Function band vs integrity ramblings

[dave_bass5]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='216376' date='Jun 10 2008, 07:15 PM']I lost patience with objectivity when manufactured teen bands came into the discussion. I will not position myself as a Take That apologist even for the purposes of objectivity, they suck in the worst possible way and they should all be put to death.

It seems you're content to say nothing for fear of upsetting a few people. I like to think of myself as a musician, and so if I don't loudly and proudly object to mediocre dross like Take That then nobody will.



He's told me exactly what his issue with my argument is, so that's fine.[/quote]

I LIKE TAKE THAT's songs.
I dont care who knows it. im 45 years old and really enjoy playing Shine most sat evenings. But i have said its the music rather than the whole "Boy Band" thing. I agree with you about that but i think we are talking about the musicians that back them.

I completly understand your views on this sort of music but as we are sooooo far aprt it seems its pointless trying to convince each other who's right IMO.
We are both coming from different directions, that why i said i wouldnt take notice of your arguments but im sure your not bothered and dont agree with mine (or even believe me that i do like most things i play)
I hope i didnt come across too rude.

[chardbass]

[quote name='poptart' post='215785' date='Jun 9 2008, 10:15 PM']During a chat with Paul Turner (yes The Paul Turner) it turns out that he got his first big break playing with Take That in the 90's because the management saw him playing with a function band at an event and offered him the gig. Not a bad move, after all where is Paul now - well I guess you know the answer to that........

Mark[/quote]

I always thought the bassist with the 90s Take That was a left-hander.

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='dave_bass5' post='216379' date='Jun 10 2008, 07:25 PM']I completly understand your views on this sort of music but as we are sooooo far aprt it seems its pointless trying to convince each other who's right IMO.
We are both coming from different directions, that why i said i wouldnt take notice of your arguments but im sure your not bothered and dont agree with mine (or even believe me that i do like most things i play)[/quote]

I'm still listening to you. We don't have to conclude anything - philosophers have argued this stuff into oblivion and got nowhere.

It seems we are coming from very different positions. I assume that all musicians I meet got involved in music because they were inspired by some other musician. I find it difficult to grasp that Take That might've actually influenced a real musician somewhere. And I find it horrifying, frankly.

[quote name='dave_bass5' post='216379' date='Jun 10 2008, 07:25 PM']I hope i didnt come across too rude.[/quote]

Not at all. To be honest it was the sniping "self-righteous" remarks earlier in the thread that made me decide that I might as well play the devil's advocate for pomposity if I was going to be slated for it anyway. Regardless, I really do mean most of what I'm saying, although I would settle for a lesser punishment than death for Take That if it avoided a lengthy legal battle which might involve their records being played.

[ironside1966]

What is that manufactured pop music I like?
The groups where told what to sing and what to play, how to look and there music's sole purpose to sell records.
Oh yes " Motown
Did it not help in the struggle for equality?
Cant, have done we all know manufactured pop lacks any integrity.

People who prefer get to pissed and act the pop star rather then to play properly for me lack integrity, regardless of what music the play

[Ham fisted Bass]

[quote name='Galilee' post='209597' date='May 30 2008, 01:56 PM']I expressed an interest in trying out for a local function band, not really my sort of thing but I figured it would be regular live work and little 'management' responsibility for a change. The band leader sent me their playlist, 64 songs, all classics I suppose (in an MOR way), but all new to me from a playing point of view.

I'm going to have to pass on this opportunity, but feel like I should be using this list to get these songs under my belt for the future. The trouble is, how much of an idiot am I going to feel sitting there learning Lady In Red, Black Velvet and suchlike?

I think I've hit a critical point in my life, where the musical 'integrity' of my youth is now exactly balanced by my being nearly 40 years old. I'm getting so old that I just want to get out and play anything at any opportunity, but I'm not so old that I'll play any old rubbish.

What do you reckon? Would you learn a load of songs that aren't your style at all to get work? Have you ever played [i]exactly[/i] the sort of music that you really love in any case, or is it always a compromise? Should I stop navel-gazing and just play the bloody thing until my fingers bleed?[/quote]
I don't believe that one form of music or band is better than another; its a pointless argument and is elitist. Whether you are playing Take That covers or the most demanding Jazz improvisation you are still in the entertainment industry and each is equally valid.

