Why is it so important to nail the instrument sound as recorded if in doing so, you end up with a very unbalanced end product?
The band (capable musicians) at a wedding Mrs Rocker and I attended yesterday played a lot of the usual suspects. The end product, successful in this case, of getting nearly everyone on the dance floor and more or less jumping around. Not dancing as I understand the word but that is beside the point. The guitar, if rhythm, almost vanished loudness wise, for the solo. The guitarist tap danced around a large pedalboard to get the sounds he needed. But the sound levels of certain guitar sounds were way lower than others. Most people didn't notice but to me that sounded less than good. Note perfect but still not good.
And why do guitarists use so much distortion that they end up damping strings constantly resulting in cutting off the tail of every note?
The guitarist used so many FX pedals that his three guitars, Les Paul - Strat - Tele, all sounded the same. What is the point of using different guitars if it is not for the sonic differences each on gives?
Why use distortion on a bass? And use a pick as the same choppy sound of the guitar results. Not all songs need that choppiness, that curtailed note sound.
Wedding bands ought to include at least one waltz set and a slow set in their program to cater for the older people there. Common sense really but not so common in practice.
I like music loud but distorted loud music makes me feel sick. Or slightly unwell. Mrs a Rocker felt that way too.
We enjoyed the day BTW.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. [Albert Einstein]
Nil Satis Nisi Optimum
Comments
It actually sounds like laziness to be honest. I know @ICBM likes his fuzz on bass, but you can get a great rocking bass tone with a nice clean crisp sound.
I also prefer wedding bands to lend their own interpretation. I suspect I’d have felt similar to you at the wedding tbh
I do like fuzz on bass - it's another sonic option. It works well for some music styles, but not for all... obviously. (More garage-y punky type stuff rather than rock - which it's less suited to, perhaps surprisingly.) Likewise playing with a pick - I usually do, but that's really because the type of music I play currently demands it. I've also done plenty of other playing which doesn't, so then I don't.
I generally agree with Rocker otherwise though - I much prefer to see a band put their own interpretation on a song and play the *song*, not the record. I don't see any point in 'nailing' sounds and arrangements when most of the time the singer sounds nothing like the original, and even if you can with the rest it never really sounds as good as the record. So just be a live band and play the songs how you want to.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
It was doubly frustrating because they were tight and obviously competent in every other respect. I was depping for a band of rusty, badly rehearsed amateurs the same night, and we had people dancing on the tables within 20 minutes just through audience engagement and a fun attitude. It's hard to be chatty with an audience who are bludgeoned into mute horror by jet airliner volume as soon as you've counted the song in.
A lot of wedding bands miss the point.
Thinking that they are the main attraction, and folk are there to see them.....
Folk don't care if you play a Stratocaster or a Tennis Racquet, your job is just to play popular songs, get Granny and Grandpa up dancing and help everyone have fun......
Theres nothing more ridiculous looking than the lead Singer of a wedding band striking a classic sweat pose trying to be John Bon Jovi or Mick Jagger.....