decided on for this gig? Seems you could be right or you could be wrong...you can't know for sure and neither can we from a 30,000 ft view...don't know your band, audience or gig.
But I also think "danceable" and "engaging" get conflated. Songs that people know and enjoy have the potential to engage an audience, and they may be danceable, but they don't have to be. People can be engaged by singing along, listening intently, cheering and applauding, even "chair dancing". Coming to the front of the stage (dance floor or not) is just one expression of engagement. I think foreseeable mismatches in the name of keeping it danceable are where fails can easily happen...oldster tunes with most of the audience expecting new stuff = fail. Hot new tunes with a primarily oldster audience = fail.
As for choosing songs, whether as adds or a particular setlist, for myself, I like to see discussion happen, compromise where there's a need, and if most of the band likes one and it's arguably well known within the expected audience, I think that often has to be good enough to go along with until it proves itself to go over or bomb. I play a number of tunes that I don't care for (can't understand why anyone likes Crazy Little Thing Called Love), but I recognize that how I feel about songs isn't universal, and it's not really possible to know within myself how well known songs might be...other people (band and audience) know and like them. Unless a band has agreed that anyone can veto a song, which I can't see myself doing, I think it's a good personal policy to go along and keep grumbling to a minimum.
The type of gig is huge, too. To me "festival" doesn't automatically scream people are there to dance. Some festivals are essentially concerts, some community events, and others basically parties. The audience's expectations and want and willingness to dance can be completely different from one to another.
I played in a band billed as "A Tribute to '70s Rock" (the effort was 70–79 with a tiny bit of wiggle room on either end for exceptions...epic songs (Stairway, Foreplay/Longtime, Won't Get Fooled Again, etc.), some guilty pleasures, and a little cheese thrown in). Many shows were concert-style seated but it varied...did two weddings. People certainly danced at times, but that wasn't ever a goal or gauge. One of the most engaging songs was Bohemian Rhapsody with the audience doing the singing. Danceable? No. Another that always went over well was a bit of Walk on the Wild Side (mashed into Can't Always Get What You Want). I don't even know if a toe tapped in the room, but people seemed to love it. Both of those would have been hard passes with danceability as the sole aim.
Last edited:
Unusual choices, for sure. "Spanish Castle Magic" and "Ziggy Stardust" are red flags to me. However I'd have to hear some others before deciding.
I will second the motion that "Suffragette City" could go over very well. One of my bands closes their show with it, and it usually gets a great response.
Or:
C) Stay for the rest of the gigs I've agreed to play but think of myself, even if I don't tell them, as a hired gun. And that's not necessarily a bad thing to be.
If so it's only because that's what's always worked here. You have a band of decent, doesn't even have to be great, musicians playing danceable songs that people know and you will have success. OTOH a group of great musicians playing originals or obscure covers doesn't. Maybe I should just keep my mouth shut and let them prove me wrong.
You're right. One shouldn't assume.