Function Bands can provide you with steady work, but be warned; as with all things you will find good and bad - there are hundreds of songs which can be played in a function format and getting the Bass parts right is demanding, music shouldn't be about playing by numbers or in your words 'any old rubbish' the point is you don't have to play rubbish.

Do a Google search on function bands and the results will come back with a range of bands which feature some very fine musicians; there is a market for live music and no matter what anyone thinks - the audience want to be entertained, enjoy a few drinks and have a dance. What is wrong with playing live music to these audiences?

[niceguyhomer]

The customer is king.

[peted]

I've realised that I don't really care what I'm playing as long as I'm on stage and the audience are enjoying it. I've learnt some songs that have made me cringe at the thought of them. When it comes to playing them live and people are all up and dancing it doesn't seem so bad.

Coming from a nu-metal background, I relinquished all integrity with my first Blink182 and Green Day covers

[jakenewmanbass]

I really think that while there is a healthy discussion to be had on the merits of artistic endeavour (and I personally really enjoy that discussion) we have to be careful not to award by default a feeling of greater worth to those that strive for "integrity" (in quote marks because no single individual has the answer as to what it is)
Playing music for other peoples enjoyment is a singularly good thing to do, and no-one here should feel any less a musician because they play what large sectors of the public want to hear.
The idea that musicians who play with riven angst through squeezing the last drops of "art" from their perfect being have any more claim to worth is total sh*t.
They are just trying to do the same as anyone else, usually to fewer people, (I have played at many modern jazz festivals in the UK and Europe) and if they need to tell somebody else they have less worth then they are seriously missing the point.
Genius will always be recognised in whatever field. And rarely, in my experience, do geniuses feel the need to put their fellow musicians down.
[i]That[/i] is integrity by my reckoning.

Edited June 11, 2008 by jakesbass

[Bilbo]

But surely the effort required to create something of artistic merit is worth more than that required to simply recreate something someone else has already done.

Can you imagine what would have happened at your jazz festivals if you had played, say 'Body & Soul' and in doing so had repeated Coleman Hawkin's tenor solo from his 1939 recording. Or if you played Giant Steps and simply repeated Coltrane's solo. You may just avoid being laughed off the stage by your peers but you would never be take seriously as a player.

Now, if one of these tribute bands gets up and plays 'Comfortably Numb' note perfect, its a obviously a perfectly acceptable product for the market place, I acknowledge that, but how can that possibly be of equal merit to Pink Floyd doing the original? Or Porcupine Tree bringing their own slant on Prog Rock? Or IQ or Spock's Beard (I have never heard any of these by the way)?

My point all along has been that the repeated rendering of the same old stuff undermines the vitality of the art forms we engage in. People have always danced to music and WILL always dance to music, I am just not convinced that they need that music to be the same everytime they go out for them to feel like dancing. If someone can waltz, they can waltz. It doesn't have to be The Anniversary Waltz for the steps to work.

Familiarity breeds contempt!

[whynot]

[quote name='chardbass' post='216392' date='Jun 10 2008, 07:43 PM']I always thought the bassist with the 90s Take That was a left-hander.[/quote]
The guy who played for the last 2 years as part of the their comeback is a left hander (Lee Pomeroy).
Being a fellow left hander, I was speaking to him a few weeks back and the impression I got was that he enjoyed the Take That gigs. Why shouldn't he.

[Wooks]

[quote name='whynot' post='216796' date='Jun 11 2008, 12:47 PM']The guy who played for the last 2 years as part of the their comeback is a left hander (Lee Pomeroy).
Being a fellow left hander, I was speaking to him a few weeks back and the impression I got was that he enjoyed the Take That gigs. Why shouldn't he.[/quote]
He has also been out with Rick Wakeman and also supported Ozzy Osbourne at Wembley with his band Headpsace with vocalist Damian Wilson,(who is also with the brilliant prog rockers, Threshold), last year. So I think it's all a question time management, and making sure that you are free to do what comes along at the time. Why not do the function band just to get some GAS money, but also do your own material too. But I suppose that throws up what if your own project and the function band have a gig on the same evening...now that throws up another storm, doesn't it???

