Musicianship vs Personality & Stage Appeal

[Bluewine]

Not a new topic, but worth revisiting.

I'd like to keep the discussion at the working bar/ pub band level. Original or Cover shouldn't matter.

Used to be ( back in the early 70s) bands were judged primarily on musianship. If you weren't around then, even at the bar level crowds would come out to actually listen ( not necessarily to dance) to bands. If you had a bunch of guys that had something going on, great musianship,& material, you didn't need much more than that to draw a crowd and stay booked.

But now it's different, even at the bar/ pub level personality and likability factor comes into play, IMO.

In my neck of the woods the days of 3-4 guys with great chops no longer gets you very far.

So we're do you stand on personality and fronting skills. Do you want to be with the guys with great musianship but poor stage appeal or the band that has a great  sincere personality and energy but only ok with musicianship.

It's a hard call for me.

This discussion could go anywhere or nowhere.

Edited March 14, 2018 by Bluewine

[Dad3353]

Rose-tinted rear mirror..? I can certainly remember, 'back then', seeing loads of bands with questionable 'musicianship', but with a gimmick, or hype, or some sort of non-musical 'feature' that got them noticed. Were there good musicians too..? Certainly, but not at the top of the tree. Some names..? OK. Soft Machine. Top music; little impact. Matching Mole, idem. Duff music that got attention..? Crazy World Of Arthur Brown..? Status Quo..? Bay City Rollers..? Some that had both music and appeal..? Cream..? Fairport Convention..? Is it different today..? I doubt it, although I'm no longer 'following' today's trends, so...

[kodiakblair]

For a brief period in my teens I thought technical skills the more important. Guitar shredder overload in the late 80's put paid to that.

I'll take OK skills but a great show  over the whiz kids every time.

[Bluewine]

2 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

Rose-tinted rear mirror..? I can certainly remember, 'back then', seeing loads of bands with questionable 'musicianship', but with a gimmick, or hype, or some sort of non-musical 'feature' that got them noticed. Were there good musicians too..? Certainly, but not at the top of the tree. Some names..? OK. Soft Machine. Top music; little impact. Matching Mole, idem. Duff music that got attention..? Crazy World Of Arthur Brown..? Status Quo..? Bay City Rollers..? Some that had both music and appeal..? Cream..? Fairport Convention..? Is it different today..? I doubt it, although I'm no longer 'following' today's trends, so...

I always liked the idea, concept, and time of The Bay City Rollers. I liked the sound too.

I think I look at the value of a gimmick, hype and the non- musical feature a lot different than I did back in the 70s.

Blue

 

Edited March 14, 2018 by Bluewine

[Horrorhiker]

I think Youtube among others has created a lot of insta-musicians. Impressing themselves in their bedrooms (oo-er) but quickly finding out that playing in an actual band involves a lot more than just hearing how to do it. This means there are a ton of poor quality bands around and either really good musicianship, or some great stage presence/gimmicks can get your head above the rest. 

I have mostly played original stuff for most of my playing life, and in that scenario you really need both to do anything other than what is essentially playing for friends imo (though its hard to believe, looking at a lot of up and coming 'professional' bands). 

[TrevorR]

On ‎14‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 01:40, Bluewine said:

Used to be ( back in the early 70s) bands were judged primarily on musianship. If you weren't around then, even at the bar level crowds would come out to actually listen ( not necessarily to dance) to bands. If you had a bunch of guys that had something going on, great musianship,& material, you didn't need much more than that to draw a crowd and stay booked.

Hmmmm... I think you are  taking a small and pretty unrepresentative selection of popular music history. In fact, other than the over-earnest  late sixties protoprog noodlers (think the early Floyd  or Dead head type happenings) or the shoe-gazing miserablists of the late 80s/90s and so on I can’t think many other eras/genres where your thesis holds true. OK, maybe some pretentious chin-stroking bits of jazz...

Most people in most audiences in all genres have gone out to be entertained. Show business is, after all, the business of show - and whether you like it or not, bands are part of the entertainment industry.

And anyway, I think you’ve also set up a false dichotomy. It’s never been an either/or. It should always be both. And even those bands like the Genesis, Yes and Floyd type (at stadium or local venue level) who needed to concentrate on stage on their complex musicality tried to add visual interest through lights and other stuff...

So a good band can have the chops, a good band can put on a show. A great band who really entertain their audience will tend to have a good balance of both. For me, if I go see a local circuit band I want them to have at least better than average musical ability. However, I also want them to connect with the audience in some sort of meaningful, genre-sympathetic, venue-appropriate manner.

BOTH! A rubbish band is still a rubbish band no matter the show. A dull band is still a dull band no matter the chops.

Edited March 16, 2018 by TrevorR
My flippin' rubbish typing!

[Bluewine]

9 minutes ago, TrevorR said:

Hmmmm... I think you are  taking a small and pretty unrepresentative selection of popular music history. In fact, other than the over-earnest  late sixties protoprog noodlers (think the early Floyd  or Dead head type happenings) or the shoe-gazing miserablists of the late 80s/90s and so on I can’t think many other eras/genres where your thesis holds true. OK, maybe some pretentious chin-stroking bits of jazz...

Most people in most audiences in all genres have gone out to be entertained. Show business is, after all, the business do show - and whether you like it or not, bands are part of the entertainment industry.

And anyway, I think you’ve also set up a false dichotomy. It’s never been an either/or. It should always be both. And even those bands like t

BOTH! A rubbish band is still a rubbish band no matter the show. A dull band is still a dull band no matter the chops.

I don't think we're that far apart.

Blue

[SpondonBassed]

2 hours ago, Bluewine said:

I always liked the idea, concept, and time of The Bay City Rollers. I liked the sound too.

