We simply can't cover current hits

[EastCoastThump]

I turned on the radio once last week while my ipod was charging. there was this one song, work work work work work work work work. Wasn't sure exactly what it was about.

Bills - Would be a Fun song to do.

Could be "Bills," but just as likely to be "Work" by Rihanna w/ Drake. That's probably a harder one for most traditional bands to cover, since the production carries a lot of the soundscape.


Songs like this hit a lot of TalkBass buttons: harmonizers/Autotune, tracks, non-trad instruments, simple (but rhythmically tight) bass. Play this using a music stand and wearing shorts, and you might earn instant TB moderator emeritus status.

 

[avvie]

Look - just whatever you do NEVER play a gig in a Hawaiian shirt, cargo shorts, baseball cap and tennis shoes.

...even if you live in Hawaii. Ugh. Tacky, da haole....

 

[avvie]

I am forced to play pop hits that fit the range of our singer. They are fine songs and often have great bass lines. Whether you would actually listen to them yourself in your spare time is utterly irrelevant. "Ew yuck!...today's music sucks!.." I can pretty much guess that those who are saying that haven't actually bothered to learn to play them. Your job is the bass line; what's around it shouldn't matter to you if you have an audience who enjoys it. And ftr, people who really know A LOT about music write and arrange these songs; there's much to be learned from them. One thing that's great about playing pop: you get to find out real quick which of your bandmates are musicians and which are self-serving hacks.

 

[bdplaid]

...even if you live in Hawaii. Ugh. Tacky, da haole....

That outfit is reserved for Michigan transplants to Florida, where they think it's cool to wear such things at gigs.

 

[bdplaid]

Which songs from the last 10-15 years will become the All-Time Classics & played by bands in the future??

That's a good question. let me get out my crystal ball...

I think Uptown Funk and Get Lucky and such material have a good chance. But IMO those songs hearken back to an earlier era of dance music anyway. Get Lucky is straight-up Chic, and Uptown Funk has a lot of roots in 60's funk. Madonna stuff, too, but her earlier 80's and 90's material, as it's Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande anyway. The latter, not so much. Maybe some Pink, Black Eyed Peas, and at least one Fergie song.

Every once in awhile i come across something from Gin Blossoms or Toad the Wet Sprocket that I didn't care for when it was first out, but I think is awesome by today's standards.

One thing I hope for, is that Nickleback stays under the rock it is currently under.

 

[bdplaid]

I'm not a huge Lady Gaga fan but frankly I'll take her over the Captain and Tennille or Shawn Cassidy any day.

Judgmental, much?

Point is, we all have opinion based on our judgements. That's not a bad thing.

 

[jive1]

The DJ top 200 list skews way more to weddings than to clubs/parties, so it probably tells you more about the culture of weddings—the expected inclusion of standard ceremonial elements, and the emphasis on connecting present to past—than about current musical tastes. But even playing weddings, you won't get many glowing referrals if your band can *only* play the DJ top 200's oldies. And the list's "modern hits" entries make the current DJ top 200 pretty distinct from the 2012 DJ top 200.

You make some great points here. I doubt you'll be playing 'Crazy B***h at a wedding, although it's wildly popular at the bar. And you're right, my wedding band doesn't get thank you notes for playing Brown Eyed Girl as much as it does for doing The Impression That I Get. But, like I said, there's still lots of classics that will still go over well in a bar, even young folks. When 80s were all the rage of cover bands, it wasn't folks like me filling up the bars (we all had jobs and kids). It was the 20 somethings in droves. It all depends on your audience. The Taylor Swift song that totally wins over the sorority party will probably get you kicked out of a biker bar, while the SRV tune that you jam for the bikers clears the dance floor of all the ladies. I find that bars do vary in terms of what goes over. Some bar favorites are more popular now than they were back then such as Don't Stop Believing. Some classic Rock standards weren't even charting back when Donnie and Marie ruled the airwaves.

In the end, the one true way to see what works for your band is to play it out and see what kind of reaction that you get from your audience over time.

 

[jive1]

You need to hand in your musician card right now. Radio-play music is more formulaic, sterile, computer-generated and "corporate" than it's ever been. How many Lady Gagas, Katy Perrys, etc, does the world need, because we got a lot of 'em.

