what defines a good band?

davylee

joeduggan wrote: »

well in fairness davylee if it is a small part then the audience probably wont hear it so whats the point of changing a song for the audiences benefit when they probably wont hear it anyway.

Out of love and respect of music
Nice one rigsby

joeduggan

same goes for me rigsby.

DerekD Goldfish

Rigsby wrote: »

This is my final post in this thread, as I think our interesting discussion has run it's course. However here is just one other aspect, I'd be curious to hear your views on......... i.e. session musicians.

These are musicians of the highest calibre. Yes, some may write from time to time, but generally their career is about playing other people's music (like the legendary bassist James Jamerson ). Music writers are/were only too glad to have them, because without them (session musicians ) almost all modern day songs/music would be performed by one person, if we were to use your logic. Just think, without people wanting and willing to play other's music, we would not have had "The Motown Sound", and if you think that was a waste of time, then I feel sorry for you.

I agree the discussion has run its course and we are unlikely to agree on the subject.
My problem was not with people who play other songs it was with people who dont take part in the creation of new music and just replicate what has gen before them.
Session musicians who work on recordings while not writing the music themselves are at least taking part in the creation of new music they are helping the original writer of the track achieve what was their vision.
This is different to the touring cover band entertaining drunken fools while not creating or participating in creating new music.

Mensch Maschine

That's easy. Cant' even believe no one has mention originality although DerekD Goldfish did when he mentioned people just replicating things that went before them.

There are loads of indie-rock bands that all look and sound the same. Record companies are giving all these look/sound-a-like bands deals because one or two make it really big and that's the new or happening sound. I found a pattern in the music or bands I've found really interesting over the years.

People who bring something new to the music game. 50 Cent, Soulja Boy and all them really bring something new and fresh to the table. Only kidding.

The likes of say The Doors, like them or not they had an original or if not orginal - a distinct sound. A lead singer or signature guitar sound can help this. You had the Beatles and the Stones in the 60's then Led Zeppelin knocked the Beatles off the charts with their first album. The sound was new. Heavier guitars and contrasting high-pitch vocals. Pink Floyd with soundscapes and use of sequencers and synths and breaking the mould for rock song structure. Kraftwerk recording music based on technology dropping more organic instruments to favour only electronics.

Apart from originality and unique style and sound I look for in a band, I look for music that mixes or creates new genres. a fine example was on Becks Odelay album where he fused country, rock, hip-hop, folk, old-skool electro etc. That album was produced by the Dust Brothers who also produced some of the Beastie Boys work. You can tell that Beck and the Beastie Boys have a broad taste for music as they can give nods and sample anyone from The Blues Project, Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, Lee 'Scratch' Perry, Dr John and so many more I cant think of right now.

So I believe if you want to make a succesful band you need a broad taste in music. Listening to one or two genres is gonna limit your imagination and creativity - I believe. Mixing genres is a sure way to broaden you audience. Try something new. Distiguish yourself/your band from all the others cause there millions of bands/musicians there.