[Jase]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='216789' date='Jun 11 2008, 12:41 PM']Now, if one of these tribute bands gets up and plays 'Comfortably Numb' note perfect, its a obviously a perfectly acceptable product for the market place, I acknowledge that, but how can that possibly be of equal merit to Pink Floyd doing the original? Or Porcupine Tree bringing their own slant on Prog Rock? Or IQ or Spock's Beard (I have never heard any of these by the way)?[/quote]

It's not of equal merit...IMO but the good tributes, they deserve a pat on the back for what they recreate, I've tried it in an established Tribute Act and it's so hard to do things as close as possible to the original....I lasted maybe half a dozen gigs and was asked to leave because every now and then would put my slant on certain tracks. I may be wrong here but Isn't it The Australian Pink Floyd Tribute that have the backing of Roger Waters or certain members of Floyd????

Porcupine Tree....I'm not sure how that has ended up in the Prog genre. Is it Prog? I'm not certain about that but there again Prog is a huge field to be in, same as Jazz. So what would be the difference in a band playing a set of standards and a band playing a set of classics? (not tribute)

[P-T-P]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='216789' date='Jun 11 2008, 12:41 PM']But surely the effort required to create something of artistic merit is worth more than that required to simply recreate something someone else has already done.

Can you imagine what would have happened at your jazz festivals if you had played, say 'Body & Soul' and in doing so had repeated Coleman Hawkin's tenor solo from his 1939 recording. Or if you played Giant Steps and simply repeated Coltrane's solo. You may just avoid being laughed off the stage by your peers but you would never be take seriously as a player.[/quote]

For diferent people, the effort required for either pursuit will be different though. In the extreme... someone who is relatively inexperienced and particularly prone to nerves etc. might be required to give a huge effort to perform whereas an old hand could poop out a different solo without thinking twice about it.

What if the new creation is utterly inaccessible or just plain crap?

And worth more what anyway?

And to whon?

Chances are, if it's a 6 minute long jaunt in 13/8 time exploring the interplay between mongolian nose flute and viola, it's going to be worth nothing to me in it's own right and even less compared to a well played cover of a pop/rock/soul tune. As a musician I can appreciate the effort, skill and so on which went into the former, but I'd still be disinclined to place any extra value on it because it's enhanced my life not one little bit.

I can totally see how the opposite would be true for someone else, and that's fine so long as they don't insist their way is the only way.

[Bilbo]

[quote name='Jase' post='216809' date='Jun 11 2008, 01:03 PM']So what would be the difference in a band playing a set of standards and a band playing a set of classics? (not tribute)[/quote]

No difference at all in my eyes. I can accept that a sophisticated rearrangement of a jazz standard is more defensible than a copy of someone elses but I still think that a LOT of jazz (including ALL of the jazz I play) simply follows what is, from a conceptual point of view, the path of least resistance.

I am researching a biography on Paul Chambers and I recently interviewed a Detroit bass player who had the same teacher as Chambers. He still has a copy of the set list from his first gig in Detroit in 1954. There was NOT A SINGLE TUNE on that list that I hadn't played in the previous fortnight (in Suffolk in 2007, 53 years later). Is that the way you want your music to go? I sure as hell don't.

[Bilbo]

[quote name='P-T-P' post='216819' date='Jun 11 2008, 01:12 PM']I can totally see how the opposite would be true for someone else, and that's fine so long as they don't insist their way is the only way.[/quote]

But I DO insist! Mongolian nose flautists UNITE!

[Jase]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='216826' date='Jun 11 2008, 01:19 PM']No difference at all in my eyes. I can accept that a sophisticated rearrangement of a jazz standard is more defensible than a copy of someone elses but I still think that a LOT of jazz (including ALL of the jazz I play) simply follows what is, from a conceptual point of view, the path of least resistance.

I am researching a biography on Paul Chambers and I recently interviewed a Detroit bass player who had the same teacher as Chambers. He still has a copy of the set list from his first gig in Detroit in 1954. There was NOT A SINGLE TUNE on that list that I hadn't played in the previous fortnight (in Suffolk in 2007, 53 years later). Is that the way you want your music to go? I sure as hell don't.[/quote]

Nope, you're right there bilbo, didn't Herbie Hancock refer to all the standards as "Museum Jazz" that there is a need for musicians to move on particularly in jazz?

[ironside1966]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='216789' date='Jun 11 2008, 12:41 PM']But surely the effort required to create something of artistic merit is worth more than that required to simply recreate something someone else has already done.

Can you imagine what would have happened at your jazz festivals if you had played, say 'Body & Soul' and in doing so had repeated Coleman Hawkin's tenor solo from his 1939 recording. Or if you played Giant Steps and simply repeated Coltrane's solo. You may just avoid being laughed off the stage by your peers but you would never be take seriously as a player.