Actually there's lots of current music that is the opposite of what you mention. There's bands that use acoustic instruments, stripped down arrangements that produce tunes that work at bars. Songs by bands like Mumford and Sons, Lumineers, American Authors, etc. are just an acoustic combo with or without a drummer. Songs like Ho Hey, I Will Wait, Best Day of My Life, etc. totally go over in a bar and don't require Top 40 production to perform. Heck, even Xs and Os isn't that complex of an arrangement. There is a quiet Soul revival going on with acts like Sam Smith, Ed Sheeran, Adele, and lots of indie acts that are not over produced. Some of it is quite raw or sparse. There's still great Rock being made, except it's called Country now. But if you only go by the Billboard charts and Top40 radio, you're missing out on some great current music that audiences will enjoy.

 

[leesbrushes]

Our parents hated our music and we thought theirs was kinda lame too.
What made you think it would be any different for our generation and the next?


You learn to like most of what you expose yourself to over time.
That's why you like what you do, because it was everywhere when you were growing up.
Our music isn't everywhere anymore. Though it might seem like it if thats what you tune in to.
If you want to learn to like today's music you gotta start listening without the idea that it's all crap.


The general idea that good music isn't made anymore is logically absurd.

This is too easy.
Here's the thing.
Our generation of music required talent and a knowledge of instruments.
Alot of the new music is managed by choreographers and the music is an afterthought because it's controlled by computers.
Now I admit earlier generations did not enjoy the later generations music but it was a matter of style not a difference of application.
I try to listen to some new pop...
I just can't.
It's horrible
Lacks substance.
Lacks lyrical skill.
Lacks musical talent.
It does bump and speak to the least common denominator music fan..aka
Teen girls.
The teen boys deal with it to get to the teen girls.
So noone really likes it but the teen girls ..
And their soccer moms trying desperately to remain relevant to them.
You might as well wear unicorn rainbow t shirts and call it a day.
I will not

 

[jive1]

For any song, current or classic, it comes down to 3 questions:
1. Can we pull it off?
2. Does the crowd get into it?
3. Do we enjoy playing it?

People make a bunch of suggestions, but it doesn't mean that your band can pull it off well. For example, 'Cake by the Ocean' is an easy song instrumentally, but it's kinda tough to sing unless your singer has a high voice. 'Rude' is a simple chord structure since it's basically 4 chords repeated over and over, but there's an arrangement to that tune. If you're a wing it type of band, then you have to pay attention to the dynamics because if you don't, it will be repetitive and boring. And as easy as the chord structure is, if your drummer can't play a one-drop, it'll sound like a hack job. Don't forget your band's image either. Middle aged guys singing Taylor Swift in cargo shorts looks as ridiculous as it sounds. Trust me I've done it. There's a reason why many successful bands can have geezers in the backline as long as the front people look cute. Now, you can rock up a cheesy pop tune, but doing it anything less than awesome sounds like a hack job. Whether you make it your own or play it note-for-note, if you can't pull it off and own it, drop the tune. Being able to pull it off is the most important thing because if you can't, then it doesn't matter if the crowd would get into it or that you like it. A popular song performed poorly doesn't do the audience any favors.

The crowd should like the tune you are playing, but that means knowing your crowd. Play what they like, and the rest of your job becomes easier. In a given setlist, there's about half dozen songs that I don't care to ever play again. However, I'm not afraid to give 15-30 minutes of my energy and time to help ensure that I have a good gig. Often, the crowd or client reaction is what differentiates between a good or bad gig, so why not make it better for yourself? On the other hand, there's no reason why you can't play what you like that the crowd will also enjoy. There's so many great songs out there to choose from that are recognizable, danceable, and singable that a musician would love to play. I think it's important for the band to have fun, otherwise you're trying to sell something you don't have. In the end, that's what a band is selling: fun.

 

[Nev375]

This is too easy.
Here's the thing.
Our generation of music required talent and a knowledge of instruments.
Alot of the new music is managed by choreographers and the music is an afterthought because it's controlled by computers.
Now I admit earlier generations did not enjoy the later generations music but it was a matter of style not a difference of application.
I try to listen to some new pop...
I just can't.
It's horrible
Lacks substance.
Lacks lyrical skill.
Lacks musical talent.
It does bump and speak to the least common denominator music fan..aka
Teen girls.
The teen boys deal with it to get to the teen girls.
So noone really likes it but the teen girls ..
And their soccer moms trying desperately to remain relevant to them.
You might as well wear unicorn rainbow t shirts and call it a day.
I will not

When electric guitars came out all the acoustic players looked down their nose at them.
When electric solidbody guitars came out all the jazz guitar players looked down their nose at them.
When electric basses came out all the upright bass players looked down their nose at them.

