Keeping Band Mates Happy

TimmyO

Also, I’d absolutely want my band mates to be people whose playing I really love - not seen that one on the “shopping lists” yet 

monquixote

I've found being in bands with friends is bad musically and for friendships.

I'm much happier with having band mates be like members of a sports team.

vasselmeyer

Absolutely correct. I've become mates with people in my bands, but they were bandmates first, personal mates second.

TimmyO

And that’s cool - it’s what works for you. 
But it’s good for folk posting “simple” long lists of expectations to be aware that it works for them and their preference for the relationship - it’s not how bands “are” - it’s how they like theirs to be 

thegummy

I'm quite surprised there's a lot of paid work for cover bands. People preferring to have amateurs cover songs than just play the record.

For some reason a lot of people just like the idea of the people making the music being in the room even though it's just coming through a PA like the record would be.

Grunfeld

thegummy said:

I'm quite surprised there's a lot of paid work for cover bands. People preferring to have amateurs cover songs than just play the record.

For some reason a lot of people just like the idea of the people making the music being in the room even though it's just coming through a PA like the record would be.

Because a covers band is -- or should be -- an entertainment.  It's not supposed to be high art or merely a type of jukebox.

It's having fun on stage and involving the audience so they feel they've had a really great night. 

The other thing is that it's not strictly amateur -- you're doing it for money.  It's that label:  "semi-pro" -- you're taking the job of entertaining people seriously (not solemnly!) but you're doing a job and doing it well.

And that's why there's paid work for cover bands.

Nitefly

Bridging the gap between @TimmyO and @Mark1960 - first you need to establish what people want out of the band, i.e. is it purely a social thing? Do you even want to do gigs, or just hang out and play stuff?

horsehead

I find and have for several bands, that drummers tend to be easy going...bassist however...

Our current bassist let's us know an hour before practice he can't make it,  complains we dont get enough money for gigs but wont book them ("I'll get it done this weekend"), tells us what we should do for the punters but doesn't actually suggest songs that will suit (ie we're a blues, soul band and suggests steel panther). Says he learns a song but then when he gets it wrong he admits he hasn't!

Our area is pretty bereft of bassists so deal with what we have eh!

thegummy

Grunfeld said:

thegummy said:

I'm quite surprised there's a lot of paid work for cover bands. People preferring to have amateurs cover songs than just play the record.

For some reason a lot of people just like the idea of the people making the music being in the room even though it's just coming through a PA like the record would be.

Because a covers band is -- or should be -- an entertainment.  It's not supposed to be high art or merely a type of jukebox.

It's having fun on stage and involving the audience so they feel they've had a really great night. 

The other thing is that it's not strictly amateur -- you're doing it for money.  It's that label:  "semi-pro" -- you're taking the job of entertaining people seriously (not solemnly!) but you're doing a job and doing it well.

And that's why there's paid work for cover bands.

I suppose if the singer is somehow working the crowd in a real way then it makes sense, though not any more than a DJ who does the same crowd hyping then plays records.

When I've seen cover bands they generally just play a gig the same way a normal band would, hence my surprise.

TTBZ

thegummy said:

I'm quite surprised there's a lot of paid work for cover bands. People preferring to have amateurs cover songs than just play the record.

For some reason a lot of people just like the idea of the people making the music being in the room even though it's just coming through a PA like the record would be.

I can understand people wanting some live entertainment and human interaction, what baffles me is the uninspiring set list that every cover band plays. At least round here, if you've played in one you've played in them all. I get that it's for a reason and they're crowd pleasers, I just don't get why nobody wants to hear anything different and the sets are largely unchanged since I was first in my cover band almost 10 years ago now.

I really want to do something that's heavy on the 90s-00s stuff (grunge, alt, punk rock, nu metal), guitar based versions of current pop songs etc but nobody else seems interested. Maybe for good reason for people around my age (late 20s-early 30s) it's all the nostalgia tunes from when we were teenagers that I thought would go down well. Maybe too niche.

Snags

Even if it's "just covers " there's an immediacy with live music that isn't there with recorded.  Even less than stellar live music. 

EricTheWeary

TTBZ said:

thegummy said:

I'm quite surprised there's a lot of paid work for cover bands. People preferring to have amateurs cover songs than just play the record.

For some reason a lot of people just like the idea of the people making the music being in the room even though it's just coming through a PA like the record would be.

I can understand people wanting some live entertainment and human interaction, what baffles me is the uninspiring set list that every cover band plays. At least round here, if you've played in one you've played in them all. I get that it's for a reason and they're crowd pleasers, I just don't get why nobody wants to hear anything different and the sets are largely unchanged since I was first in my cover band almost 10 years ago now.

I really want to do something that's heavy on the 90s-00s stuff (grunge, alt, punk rock, nu metal), guitar based versions of current pop songs etc but nobody else seems interested. Maybe for good reason for people around my age (late 20s-early 30s) it's all the nostalgia tunes from when we were teenagers that I thought would go down well. Maybe too niche.