Now, if one of these tribute bands gets up and plays 'Comfortably Numb' note perfect, its a obviously a perfectly acceptable product for the market place, I acknowledge that, but how can that possibly be of equal merit to Pink Floyd doing the original? Or Porcupine Tree bringing their own slant on Prog Rock? Or IQ or Spock's Beard (I have never heard any of these by the way)?

My point all along has been that the repeated rendering of the same old stuff undermines the vitality of the art forms we engage in. People have always danced to music and WILL always dance to music, I am just not convinced that they need that music to be the same everytime they go out for them to feel like dancing. If someone can waltz, they can waltz. It doesn't have to be The Anniversary Waltz for the steps to work.

Familiarity breeds contempt![/quote]



Has A jazz musician more integrity then, for want of a better word classical musician, who can spend years perfecting a single piece?

Edited June 11, 2008 by ironside1966

[queenofthedepths]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='216789' date='Jun 11 2008, 12:41 PM']Now, if one of these tribute bands gets up and plays 'Comfortably Numb' note perfect, its a obviously a perfectly acceptable product for the market place, I acknowledge that, but how can that possibly be of equal merit to Pink Floyd doing the original? Or Porcupine Tree bringing their own slant on Prog Rock? Or IQ or Spock's Beard (I have never heard any of these by the way)?[/quote]
People like familiar songs though! I like singing along to songs I've heard before, even if I wouldn't listen to them at home. Of course a cover band is never going to achieve what the original band did, but does that mean there's no place for them? Isn't that a bit like saying that you should only listen to a song once and that even cover versions which are drastically different are a bit pointless because they contain elements of the original? Anyway, I'd rather see a good cover band than a derivative originals band with little to offer artistically.

[Jase]

What I look for if I was watching a covers band, is a different approach to the tracks they're covering...don't get that too often in my covers band but anyway say for example....Bob Dylan stuff, not really my thing but I heard some good covers of his songs.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='216789' date='Jun 11 2008, 12:41 PM']But surely the effort required to create something of artistic merit is worth more than that required to simply recreate something someone else has already done.[/quote]

Definitely not IMO, the number of people who move the music forward are very limited, everyone else is a pretender, I pretend with the idea of sometimes doing something more arts based and sometimes for the pure fun of it.
I really don't think it's right for the tortured artist to look down upon and denigrate the efforts of those who seek to entertain no matter what material they use to do it.

Edited June 11, 2008 by jakesbass

[P-T-P]

Straying slightly from the integrity discussion and onto something which has cropped up in it...

Isn't there more new music now, available to more people now than ever before? And isn't the problem partly that the best of that music is simply harder to find because of the sheer volume there is to sift through and partly that we're all guided by our taste too?

On a different tack again, isn't popular music (be that folk, jazz, country, soul etc.) separated from the other arts by the fact that a song, unlike a painting, novel etc. doesn't necessaily become an untouchable piece of art once the songwriting is complete, or with it's first performance or even it's recorded release.

While in many cases, the original version will always stand as the benchmark, it's not completely uncommon for a cover to become the definitive version.

Songs are living, breathing art because they need to be performed in order to exist. The Mona Lisa will still be there once you've left the room. But once the last note has disappeared, the song has gone and it was only those that heard it there and then who experienced the artistry involved in bringing it to life.

Each time it's brought to life, it will be slightly different - the musicians, the equipment, the room, the audience, the dancing and so many other factors all go into creating that little shared artistic moment.

Even if you've seen a song performed live by it's creator(s) countless times, it's only a collection of artistic moments you've been witness too, you'll never be able to get that exact same experience again, you'll never be able to own it the way you can a book or a painting. It's why covers bands exist. People want more than a memory, or to experience more moments. Even if some will be better than others, they still want them, even if they aren't fully aware of the artisic element of it all and express their enjoyment in less high-brow ways such as "I enjoy a sing-song." or "I love a good dance."

Every performacne is a little piece of art so we all have artistic integrity.

Edited June 11, 2008 by P-T-P

[ironside1966]

[quote name='P-T-P' post='216936' date='Jun 11 2008, 03:00 PM']Straying slightly from the integrity discussion and onto something which has cropped up in it...

Isn't there more new music now, available to more people now than ever before? And isn't the problem partly that the best of that music is simply harder to find because of the sheer volume there is to sift through and partly that we're all guided by our taste too?