When rock and roll came out all the jazz, big band, classical music teachers looked down on them cause it was such an inferior style of music.
Then some great players emerged who had amazing talent and those instruments and styles became respected over time.

When DJ record scratching came out, musicians looked down on it.
When rap came out, many singers looked down on it because it wasn't singing.
Rap is now understood better and freestyle rap especially is considered a respected talent.

Then came drum machines, sequencing, autotune and production software.
These things are still looked down on by the older musical community in general.

Right now, there people who are taking drum machine use to a whole new level of live performance talent. This is driving the industry to develop drum machines that are programmed and manipulated live on the spot. You don't just program and hit play.

Autotune I think was first popularized by Cher as a vocal effect, not a talent corrector. I think in time we will see more use of it in a talentful way.

The idea that music *MUST* be played by human musicians is an outdated concept. Right now, that conjures visions of people watching a performance of someone's macbook sitting on a stool onstage while someone hits play in iTunes. But it's not going to be like that. Computers have abilities that humans never will. People are exploring computers as an instrumental tool and finding out how to use them WITH talent. In time, some virtuosos will be discovered and people will start understanding it. But you are never going to witness it if you look down your nose at them with the idea that this stuff only replaces talent.

If there's a Jimi Hendrix of autotune or a Les Claypool of the drum machine during my lifetime I'd want to be remembered as the one old guy saying "This guy is incredible and not many people get it" not "oh he sucks" like everyone else of my generation.

 

[hrodbert696]

The idea that music *MUST* be played by human musicians is an outdated concept. Right now, that conjures visions of people watching a performance of someone's macbook sitting on a stool onstage while someone hits play in iTunes. But it's not going to be like that. Computers have abilities that humans never will. People are exploring computers as an instrumental tool and finding out how to use them WITH talent. In time, some virtuosos will be discovered and people will start understanding it. But you are never going to witness it if you look down your nose at them with the idea that this stuff only replaces talent.

I was with you most of the way, but I disagree at this point. I mean, I agree that technology is a tool and people find a way to express themselves using it, sure. But I think at the root of the arts is people's desire to connect with other people. Long before the advent of Protools people would complain of music that was "overproduced," smothered in swirling strings and horns or whatever. The reason was that all that stuff could bury the humanity at the core of the music. It's very telling to me that, in the same generation that has seen the explosion of CGI technology in movies, we've also seen a revival of Broadway and the live theater. When I was majoring in theater twenty-five years ago everyone was prophesying doom and gloom and live theater was dying, now it's big business again. There's a pendulum swing in pop culture, between exploring all the amazing things you can do with the fascinating new tools, and getting back to basics and the fundamentals of watching a human being say something. After all the razzle-dazzle of glitter bands you got punk, after the hair metallers you got Nirvana unplugged, after the rise of hip hop you got Jack White saying he wanted a guitar that was hard to play so that he would have to fight it to get the music out.

 

[JMacBass65]

When electric guitars came out all the acoustic players looked down their nose at them.
When electric solidbody guitars came out all the jazz guitar players looked down their nose at them.
When electric basses came out all the upright bass players looked down their nose at them.

When rock and roll came out all the jazz, big band, classical music teachers looked down on them cause it was such an inferior style of music.
Then some great players emerged who had amazing talent and those instruments and styles became respected over time.

When DJ record scratching came out, musicians looked down on it.
When rap came out, many singers looked down on it because it wasn't singing.
Rap is now understood better and freestyle rap especially is considered a respected talent.

Then came drum machines, sequencing, autotune and production software.
These things are still looked down on by the older musical community in general.

Right now, there people who are taking drum machine use to a whole new level of live performance talent. This is driving the industry to develop drum machines that are programmed and manipulated live on the spot. You don't just program and hit play.

Autotune I think was first popularized by Cher as a vocal effect, not a talent corrector. I think in time we will see more use of it in a talentful way.

The idea that music *MUST* be played by human musicians is an outdated concept. Right now, that conjures visions of people watching a performance of someone's macbook sitting on a stool onstage while someone hits play in iTunes. But it's not going to be like that. Computers have abilities that humans never will. People are exploring computers as an instrumental tool and finding out how to use them WITH talent. In time, some virtuosos will be discovered and people will start understanding it. But you are never going to witness it if you look down your nose at them with the idea that this stuff only replaces talent.

