mikel

Never had a problem with drummers. Vocalists? now they are a breed apart. We had/tried 7 different vocalists in the first 18 months of my last covers band.None of them had any PA at all, not even something they could use as a monitor, most didnt even own a mic, and some had no idea with regard to timing, when to come in, when to shut up. Three who were pretty good said they were in, then drifted away after about three or 4 rehearsals. One woman, who was amazing was all for it and full of enthusiasm, impressed so much we changed the set to suit her voice and style. Then she left claiming ill health. Perhaps it was the drummer put her off.

A good fit with a band, on any instrument, can be down to many factors. Style of play, personality, enthusiasm, creativity, appearance, age, etc etc. Covers bands, who by definition do it mainly for fun, tend to look for someone who has a similar outlook and would be fun to be around.

[quote name='Yank' timestamp='1490523880' post='3265633'] With all the great music that has been created with a 4 string, I've never felt the desire for anything more. [/quote] Exactly. Has anyone really wrung everything there is out of 4 strings? And do you really need to?

[quote name='Kiwi' timestamp='1490531486' post='3265705'] I dunno, one person's boredom can so easily be another's nuance. I agree both of them are great song writers. They wrote pop and I guess that won't appeal to some. For anyone into being rebellious music or testing boundaries, [b]they're both about as edgy as Dire Straits[/b] or Four Play. But maybe they didn't need to push boundaries in order to express themselves. Pop music has never really pushed boundaries - or it wouldn't be popular. [/quote] To be fair it was Dire Straits who got my brothers generation playing guitars, bass and drums, rather than poncing about with synths. Knopfler is a legend. In the 60s and 70s pop music very much pushed boundaries, it simply needs placing in context.

Give Eva Cassidy a listen, and If you have never heard her before be prepared to think "Why is she not a massive name in the music biz?" Its what I thought when my wife first played the Songbird album to me years ago. Sadly she had died before her work was really promoted. RIP.

I am sorry fellow BC people, I seem to have hijacked this thread with an anti Whitney rant. Please feel free to ignore, and return to discussing voices you admire. Apologies.

Both superb song writers. Kershaw is massively under rated.

Billie Holiday for me. She had a very narrow vocal range but her delivery and feel can make me cry. I am sorry but Whitney Huston's yodeling just makes me cringe. I can admire the skill involved but you are not required to put every vocal chop you know into every song. Less really is more, sometimes one note at the end of a word will do. Apologies but I had to get that off my chest.

Have to agree with the posts that state, in so many words, "If you play almost anything like you really mean it, It will go down well and you will enjoy it." Conversely, If you simply go through the motions it looks and sounds like that is exactly what you are doing.

Sounds like there management skills are a little lacking, but surely if they are in there later years its not going to be a World Tour gig or the next big album. They are probably very relaxed, as they do this mainly for fun, and may have other things going on in there life that are more important. Also, as has been pointed out, semi pro bands mostly go for people who are a good fit personality wise, as long as they can play. Dont take it personally, its only rock and roll.

There seems to be an almost, anything goes for a wedding, as some like to brag about how much they paid for said shindig. In the North East about 1500 is the going rate for a "Proper" wedding band ie one that can play almost anything that is requested, even on the night. They have laptops with song lists and access to music for anything strange that may be requested. There are wedding bands, and then there are real wedding bands. We were offered 1500 to do a wedding next year and the punter had only heard one rehearsal?????

There are plenty of covers bands who dont play "Trite" music. I am in a Funk band, playing bass, and we funk up other songs we like to fit the genre. I play drums in a 60s band that includes a Hammond player. He only needs to start playing "Gimm'e Some Lovi'n" on that thing and the world is my musical lobster.

If he is playing it differently live that would suggest anything could have been done on the studio version. Tuning, effects, studio tricks etc.

There is no reason at all why a pub band cant take it seriously, in every sense. I believe in being as prepared as I can be for rehearsals and gigs, and as luck would have it the rest of the members of the band I am in feel the same. We rehearse a song till we know it inside out and know we are tight. If someone is paying me I feel I should at the very least be competent and well rehearsed. The size of the venue is not an issue, giving value for money and being asked back, is.

