I disagree with this. I've been in many Variety Top40 bands, since the late 70's, playing everything from all eras. Last band played Bruno Mars and Robin Thicke along with many other current music.
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.
What does the future look like for weekend warriors?
- Thread starter Jarrett
- Start date
I think you missed my point. Which was that without the equivalent of radio which a large portion of the population is all listening to, Top 40 ceases to have the meaning it once had.
Sure, covering stuff including currently "popular" material is same as always. There just isn't any meaningful Top 40 list to actually play in the Holiday Inns any more. The point is the average non-musician has no reference.
Rihanna now has as many #1 hits as Michael Jackson had over his entire career. "Blurred Lines" set radio airplay records last year. The DJ Intelligence most requested list is a mix of the old and new. So, I dunno, the available data suggests that there's plenty of music that lots and lots of people know.
Was "Sugar Sugar" much more widely known back in the day than "Gangnam Style" in 2012? I don't know if anybody can really answer that question, though.
Was "Sugar Sugar" much more widely known back in the day than "Gangnam Style" in 2012? I don't know if anybody can really answer that question, though.
Very good- and which of these current songs could you "accurately" reproduce to sound like the record with a typical cover band of guitar/bass/drums/vocal or vocal(s).
Short Answer: NONE of them-
All of these songs are heavily synthesized, sequencers, vocal effected over-produced crap. Even just getting the bass to sound half way right on most of these is difficult.
So either A: YOu are going to make these songs sound like "your band" by putting your own spin on them (ie basically you are an original(s) band now. or B: You just aren't going to play these songs.
BUT if the audience is expecting your rendition of the latest Maroon 5, Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, to sound like the record, they ARE going to be severely dis-appointed. UNLESS you do something so unique with them, that you win them over.
NOW- How many classic rock songs can you do a reasonable fascimile of with the same band- I'd venture to say with the right players and a GOODto Great vocalist you could play 90% of the songs from the 60s,70s, 80s, and 90s. Not so with the "current" "music."
Gaolee
Official leathers tester and crash dummy
Isn't playing to an audience the point? Making a song sound exactly like it does on the radio isn't so important. Making it recognizable enough that the audience can relate to it, but doing it in a different way that catches their imagination should work fine. Being able to do that seems like a good start, and I don't see why there won't be an ongong market for bands who can do that. It has happened before - Where Did Our Love Go got covered by Soft Cell in a very different way from the Supremes. Now, the point is to take the synth driven stuff and turn it back into music people like most of us can play. I don't think that kind of thing will ever go away. Like I said before, it won't be lucrative enough to make a living doing it, but we are talking about weekend warriors who have day jobs.
I've thought a lot about this even before reading this post.
With how easy it is now to find bands and artist that never get any major airplay now,yet still command a decent and loyal following will one day (i'm in my 30's) when i'm in my 60's, kids think "Billboard" music is something for old people?
Or maybe it will happen sooner,and at that point it seems it would be even harder for a cover band to figure what to play.
The jazz band that I belong to typically draws 50+ people every month.
Bands don't necessarily need to target a genre-specific audience, and can adapt to take advantage of being able to play in smaller venues. There've always been a certain number of people of all ages who enjoy any music that doesn't suck and won't make your ears bleed, regardless genre or time period.
I'm not sure folks necessarily seek out a specific genre. Instead, I think they simply decide what kind of atmosphere they want, and look for what's out there on a night when they're free. That's not to say jazz is just generic background music, but what I've noticed in talking to people in the audience is that if there are 4 people at a table, they all have different reasons for being there, and jazz might be one of the reasons, or not.
Still, jazz gigs are in decline like most other genres. Interestingly enough, here in Madison, a number of classical performances are always sold out, including two orchestras (Madison Symphony and Madison Chamber Orchestra) a Sunday recital series that's also broadcast on public radio, and some small chamber groups. The financial problems with major city orchestras have been due to donation money, not attendance.
I don't think that recorded music is the biggest threat to live music. Bigger threats are video games and televised sports, both of which have exploded in the past few decades. There's also the fact that people simply have less spare time.
Its kind of like the perfect storm, it was(is) alot of things that led to what seems to be a real malaise in live music performance. I dont have any answers on how to fix it either, I do know what I've witnessed was a lowering of the bar as far as what was once considered quality, not wanting to pick on any particular genre but some of what was termed "indie" music didnt help matters much, some of these bands could barely play there instruments. Another continuing sore spot is what I like to call "producer music" beat boxes and synths and a pretty face with an auto tune vocal, and voila ! another pop star is born.
Yes, we let what we do be devalued in a massively obscene way. The all mighty dollar rules, hell even symphony players are feeling the heat these days.
Yes, we let what we do be devalued in a massively obscene way. The all mighty dollar rules, hell even symphony players are feeling the heat these days.
Before I read this thread, I was considering slitting my wrists.
Now, I am certain of it.
