what defines a good band?

joeduggan

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.

Spiritoftheseventies

joeduggan wrote: »

hi people. so what defines a good band. i mean just the normal bands that play the pubs and clubs around ireland. i know a band in waterford and most people i know think they are brilliant. fair enough. im a musician, and i think they are only average because my definition of a good band is good sound and that the songs are tight. that the band has a good understanding with one another. the band in question hasnt got a great singer, hasnt got great sound and also they are not very tight. but the ordinary tone deaf joe soap thinks they are brilliant. who am i to argue????????? so as a musician i think theres no point in learning hard songs because at the end of the day the general public would prefer to hear " the galway girl" or another ****e rendition of " sweet home alabama" ,. anyway enough of what i have to say. any opinions?

REM I would think is a very good example. Took them five albums to make the breakthrough and when they signed a big deal it was on their terms. Creative independence with your music the key here.

Rigsby

DerekD Goldfish wrote: »

When I say pointless its more from the musicians point of view it takes a lot of dedication to learn to play an instrument or sing not using this ability to create something of your own (even if it turns out to be terrible) is a missed opportunity.

OK. Well what about classically trained, world class, professional musicians ? They spend a long time learning their instrument, plus theory etc. to the highest standard. Generally they play in an orchestra, bringing the music of Bach, Beethoven, etc to the masses, often touring the world in the process. Would you consider their lives a pointless wasted existence ?

Phantron

DerekD Goldfish wrote: »

Art = "the creation of works of beauty or other special significance"

I disagree with above definition!

DerekD Goldfish

Phantron wrote: »

I disagree with above definition!

Its not mine its from the Collins English Disctionary

OK. Well what about classically trained, world class, professional musicians ? They spend a long time learning their instrument, plus theory etc. to the highest standard. Generally they play in an orchestra, bringing the music of Bach, Beethoven, etc to the masses, often touring the world in the process. Would you consider their lives a pointless wasted existence ?

There are plenty of classicaly trained musicians who use their talent to create new compositions. There are hundreds of recordings of Bach, Bevhoven etc its a waste of time trying to do something new with these that hasn't been done before.

Spiritoftheseventies

DerekD Goldfish wrote: »

Its not mine its from the Collins English Disctionary



There are plenty of classicaly trained musicians who use their talent to create new compositions. There are hundreds of recordings of Bach, Bevhoven etc its a waste of time trying to do something new with these that hasn't been done before.

yes it helps if you can play your instrument but dont think its the end all and be all. say its the sum of the parts that matters in the end.

keefg

Having a sh1t hot image.......:cool:

Rigsby

DerekD Goldfish wrote: »

There are plenty of classicaly trained musicians who use their talent to create new compositions. There are hundreds of recordings of Bach, Bevhoven etc its a waste of time trying to do something new with these that hasn't been done before.

There are also lots who probably never write a note of their own. There are also millions of people through out the world who would prefer to hear Bach and Beethoven's music performed live as apart from listening to recordings. This music was meant to be performed live. These musicians are providing a much sought after service. I'm sure neither they, nor their audience find it a waste of time.

Spiritoftheseventies

keefg wrote: »

Having a sh1t hot image.......:cool:

There's always one!

Rigsby

keefg wrote: »

Having a sh1t hot image.......:cool:

*Makes a mental note not to answer any thread by "keefg" looking for band members on the "Bands and Musicians" forum. *

keefg

bayviewclose wrote: »

There's always one!

Ooooo....Lah dee dah...well excuse me for adding a little bit of humour to the thread rather than another pretentious "music is serious" reply.

keefg

Rigsby wrote: »

*Makes a mental note not to answer any thread by "keefg" looking for band members on the "Bands and Musicians" forum. *

LOL

Guitarist wanted - must have own cucumber.

Spiritoftheseventies

keefg wrote: »

LOL

Guitarist wanted - must have own cucumber.

having a spinal tap moment here!

Rigsby

keefg wrote: »

Ooooo....Lah dee dah...well excuse me for adding a little bit of humour to the thread rather than another pretentious "music is serious" reply.

Dont be going losing your trousers keefg

keefg

Rigsby wrote: »

Dont be going losing your trousers keefg

That's me on the left.......with the dynamite

Spiritoftheseventies

keefg wrote: »

That's me on the left.......with the dynamite

all the serious heads have gone i think. That pic went down like a lead cucumber!

Rigsby

DerekD Goldfish wrote: »

There are plenty of classicaly trained musicians who use their talent to create new compositions. There are hundreds of recordings of Bach, Bevhoven etc its a waste of time trying to do something new with these that hasn't been done before.

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.

Spiritoftheseventies

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.

how did thread about a good band turn into a debate on classically trained musicians?

Rigsby

bayviewclose wrote: »

how did thread about a good band turn into a debate on classically trained musicians?

Yes, it was a little off topic, but if you read through the thread you'll see it is connected to the main theme.

OK, OK, I said the other post was my last. !!

Spiritoftheseventies

joeduggan wrote: »

i suppose i agree with a lot of the stuff u guys r saying. but it just bugs me that a song like " country roads" could be preferred to than , for example, " romeo and juliet" or "sultans of swing" . i dunno. im in a band and i tell the lads not to be bothered learning difficult songs cos people will still prefer to listen to brown eyed girl and sweet home alabama so whats the point. and thats why i think some bands dont bother doin much practice cos they know they will get away with playin the same set gig after gig after gig.we learn at least two new songs a week and thats just to keep our own sanity. or else we just get bored.

yes thread was going fine till your man posted that pic. like i said there is always one!

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.