Jaco did a lot of strange things like split harmonics etc, difficult to tell without a video of him playing the song all the way through.

Legendary record label. Booker T and the Hammond sound still sends shivers down my spine.

Hey, I also play drums and I always carry my own gear. It also means I dont have to carry any 4 x 12s or heavy valve amps.

I know where you are coming from, there is nothing like playing the songs you really love to fire you up. I have seen it with some local bands. They have been together for years, playing the same old same old, and even though they are very good and well practiced, there is no spark, they are going through the motions. Almost playing by numbers, without excitement or emotion. I have just joined an established 60s band, playing drums (I know), and I got the gig instead of three others who were clearly better than me. I was surprised to get the gig and asked the guitarist/leader why me. He said the others were very slick and professional and easy to play with, but there was no spark. He said, as far as he was concerned, the 60s stuff they were doing was all about the excitement and energy that came from the original recordings and I played them with that raw enjoyment that lifted the band. So chalk up one for excitement over technique.

Natural talent is a born with gift. George Best, Pele etc, just to us a stupid footballing analogy. They had talent you cant coach or learn, they didnt think about what they were going to do next, it was innate. I used to coach junior athletics and the "naturals" were easy to spot. Not just the big or strong for age kids, I mean the ones who had a natural flair for the technical events like hurdles, high jump. javelin etc. That is not to say that a technical discipline can not be learned by lots of application, it can, but the truly gifted will always have a head start. Another question worth arguing is, why do so many gifted people fail to reach the very top in there field? Probably, IMO, because they find the basics so easy that some of them are not prepared to put in the hard work needed to make the best of what they are blessed with. Take the guitar. I have played for years, 50 if I am being honest. I can play all the chords and I can learn, by tab, to play play lots of solos by the greats. I have worked and worked at it but coming up with a great solo that fits and enhances a song is still beyond me. I can work out a good solo, given time, but natural guitarists dont need to do that, they can improvise and play a solo that empties the emotions on the fly. Thats talent and it will always trump my hard work and dedication. Natural talent and creativity, you cant beat it.

[quote name='FinnDave' timestamp='1489759567' post='3259569'] I know what you mean, but I do like the idea of playing riot notes! (Preferably in the correct let signature, of course!) [/quote] The Riot Notes, they were a punk band were they not? Whatever, I like the sound of it. Next time I make a mistake I shall simply state It was a Riot note.

Hopefully they are looking for a bassist that can bring something to the band. If you were all steeped in the same genre you would probably produce the same old same old. Be honest and interpret the songs the way you see them, and the way you want to play them. They are originals so there is no right or wrong way to play them. If you play what the songs suggest to you then you are using your creativity, If you try to second guess what they might "Want" to hear, given that the genre is not what you are used to, you could dig a big hole for yourself. The best bands are a blend of the musicians and there styles, and we all bend, just a little, to make it work. If you have to bend too much something will have to give. Just be honest and go for it. Good luck.

1967, what a year. I left school, started work as an apprentice and met my first serious girlfriend. The summer of love, flower power, the Beatles ruled the world and Britain was the centre of the music universe. Anything and everything was possible.

Its a bit of musical history, I suppose. Auction it for charity would be my call.

Brian Johnson. Vocals, and a genuine, nice, and funny guy. John Lennon. Guitar, vocals and caustic wit. Rick Wakeman. Keys and story telling. Chris Squire. Bass, and I could request a lesson, or 6. Kieth Moon. Drums and mayhem.

[quote name='ivansc' timestamp='1489253729' post='3255538'] A little glib to bracket Buddy Holly and The Ramones in the same dismissive way. So whose songwriting DO you rate? Bearing in mind that Hollys entire output was generated in about 3 years? [/quote] Not glib at all, simply my opinion. As valid as yours I believe.I bracketed them as a poster before me compared them. I rate too many peoples songwriting to go into it here.