But seriously; yeah, it does seem rather bleak out there. Keep posting, I find these varied opinions very interesting.
Now, I am certain of it.
But seriously; yeah, it does seem rather bleak out there. Keep posting, I find these varied opinions very interesting.
Well, with "the right players" you could carve up a lot of those non-rock songs too. If you look at the Billboard charts from the so-called rock era, you'll see that even then most of the hits were pop songs. Bands playing top 40 have always needed a vocabulary beyond rock, if they were going to cover arrangements musically. And that's what you still get with most decent event bands—musicians playing a jazz dinner set, followed by a Motown set, followed by a couple set of dance hits from the last few decades. And then the next night, some of those same musicians might have jazz club dates, or pit gigs, or solo gigs, or be giving lessons, etc.
So there's a tension here in assumptions about the talent level of "weekend warriors" bands. I don't see any reason why rock players couldn't on average have a higher level of musicianship. Jazz bands can load up on niche gigs, partly because there isn't a jazz band on every corner, but also because the average weekend warrior jazz band is at a level of talent beyond the average weekend warrior rock band. So jazz doesn't suffer from the same degree of brand management issues that can make it hard to draw a crowd to lower tier rock venues.
I suspect at some point, demographics and market forces will further thin out the garage-band generations, live rock in most markets will become even more a niche music (like live jazz), and the players who stick it out will be more like the jazz players in terms of investing more time into learning general musicianship and a wide-ranging songbook.
Might not happen tomorrow, though.
If you were playing in a bluegrass band you probably wouldn't go on stage with a lineup like this:
So why should a band covering current Top 40 (a broad genre that is mostly not guitar-oriented) have a lineup like this?
I mean that works great for classic rock and butt rock. But it's gonna work about as well for Top 40 as the metal band trying to pretend that their 8-string electric is a mandolin.
If you want Top 40 you need to bring a lot of keys and work out a solution to drum synths. As a bassist you should be comfortable playing basslines on keyboards. It certainly isn't hard. Guys who can competently play 2 keyboards at once and multi-instrumentalists (aka: guitar + keys) are invaluable. And a lead singer who otherwise doesn't have any instrumental responsibilities may need to be ready to step in and play simple key parts. It's not hard.
But if you approach it from a classic rock angle, I can see why you think this is impossible.
Having done that in the past plenty of times, most recently with "Timber" at the Christmas party at work, it's obviously not ideal but judging by audience response it works. Then again the most recent time I performed live I brought a tablet, didn't play a single note, and just controlled synth and effects parameters live, mostly filter cutoffs.
Accuracy isn't really that important anyway, IME. I did spend four hours transcribing and sequencing the synths parts to Inna's "In Your Eyes". But that was just for myself, I really doubt anybody else cares as long as you have the tempo right, sing in tune, have a good kick drum sound, and play any drop melodies in a recognizable way that's all it really takes.
But if you play it with guitars and drums and no synths, Invalid Link Removed. Wouldn't be my first choice, but if it's good enough for Inna...
I'm not gonna say "it's not that hard", it's taken me a few years moving forward one step at a time and I still have a lot to learn. I only spend about an hour transcribing most songs, though. Dash Berlin's version of "Jar Of Hearts" I literally threw together in 15 minutes, some of it is just plan wrong, but a singer asked me to leave it exactly as it is because she likes that version better than Dash's. Go figure.
A lot of Top 40 stuff these days is just a melody sung over a simple drum and bass track. I can hum along to a Ke$ha song in my head (although I'd rather not), but the music backing it is totally forgetable.
An example: Royals by Lorde. This is, IMO, a Top 40 song that doesn't suck, because her vocals are great and the melody is catchy. But it sounds like there is no backing band, just a drum machine.
No reason you can't make that into a rock song, and one of my friends did exactly that with his band. His drummer, who also happens to have a great voice, totally crushed it while the band played a rythm guitar riff over it. It went over very well.
Katy Perry and Ke$ha? Well, those songs might not have melodies as catchy as Royals, but you can do this with almost any of these dance-beat junk songs.
I think it was harder with old 80s pop like Michael Jackson, where the music itself made a huge impression on the listener. The bass line from Billy Jean, for example, or Eddie Van Halen's guitar solo in Beat It. The synthesizer riff in Take On Me. Covering those songs actually requires some instrumental know-how.
Now, the problem for rock musicians is that most of us didn't spend years learning to play an electric guitar or bass to play Ke$ha covers; we want to play music we actually like. The gulf between what is popular to the public and what is popular amongst musicians seems to grow wider with time. Remember, in the early 70s Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin were considered "pop". Horns of a dilemma.
An example: Royals by Lorde. This is, IMO, a Top 40 song that doesn't suck, because her vocals are great and the melody is catchy. But it sounds like there is no backing band, just a drum machine.