If there's a Jimi Hendrix of autotune or a Les Claypool of the drum machine during my lifetime I'd want to be remembered as the one old guy saying "This guy is incredible and not many people get it" not "oh he sucks" like everyone else of my generation.

I was with you most of the way, but I disagree at this point. I mean, I agree that technology is a tool and people find a way to express themselves using it, sure. But I think at the root of the arts is people's desire to connect with other people. Long before the advent of Protools people would complain of music that was "overproduced," smothered in swirling strings and horns or whatever. The reason was that all that stuff could bury the humanity at the core of the music. It's very telling to me that, in the same generation that has seen the explosion of CGI technology in movies, we've also seen a revival of Broadway and the live theater. When I was majoring in theater twenty-five years ago everyone was prophesying doom and gloom and live theater was dying, now it's big business again. There's a pendulum swing in pop culture, between exploring all the amazing things you can do with the fascinating new tools, and getting back to basics and the fundamentals of watching a human being say something. After all the razzle-dazzle of glitter bands you got punk, after the hair metallers you got Nirvana unplugged, after the rise of hip hop you got Jack White saying he wanted a guitar that was hard to play so that he would have to fight it to get the music out.

These are both excellent posts.

 

[Nev375]

I was with you most of the way, but I disagree at this point. I mean, I agree that technology is a tool and people find a way to express themselves using it, sure. But I think at the root of the arts is people's desire to connect with other people. Long before the advent of Protools people would complain of music that was "overproduced," smothered in swirling strings and horns or whatever. The reason was that all that stuff could bury the humanity at the core of the music. It's very telling to me that, in the same generation that has seen the explosion of CGI technology in movies, we've also seen a revival of Broadway and the live theater. When I was majoring in theater twenty-five years ago everyone was prophesying doom and gloom and live theater was dying, now it's big business again. There's a pendulum swing in pop culture, between exploring all the amazing things you can do with the fascinating new tools, and getting back to basics and the fundamentals of watching a human being say something. After all the razzle-dazzle of glitter bands you got punk, after the hair metallers you got Nirvana unplugged, after the rise of hip hop you got Jack White saying he wanted a guitar that was hard to play so that he would have to fight it to get the music out.

It was 5AM when I wrote that. I don't think I made my point clear because I don't disagree with you at all.

I'm not saying computers and technology are the new world order and we need to get used to it.

I'm saying it's only a matter of time until someone figures out that computers and technology can be used not as a means of perfecting and removing human error and expression, but to INDUCE imperfect human expression through the technological devices themselves in an artistic way.

Record scratching for example. Anyone can put a needle down on a record and hit play and make music. That's what it was designed to do. But to turn that technology on its head and start using the record itself as a rhythmic device by manually manipulating it back and forth. Well that took some vision, and there are those with incredible skill at it now.

Now I don't know how exactly protools can be flipped on its head and become an instrument unto itself. I don't have that kind of vision. But I can envision that it is a possibility, and I imagine we might not be far from that happening or maybe it has happened already and we just haven't noticed it yet. I know Aphex Twin has done some weird things by injecting photographs into music that of course sounds like weird noise, and you can't see them unless you run that music through a spectrum analyser. Of course, that isn't musical performance, but there's an interesting idea there. Maybe it will involve motion capture and dancing. Who knows. But in 10 or 20 years maybe someone will ressurrect this as a zombie thread and say "here it is! This is what Nev was talking about. It was Skrillix's son Zimmy Jendrix I.0 that ..."

 

[Groove Doctor]

Anyone suggest rock songs for a FEMALE fronted Rock band?

- must be a hit song, sung by a female, fit our Rock concept.
- done the last 10-15 years,
- suit 5-piece (2gtrs, bass, drums, no keys or backing tracks live).

Surely Pink isn't the only 'rock' sounding modern female artist selling music these days? We do Pink songs, Valerie, Since you've been gone, & Rolling in the Deep. Exes & Oohs I'll put forward.

(Just after some fresh ideas - no pop like Katy Perry or Taylor Swift please. And the Modern Country just doesn't float here in Inner City Clubs/Pubs).

 

[P. Aaron]

Disclaimer: I pretty much can't stand any current hit that's on the Billboard Hot 100.