I suspect for the average age of people who see cover bands in pubs that might be too contemporary. 
And most people in pubs just aren’t as interested in music as people in bands are so what they recognise is more limited, that’s not a criticism - if you play an instrument you are probably more interested in music than people who don’t. 

Grunfeld

EricTheWeary said:

 

...most people in pubs just aren’t as interested in music as people in bands are so what they recognise is more limited, that’s not a criticism - if you play an instrument you are probably more interested in music than people who don’t. 

Exactly this. 

It's why, when people used to have CDs their collection would be about 20 discs (while mine was over 2,500).

20 discs is simply enough music for most people. 

thegummy

Snags said:

Even if it's "just covers " there's an immediacy with live music that isn't there with recorded.  Even less than stellar live music. 

Can't work out what immediacy would mean in this case

monquixote

thegummy said:

Snags said:

Even if it's "just covers " there's an immediacy with live music that isn't there with recorded.  Even less than stellar live music. 

Can't work out what immediacy would mean in this case

It's being created right there in the moment.

It's something that many bands miss. You are an entertainment so you need to be entertaining otherwise you are just a rubbish CD.

TimmyO

Nitefly said:

Bridging the gap between @TimmyO and @Mark1960 - first you need to establish what people want out of the band, i.e. is it purely a social thing? Do you even want to do gigs, or just hang out and play stuff?

I don’t mean to imply I have some hugely opposing take on it, just that in practice it’s almost always a mix 

Snags

thegummy said:

Snags said:

Even if it's "just covers " there's an immediacy with live music that isn't there with recorded.  Even less than stellar live music. 

Can't work out what immediacy would mean in this case

You could possibly substitute "intimacy" (unless you have a one track mind ).

Live music is, well, live. It's in the room, happening in front of you in a way that queuing up songs on the jukebox isn't. Add in a bit of patter and repartee between songs, point and smile at the person dancing like crazy, etc. and it's a shared experience.

If you've gone for a beer and a bop, a bit of sass with the band is more a night out than dancing to CDs.

After all, why do you go to see your favourite "real" bands live? You could stay at home, listen to the recordings, and save a shed load of cash ...

TimmyO

thegummy said:

Snags said:

Even if it's "just covers " there's an immediacy with live music that isn't there with recorded.  Even less than stellar live music. 

Can't work out what immediacy would mean in this case

there seem to be a few things about this that you don't understand - but that's fine - as you've noted it's popular - just leave it at that, clearly not for you. 

thegummy

Snags said:

thegummy said:

Snags said:

Even if it's "just covers " there's an immediacy with live music that isn't there with recorded.  Even less than stellar live music. 

Can't work out what immediacy would mean in this case

You could possibly substitute "intimacy" (unless you have a one track mind ).

Live music is, well, live. It's in the room, happening in front of you in a way that queuing up songs on the jukebox isn't. Add in a bit of patter and repartee between songs, point and smile at the person dancing like crazy, etc. and it's a shared experience.

If you've gone for a beer and a bop, a bit of sass with the band is more a night out than dancing to CDs.

After all, why do you go to see your favourite "real" bands live? You could stay at home, listen to the recordings, and save a shed load of cash ...

It's a question I ask myself at every gig I go to as I stand there sober, uncomfortable and waiting impatiently through one or more support acts and obnoxiously long intervals :P Even as I'm saying that now, though, I'm looking forward to a Gov't Mule gig next month.

I only mention my own experience as a laugh though, obviously the majority of gig goers do enjoy the experience a lot. But I don't think that the enjoyment is really coming from the music being played live in the room. I think it's just listening to loud music with friends or in a place to meet new people and have a drink and possibly a dance.

It started out with live bands before there were records so that was the only option. Then when records came along, live bands was already established as a thing to do to enjoy hearing loud music in crowds so that format stayed for a long time even after records came along.

But I think my theory is supported by the fact that the more time goes on, the less people are bothered about the music being a live band and DJ's are taking over. Because the people aren't bothered at all that it's a record they're hearing - they're enjoying the other things I mentioned.

Another thing people definitely like about going to gigs is having a collection, a list of bands they like to say they've seen live. That's another reason I'm more surprised that people like cover bands than I am that people like going to see the real bands live - it doesn't incorporate that aspect.

thegummy

TimmyO said:

thegummy said:

Snags said:

Even if it's "just covers " there's an immediacy with live music that isn't there with recorded.  Even less than stellar live music. 

Can't work out what immediacy would mean in this case

there seem to be a few things about this that you don't understand - but that's fine - as you've noted it's popular - just leave it at that, clearly not for you. 

Not sure if you meant that in a patronising way but it does come across as that a bit - and unjustifiably so.

Like when someone says they don't understand how some vintage pickup has more mojo than an identically made modern copy, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person is missing something.