No reason you can't make that into a rock song, and one of my friends did exactly that with his band. His drummer, who also happens to have a great voice, totally crushed it while the band played a rythm guitar riff over it. It went over very well.
Katy Perry and Ke$ha? Well, those songs might not have melodies as catchy as Royals, but you can do this with almost any of these dance-beat junk songs.
I think it was harder with old 80s pop like Michael Jackson, where the music itself made a huge impression on the listener. The bass line from Billy Jean, for example, or Eddie Van Halen's guitar solo in Beat It. The synthesizer riff in Take On Me. Covering those songs actually requires some instrumental know-how.
Now, the problem for rock musicians is that most of us didn't spend years learning to play an electric guitar or bass to play Ke$ha covers; we want to play music we actually like. The gulf between what is popular to the public and what is popular amongst musicians seems to grow wider with time. Remember, in the early 70s Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin were considered "pop". Horns of a dilemma.
I agree with all of this. I would just add, though, that you can make an opportunity out of these pop tunes precisely because of the limitations of the originals - the audience doesn't need to you to play the music "correctly" to the original recording, as long as you get the beat and the melody you can feel VERY free to do whatever you want with the rest. There's a lot more room to "make the song your own" and put your own spin on it.
That is my point- I can play some JAzz and could do a respectable couple of older jazz songs if I needed. But unless I want to invest in bass synth's and sequencers I ain't playing the new Beyonce, GaGa or other assorted crap.
And to be honest "I don't freaking want to anyhow!"
I will play music where my instrument-Bass, actually had an important role to play-not as background sound effect. I mean we play "I'm Your Captain" by Grand FUnk, "Green Eyed Lady",Crossroads by Cream and my bass sounds like a lead instrument, because it actually is an important part of the songs!
I actually interact with the guitar player.
So in short, that means I am playing 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and maybe a few 2000s and later songs. Period.
I didn't practice for 22 years to go up and hit a key on a keyboard to play some low frequency warble. No offense to those that do, but that isn't my instrument.
If I don't make a million playing on the weekends oh well.
And to be honest "I don't freaking want to anyhow!"
I will play music where my instrument-Bass, actually had an important role to play-not as background sound effect. I mean we play "I'm Your Captain" by Grand FUnk, "Green Eyed Lady",Crossroads by Cream and my bass sounds like a lead instrument, because it actually is an important part of the songs!
I actually interact with the guitar player.
So in short, that means I am playing 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and maybe a few 2000s and later songs. Period.
I didn't practice for 22 years to go up and hit a key on a keyboard to play some low frequency warble. No offense to those that do, but that isn't my instrument.
If I don't make a million playing on the weekends oh well.
I have been reading a lot of comments calling the 1980s the golden years for bands playing in clubs and getting paid for their weekend hobby/extra cash machine. Was it that good, a renaissance to the 40s with large dance halls with house bands or just better compared to now as digital DJs don't even have to carry a library of vinyl records anymore
The same comment about rock musicians can be used by any generation of musicians from the time recorded music and radio made it possible to get the hit by the popular artist easier then to get the Jhengsman Weekenders to play their version of the hit and draw a crowd. Even full time pros found it necessary to play in dance orchestras and were not paid to make the music they liked in after hour jam sessions.
Even in the church world most places will depend upon the volunteer who is good enough rather then pay a weekend warrior because church boards will ask why are we paying Mr. X when brother Y will do it as an offering and the money will be better spent elsewhere.
The same comment about rock musicians can be used by any generation of musicians from the time recorded music and radio made it possible to get the hit by the popular artist easier then to get the Jhengsman Weekenders to play their version of the hit and draw a crowd. Even full time pros found it necessary to play in dance orchestras and were not paid to make the music they liked in after hour jam sessions.
Even in the church world most places will depend upon the volunteer who is good enough rather then pay a weekend warrior because church boards will ask why are we paying Mr. X when brother Y will do it as an offering and the money will be better spent elsewhere.
Top40 synth and sequence stuff isn't that hard to play with the right players. I've always been in bands with keyboards. Been in many bands covering a lot of that stuff and it sounded good too. But if you're a rock minded band/musician, I can see how it can seem futile to pull it off. The musicians have to be professional and on top of it! It can be done.
That gets back to my theory that "weekend warriors"are not pro's, yet they wish to be paid for their hobbies.
Yeah, that's about right.
I play bass guitar and upright bass, and routinely do make decent money on the weekends and some weekdays playing instrumental jazz/blues/funk/fusion, etc., with an occasional creative version of a current pop/rock tune thrown in -- for instance, lately, we've been doing our own arrangement of "Get Lucky." Although it could be monotonous (four chords, rinse, wash, repeat), we've turned it into a fun vehicle for soloing, and do some drop-outs and stops to make it more interesting. (The Bad Plus does this with some pop/rock tunes)
But can't say I'd ever be interested in playing a synth or bass synth just to accurately reproduce some current chart hit. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but not for me.
I wanna play bass.
