what defines a good band?

joeduggan

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?

DerekD Goldfish

Cover bands in any shape or form or not real bands
in the same way as someone who does a painting using a paint by numbers template isn't a real painter if you dont create anything of your own your not a real musician.
As for the general public thinking their local pub band are great a lot of it has to do with alcohol the same way as the Kebab form the dodgy chipper tastes great after a few gargles most people just want backround music to distract them from the fact they are drinking with people who they have nothing to say to.

GLaDOS

If I like them they are good.

keenan110

A good band MUST have a good singer. just look at all the big bands, none of them have weak singers.

Also needs a drummer who can keep time! And they need to be well rehearsed and very tight!

joeduggan

thats pure and utter tripe. " not a real musician if you play covers. " theres a strong argument that a covers musician is better than a singer / songwriter cos who are we to say they are playing their own work right or wrong. anyone can write a song. not everyone can write a good song.

joeduggan

hi ya science. not sure i agree with that. but you are backing up my original theory. if u like them then you THINK they are good. thats your opinion. but whos to say you have a musical note in your body. you know!

joeduggan

keenan thats a very good definition in my opinion. ... i like your open mindedness.

joeduggan

anyone else have any opinions.

Rigsby

I think the term "good" means different things to different people. If a band seems good to "the ordinary tone deaf joe soap" ( as you condescendingly put it :rolleyes: ), then why would you, as a musician, have the right to say he is wrong ? Just because you play music does not mean you have a monopoly on judging wheather it's "good" or not. As I said, it's a personal thing.

joeduggan

thats actually true. and im sorry if i was condescending. i didnt mean it like that. thats true. whats good to me is not necessarily good for you. so i suppose the real question is what the definition of good?

Rigsby

joeduggan wrote: »

so i suppose the real question is what the definition of good?

..... and that is in the "ear" of the beholder. Most dedicated musicians in a band will do their utmost ( and rightly so ) to make sure they are playing to the highest standard, just out of a love and respect for the music. In the end though, it's the listener who decides if it's "good" or not.

-Chris-

I think you need to expand this to include performance and stagecraft - you can have a musician who's "sub-par" from the criteria you're applying but who has the abililty to hold the audience in the palm of their hand.

There are many insanely tight and technically proficient bands out there who (while I appreciate how hard it is to get that tight/proficient) bore the socks off me.

"Joe Soap" wants entertainment above all else - if that's achieved with a sloppy 12-bar blues played & sung like it's the most important thing on earth, then so be it.

jossnjuice

i think spontaneity is the best measure of a band. im a huge bruce fan so il take him and the E street band as an example...

about on third of bruces setlists are decided before the start of the gig and the rest is just made up on the spot, whether it be something hes in the mood for or the request section from the pit, where people hold up signs for songs that they want to hear.

sure, bruce has a huge back catalouge but he always has a part in the show where the crowd can so to speak, " stump" the E streeters by asking for a request from left field. EG so far on this tour hes covered mony mony when there was a sign in the crowd and the band had never played it before.

another band who has spontaneity is bon jovi as it is a regular occurence for Jon to change the opening song on the walk to the stage, an example of this being on the crush dvd where dave bryan talks about having to run through the chords with sambora on the walk to the stage when jon said he wnted to do a thin lizzy song from years ago that the had rarely played!

so in conclusion, its SPONTANEITY!

oldyouth

Ability to play instruments
Ability to sing
Timing between band members
Choice of genre/songs to suit abilities
Can they deliver to a high standard on a consistant basis

But mostly.......do people want to hear them play???

joeduggan

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.

-Chris-

People want something they can sing along to, that they can hum in their heads in the bus on the way home.

Country Roads/Brown Eyed Girl/Sweet Home Alabama all tick these boxes.
I don't even know if there's a chorus in R&J - so you'd have to know all the lyrics in order to be able to sing along with it.
Sultan's of Swing is as bad (for singing along to) - the chorus is barely two lines long!

Both songs are excellent btw, but they tell a story rather than provide a vocal hook.
Probably my fav Dire Straits song is Telegraph road - I love the story, the wordcraft - but I'd never play it live cos it would put 80% of the audience to sleep! Same could be said of Brothers in Arms.
If you took Money for Nothing though, it has a lot of the same elements - slow build up, iconic guitar riff - but has the pay-off of a bit where everyone knows the lyrics and gets to sing along.

Rigsby

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.

I see where you are coming from and agree to an extent. Point is people do sometimes prefer "Country Roads" to the others mentioned. Unless you are going to start writing your own (maybe more complex) songs, and try and make it as an original band, there is no other option for a local band except to play these type of songs in order to draw in the crowd. A lot depends on the venue too. JJ Smyths in Aungier St hosts a variety of music, and the clientele are generaly open minded to most genres.

GLaDOS

Fine, serious reply time.

First good is subjective, so were not gonna get a concrete answer.

Personally it depends on the type of music though. I mainly listen to Power and Progressive metal. They are completely different so I look for different things.

In Power metal I''d look for strong vocals with good lyrics, with a good rhythm guitarist or keyboardist.

In prog I look for originality, with technically skilled keyboardists/guitarists/drummers amongst other instruments.

DerekD Goldfish

joeduggan wrote: »

thats pure and utter tripe. " not a real musician if you play covers. " theres a strong argument that a covers musician is better than a singer / songwriter cos who are we to say they are playing their own work right or wrong. anyone can write a song. not everyone can write a good song.

I completely disagree
Even somebody playing a terrible song of their own is it least creating something
covers bands in particular those who's entire set is covers of another band Australian Pink Floyd, Stone Roses experience etc are the most pointless people on earth.