On a different tack again, isn't popular music (be that folk, jazz, country, soul etc.) separated from the other arts by the fact that a song, unlike a painting, novel etc. doesn't necessaily become an untouchable piece of art once the songwriting is complete, or it's first performance or even it's recorded release.

While in many cases, the original version will always stand as the benchmark, it's not completely uncommon for a cover to become the difinitive version.

Songs are living, breathing art because they need to be performed in order to exist. The Mona Lisa will still be there once you've left the room. But once the last note has disappeared, the song has gone and it was only those that heard it there and then who experienced the artistry involved in bringing it to life.

Each time it's brought to life, it will be slightly different - the musicians, the equipment, the room, the audience, the dancing and so many other factors all go into creating that little shared artistic moment.

Even if you've seen a song performed live by it's creator(s) countless times, it's only a collection of artistic moments you've been witness too, you'll never be able to get that exact same experience again. It's why covers bands exist. People want more than a memory, or to experience more moments. Even if some will be better than others, they still want them, even if they aren't fully aware of the artisic element of it all and express their enjoyment in less high-brow ways such as "I enjoy a sing-song." or "I love a good dance."

Every performacne is a little piece of art so we all have artistic integrity.[/quote]

Well said

[poptart]

[quote name='P-T-P' post='216936' date='Jun 11 2008, 03:00 PM']Straying slightly from the integrity discussion and onto something which has cropped up in it...

Isn't there more new music now, available to more people now than ever before? And isn't the problem partly that the best of that music is simply harder to find because of the sheer volume there is to sift through and partly that we're all guided by our taste too?

On a different tack again, isn't popular music (be that folk, jazz, country, soul etc.) separated from the other arts by the fact that a song, unlike a painting, novel etc. doesn't necessaily become an untouchable piece of art once the songwriting is complete, or with it's first performance or even it's recorded release.

While in many cases, the original version will always stand as the benchmark, it's not completely uncommon for a cover to become the definitive version.

Songs are living, breathing art because they need to be performed in order to exist. The Mona Lisa will still be there once you've left the room. But once the last note has disappeared, the song has gone and it was only those that heard it there and then who experienced the artistry involved in bringing it to life.

Each time it's brought to life, it will be slightly different - the musicians, the equipment, the room, the audience, the dancing and so many other factors all go into creating that little shared artistic moment.

Even if you've seen a song performed live by it's creator(s) countless times, it's only a collection of artistic moments you've been witness too, you'll never be able to get that exact same experience again, you'll never be able to own it the way you can a book or a painting. It's why covers bands exist. People want more than a memory, or to experience more moments. Even if some will be better than others, they still want them, even if they aren't fully aware of the artisic element of it all and express their enjoyment in less high-brow ways such as "I enjoy a sing-song." or "I love a good dance."

Every performacne is a little piece of art so we all have artistic integrity.[/quote]

Couldn't of put it better myself

[Huggy and the Bears]

[quote name='poptart' post='216948' date='Jun 11 2008, 03:17 PM']Couldn't of put it better myself [/quote]

As quoted previously I really find it difficult to differentiate between better/worse music as it is down to your own values and beliefs (in terms of integrity). If we are to take this arguement to extreme, could it be suggested then that because I didn't invent the bass guitar (or make my own) (i.e. my own musical instrument), then I have no artistic integrity? Additionally could it be said that you have more integrity to play a 6 string than a 4 string?

I believe anyone who plays because they mean it has integrity!

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='queenofthedepths' post='216879' date='Jun 11 2008, 02:16 PM']People like familiar songs though! I like singing along to songs I've heard before, even if I wouldn't listen to them at home.[/quote]

I don't think there's anything wrong with playing familiar tunes as-such, but I think a good public performance should challenge the audience in some way too. The odd old song or cover for light relief would no doubt be welcome, but at least send them home feeling like they've heard or experienced something new.

[quote name='queenofthedepths' post='216879' date='Jun 11 2008, 02:16 PM']Anyway, I'd rather see a good cover band than a derivative originals band with little to offer artistically.[/quote]

I've never gone out to see a cover band and I can't imagine I ever would. And I would honestly rather see a band made up of kids who can barely play beating the living crap out of their guitars with real vitality and belief, than see a bunch of famous, ageing rockers in a stadium with a squillion-dollar light show knocking out the hits they had in the '60s or '70s. For me, the former is going to be more entertaining. I think there's more humanity in it.

I suppose it depends what you want from your music and your musicians.