Dad3353

He's still up there; he never left ...

... and I call 'Shallow'..! It's not the hair that counts ... ...

Have you seen the Status Quo backline..? Not much room left for anyone with that in the corner by the toilets..!

Don't mind me ...

Their own 'greats', fine. Everyone has theirs; I have mine. It's futile, though, to suggest that there's any that deserve 'worship' from a whole bass player community, no..?

Contact the sound team beforehand (they need your stage set-up, anyway...), and explain yourself. I'm pretty sure they'll be able to slot a mic change into the band change-over with no issues (assuming just a minimum of competence...). Singers will often enough use their own personal mic; it was quite a normal 'thing' at our yearly festival; no big deal. The other option, to be sure..? Mime.

Well I was defied ("if you can bear it have a look at the attached video..."), which I accepted, and thought it reasonable to lance my own. Never mind; I'm still at 37' in and counting (not for the first time, naturally...). It just illustrates that stuff like 'endurance', or 'worship' are not applicable; one likes it or not. Tastes evolve, too. One becomes (sometimes...) a bit more 'tuned in' to different genres. 'Whatever floats your boat', as they say, but don't try to put SQ up there with the 'greats'. They do what they do, that's all. Peace.

Rhythm..? Check. Beat..? Check. Endurance..? Check. Musicianship..? Oh sorry; was that a criteria..?

Compare and contrast ...

A couple a decades ago now, I listened to part of a radio programme celebrating the xxx years of their career. A few anecdotes, some chat with the presenter, and, as a 'parting gift', they were to receive a special treat: the playing of their first hit. 'Pictures Of Matchstick Men'. One could hear, even on the radio, the cringing of the group as they had to endue the full three minutes thirty or whatever. After having lauded their guitar work, their tight signature rhythm section, their musicality... It was a real embarrassment. Disclaimer: I've never been, myself, a fan of their stuff, having lived not far from the 'Rossi' roots of Hounslow, and having had the dubious pleasure of playing some of their stuff (on drums...) for a college concert. It's basic, it's primitive, it works, in the genre targeted, but I wouldn't give it house room, myself. There is, in my world, much better stuff to listen to. As for 'worship': that's meant jokingly, surely..? Just my tuppence-worth.

OK, but go easy on the yodelling.

... and..? ...

A light repertoire, then..? ...

Because a Brownie Box camera can only do so much ...

Here's one we prepared earlier ...

Yes, I was only using the Classics as an example; there is a powerful catalogue of more contemporary music than that of Bach, up to and including modern day composers, in all genres. Maybe the term 'good' is subjective (and therefore pretty meaningless in these contexts...); could I suggest something with a bit more consistence, such as 'sincere', or 'deep', in opposition to stuff simply churned out for populist reasons..? These, and other, terms would also be subjective, I'm aware, but how, then would you, yourself, distinguish music as 'audible wallpaper' to that with a more profound impact (if, indeed, you would...)..? I see a difference in trashy magazine articles and journalism, holiday beach 'eau-de-rose' novels and literature, 'dog-turd' sculpture and fine statues. I personally don't hold with the 'everything can be art' school (yes, I'm old...), and music, in its broadest sense, is, to me, distinguishable between absolute dross and pure magic. There is an infinite range between, but, in the end, dross is dross; a silk purse is far more likely to come from a silk purse maker than a butcher with a bucket full of pig's ears. I certainly don't give much weight to the 'newness' or originality' in and of itself. New rubbish is rubbish just the same (as is and was old rubbish, and there's a heck of a lot of that, too. Offenbach, anyone..?)

Self-defeating, I'd say, if the premise is that 'music has to change'. Music created with that in mind is, by its own yardstick, doomed to a short lifespan, to be replaced by its commercially-driven 'spin of the day'. It's done quite deliberately, and even cynically, with the firm intention of renewing the revenue on a daily basis. Good Music does not have, nor need, this driver. OK, it will always be, by this same token, less mainstream, and with a lower visibility, but, to me, 'Good' can be less subjective than is being implied. The term itself 'Pop' (ie: popular...) gives it, almost automatically, its ephemeral nature, in the commercial culture it's spawned in. Its 'absolute' merit lies solely there, I suggest.

It's done OK by Schubert and his chums so far. 'Evolve' isn't always 'Good'. We'll see how much Spice Girls stuff is being played in a couple of centuries or so. Schubert and his chums probably will be.

As long as you veto any and all suggestions that don't meet your criteria, that's exactly what will happen, until one or other of the band members decides they'd rather not be in the project. It's very simple, I'd say, and doesn't need overthinking.

I'd make a set-list of songs that everyone agrees to playing; a unanimous choice. No need to justify one's vote, just have all on board when choosing songs. Simple enough, I'd say.

Why aren't you bowing like everyone else..? ...