My band so far covers 90s punkish rock (No Doubt, Offspring, etc.), classic bar-fun standards (Summer of '69, Jessie's girl, etc.) and some older upbeat dancy stuff (Saw Her Standing There, Burning Love, etc.).

We have received a few critiques that we don't play any current music.

So... I went through the whole damn Billboard Top 100. I have come to conclusion that modern hits fall into two categories: Hip Hop, and Slow Jams. I can't cover either of those.

I found some slightly older ones that might work.
Hands - Fitz and the Tantrums
Little Talks - Of Monsters and Men
Wake Me Up - Avicii

Does anyone else have any ideas. Like I said, I listen to basically none of this type of music. If we find a bar that wants to hear Godsmack or Disturbed, I'm good to go!

Young Country is today's rock 'n' roll. Grunge pushed rock out of rock radio etc., in the 90's.

So, look at today's Country charts for your danceable pop & rock hits that are played by musicians.

 

[electracoyote]

The DJ top 200 list skews way more to weddings than to clubs/parties, so it probably tells you more about the culture of weddings—the expected inclusion of standard ceremonial elements, and the emphasis on connecting present to past—than about current musical tastes. But even playing weddings, you won't get many glowing referrals if your band can *only* play the DJ top 200's oldies. And the list's "modern hits" entries make the current DJ top 200 pretty distinct from the 2012 DJ top 200.

So I guess that's *some* solace if your musical phobias include pushing the light rock of "Brown Eyed Girl" across the sisyphean dance floors of wedding after wedding.

I dunno, in my region the DJ Intelligence Top 200 lists (there are about 8 of them, some are broken down by decade) provide a lot of material that crosses over well between private upscale events and public dance floor clubs.

Like Jive said, you do have to get creative and know your audience. We play a number of songs either not on the Top 200 lists or toward the bottom, and they go over great, at both private upscale and public clubs.

Those lists should be used as a baseline for culling ideas, not a be-all end-all of what to play and not play. I also keep a close watch on my competitors' playlists. I don't want to be a copycat of anything, but if another band is packing floors with a certain song, I want to at least give it a try and see if we can have the same effect.

 

[troy mcclure]

My band doesn't learn any songs newer than a few years old. We play mostly rock covers but on the poppy side with do Maroon 5 and Adam Lambert but if a song doesn't have legs I am not interested. My friend is in a band that does punky covers of hits and his voice is not great but no one seems to care.

 

[bdplaid]

Actually there's lots of current music that is the opposite of what you mention. There's bands that use acoustic instruments, stripped down arrangements that produce tunes that work at bars. Songs by bands like Mumford and Sons, Lumineers, American Authors, etc. are just an acoustic combo with or without a drummer. Songs like Ho Hey, I Will Wait, Best Day of My Life, etc. totally go over in a bar and don't require Top 40 production to perform. Heck, even Xs and Os isn't that complex of an arrangement. There is a quiet Soul revival going on with acts like Sam Smith, Ed Sheeran, Adele, and lots of indie acts that are not over produced. Some of it is quite raw or sparse. There's still great Rock being made, except it's called Country now. But if you only go by the Billboard charts and Top40 radio, you're missing out on some great current music that audiences will enjoy.

Could be. I'm not up on modern pop radio music at all. I turn on the radio now and again to check in, and despise what I hear. And there is the occasional low riding car with shaved-head driver giving me a dose of the latest foul-mouthed rap with bass so heavy it sets off the car alarm.

I was in a band a few years ago that did a lot of modern pop. Boy did i get a wake-up call about modern pop! They were fully sequenced, but with live players playing along. I lasted 2 gigs.

I just don't like what passes for pop music these days, but it's very possible I could miss the ones that aren't so bad in my zeal to avoid the crap. However, with music from the 70s/80s/90s so popular in bars, I know I'm not alone. Seems to me the high production pop is more in the realm of DJs and those type clubs.

 

[sean_on_bass]

So funny to watch the 50 and 60 somethings complain about modern music. I'm sorry, but if you have been listening to the same music since the 80's, you are simply doing yourself a disservice for no goddamn reason. Life is too short to stay dwelled on the same old poopie. I myself, have been pretty impressed with what we call modern popular music. This is coming from a jazz musician. I listen to pop radio all the time, mixed in with my usual jazz classics and everything in between. I am always moving on to new things, whether it be modern or not. I just love the discovery of new music and sounds. If you've stopped exploring music, you are pretty much irrelevant at this point. All music has value to someone.