It doesn't matter how much technical ability you have if you don't use it to create something new there is no point in playing an instrument/singing whatever

Rigsby

DerekD Goldfish wrote: »

I completely disagree
Even somebody playing a terrible song of their own is it least creating something
covers bands in particular those who's entire set is covers of another band Australian Pink Floyd, Stone Roses experience etc are the most pointless people on earth.

It doesn't matter how much technical ability you have if you don't use it to create something new there is no point in playing an instrument/singing whatever

I said it earlier in this thread, but it's worth repeating, MUSIC IS A PERSONAL THING.

While some people find satisfaction in playing covers, others want to be creative and write their own music. It's not for any one person to say which is better. People seek and find their musical rewards in different ways. Besides, playing covers can be creative when you put your own stamp on a song and make it your own. Lots of reputable and creative artists have released entire albums of the music of someone else who has been an inspiration to them.

Phantron

Nothing defines a good band. Great art should be indefinable.

joeduggan

wow phantron thats deep but i cant argue with it. derekdgoldfish i think an awful lotof what u said there is bull. so ur syain mr. blobby sang by mr. blobby is a better than listening to the australian pink floyd sing another brick in the wall. thats bull. listen to what your sayin man.

Phantron

joeduggan wrote: »

derekdgoldfish i think an awful lotof what u said there is bull. so ur syain mr. blobby sang by mr. blobby is a better than listening to the australian pink floyd sing another brick in the wall. thats bull. listen to what your sayin man.

You could argue that there's nothing between them, seeing as Mr. Blobby had as much to do with writing Mr. Blobby as Australian Pink Floyd did with Another Brick In The Wall? Hang on a second, my phone's buzzing... oh, it's the Devil again.

Rigsby

Most of the songs Elvis sang were written by someone else. I have n't heard much criticism on that score.

DerekD Goldfish

Rigsby wrote: »

I said it earlier in this thread, but it's worth repeating, MUSIC IS A PERSONAL THING.

While some people find satisfaction in playing covers, others want to be creative and write their own music. It's not for any one person to say which is better. People seek and find their musical rewards in different ways. Besides, playing covers can be creative when you put your own stamp on a song and make it your own. Lots of reputable and creative artists have released entire albums of the music of someone else who has been an inspiration to them.

Of course its for someone to say which is better what's the point of having a forum if you don't express opinions.

There is nothing wrong with an artist doing their own version of a song adding something new to it but people who make a career out of only playing other people songs are living out a pointless existence.

Why listen to local cover band "X" playing song "Y" when you can just listen to the person who actually bothered to create it

Its like when Gus Van Sant remade a shot for shot remake of "phycho"
I'm sure it took lots of effort and a certain amount of talent to do so but why bother ? The original was fantastic try use your talent to create something new

Nothing defines a good band. Great art should be indefinable

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

Repetition is not creating

so ur syain mr. blobby sang by mr. blobby is a better than listening to the australian pink floyd sing another brick in the wall. thats bull. listen to what your sayin man.

Well seing as Australian Pink Floyd would probably be playing Pink Floyd songs almost anything is preferable

DerekD Goldfish

Rigsby wrote: »

Most of the songs Elvis sang were written by someone else. I have n't heard much criticism on that score.

You haven't talked to me
Elvis was a talentless hack
He did at least add something of his own to covers though your average cover band is like a homoeopathic dilution of something that once resembled music

Nolanger

Opposite to Coldplay.

davylee

Rigsby wrote: »

..... and that is in the "ear" of the beholder. Most dedicated musicians in a band will do their utmost ( and rightly so ) to make sure they are playing to the highest standard, just out of a love and respect for the music. In the end though, it's the listener who decides if it's "good" or not.

i like that statement about playing at the highest standard out of love and respect for music.
I get grief sometimes for "small" parts of songs.
"why are you doing that nobody in the crowd will even notice it"
I have this quite a bit.
Next time someone says that to me, i'm gonna use rigsby's quote
nice one

Rigsby

davylee wrote: »

Next time someone says that to me, i'm gonna use rigsby's quote
nice one

Permission granted. Cheque in euros please !!

Rigsby

DerekD Goldfish wrote: »

Of course its for someone to say which is better what's the point of having a forum if you don't express opinions.

There is nothing wrong with an artist doing their own version of a song adding something new to it but people who make a career out of only playing other people songs are living out a pointless existence.

Why listen to local cover band "X" playing song "Y" when you can just listen to the person who actually bothered to create it

I obviously did not make the letters in my post big enough

It may be pointless from your point of view, but when there are people willing to pay to see cover bands play, they seemingly dont think it's pointless. Often, it's the closest they'll get to seeing their favourite band live. If there was no demand for these bands, they'd disappear overnight.

DerekD Goldfish wrote: »

You haven't talked to me
Elvis was a talentless hack
He did at least add something of his own to covers though your average cover band is like a homoeopathic dilution of something that once resembled music

I am by no means an Elvis fan either. I merely used him to show how many people there are out there who love(d) him and his music. Are these people "living out a pointless existence" because they happen to like someone who did not write his own songs

DerekD Goldfish

I merely used him to show how many people there are out there who love(d) him and his music. Are these people "living out a pointless existence" because they happen to like someone who did not write his own songs

I didn't say that as I said previously despite the fact I don't like him he did at least add some sence of originality to his covers and he did write a few songs.

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.
As I said before Art in whatever form is about creating its no use learning how to write,paint,play an instrument, sculpt or whatever if you don't use it to create something new and different its a great waste.

Often, it's the closest they'll get to seeing their favourite band live.

A couple of years ago maybe but nearly every act I've ever liked (that isnt dead) has reunited in recent years just have patience and you will probably see the real thing (unless they die from a drug overdose) and even if you don't no cover band however much they practice will be the same as the real thing

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!