I think I look at the value of a gimmick, hype and the non- musical feature a lot different than I did back in the 70s.

Blue

 

Crikey Blue.

I almost spat my tea out when an image of you in platforms with tartan cuffed cut-off jeans and scarf popped into my mind!  I bet you could shang-a-lang with the best of them too.

OT:  If the question is Where do you stand on stage presence?, I can't honestly claim to have any.  A presence is necessary, I know but I've not got much stage experience to have developed one.

I am envious of the fourteen y/o kid at our local public jam who shreds guitar while doing all of the showman moves.  He brings his performance to a climax by running into the main dance floor with his wireless to end up spinning on his side yet still keeping the groove.

His dad and brothers are all musos so he's come from a greenhouse environment where his abilities have been encouraged and grown.  Musically he's pretty good too.  You can forgive the odd misplaced pick stroke given his energetic routine but you don't have to do that often.  I expect him to go far.

Compare that with me; a fifty five y/o born again bassist who doesn't get out much.  My only moves are to walk on the spot or head bob (badly).  I don't want to dance with my lines but I think I shouldn't be anchored to the spot either.

One's own personality and stage appeal are difficult to perceive from the audience POV.  If it's something one is trying to cultivate one would need to trust the opinion of someone who attends your performances, not necessarily a fan, and who gives concise feedback on how they perceive your act.  I think that a few lucky musicians don't have to do this because they have natural charisma but the rest of us have to work at image a lot more.

It can backfire too when the image is bigger than the music.  Not an easy path to tread.  You might have a goal to achieve but life has a way of making you score goals that you wouldn't have chosen for yourself.  If you are lucky you can go with it but sometimes you can get displaced from all that you love just to fill the image and keep earning.

I am going to enjoy reading the responses to your topic.

Edited March 14, 2018 by SpondonBassed

[T-Bay]

I know members of a local band who really struggle to get bookings and I have been asked how our band manage to get the gigs we do (they are pretty much limited to playing for free at personal charity events or for someone they know). I have to be very diplomatic in my responses for reasons I don’t wish to go into here but the reality is that the lead singer has no charisma at all and makes the band play everything 10bpm slower than it should be. They are fantastic musicians but are so boring to watch. It’s very much the lead singers band and everything is done HIS way so I can’t see it changing anytime soon.

[SH73]

When I read the title, Axl Rose come up in my mind. I don't know why though. 

[SpondonBassed]

1 minute ago, SH73 said:

When I read the title, Axl Rose come up in my mind. I don't know why though. 

You will have to explain his appeal to me.

I get that the overall sound works for the band.  What I don't get is how someone who sings as if straining on the potty can get away with it.  I shouldn't single Axl out for this.  It seems to be a desirable quality for the genre.

I've never seen him with a bass however.  Shall we include vocalists in this discussion?

[Bluewine]

6 minutes ago, SH73 said:

When I read the title, Axl Rose come up in my mind. I don't know why though. 

I'm a fan.

Blue

[Bluewine]

32 minutes ago, SpondonBassed said:

Crikey Blue.

I almost spat my tea out when an image of you in platforms with tartan cuffed cut-off jeans and scarf popped into my mind!  I bet you could shang-a-lang with the best of them too.

OT:  If the question is Where do you stand on stage presence?, I can't honestly claim to have any.  A presence is necessary, I know but I've not got much stage experience to have developed one.

I am envious of the fourteen y/o kid at our local public jam who shreds guitar while doing all of the showman moves.  He brings his performance to a climax by running into the main dance floor with his wireless to end up spinning on his side yet still keeping the groove.

His dad and brothers are all musos so he's come from a greenhouse environment where his abilities have been encouraged and grown.  Musically he's pretty good too.  You can forgive the odd misplaced pick stroke given his energetic routine but you don't have to do that often.  I expect him to go far.

Compare that with me; a fifty five y/o born again bassist who doesn't get out much.  My only moves are to walk on the spot or head bob (badly).  I don't want to dance with my lines but I think I shouldn't be anchored to the spot either.

One's own personality and stage appeal are difficult to perceive from the audience POV.  If it's something one is trying to cultivate one would need to trust the opinion of someone who attends your performances, not necessarily a fan, and who gives concise feedback on how they perceive your act.  I think that a few lucky musicians don't have to do this because they have natural charisma but the rest of us have to work at image a lot more.

It can backfire too when the image is bigger than the music.  Not an easy path to tread.  You might have a goal to achieve but life has a way of making you score goals that you wouldn't have chosen for yourself.  If you are lucky you can go with it but sometimes you can get displaced from all that you love just to fill the image and keep earning.

I am going to enjoy reading the responses to your topic.

I'm awful on stage, my best move is " no move".

Blue

[musicbassman]

10 minutes ago, SpondonBassed said:

What I don't get is how someone who sings as if straining on the potty can get away with it.

One of the best descriptions of a certain style of singing I've ever come across!  

[SH73]

19 minutes ago, SpondonBassed said:

You will have to explain his appeal to me.

I get that the overall sound works for the band.  What I don't get is how someone who sings as if straining on the potty can get away with it.  I shouldn't single Axl out for this.  It seems to be a desirable quality for the genre.

I've never seen him with a bass however.  Shall we include vocalists in this discussion?

You mean  a strropy teenager straining on the potty.

[Yank]

I remember as a kid,  seeing old clips of Cab Calloway.  The band was hot and Cab just dared you to take your eyes off him.

[SpondonBassed]

1 hour ago, Bluewine said:

I'm awful on stage, my best move is " no move".

Blue

Does the invisible bear support your statement?

Heeheehee.  Us dads should not be allowed to dance.  Grandads are cool though.

Edited March 14, 2018 by SpondonBassed

[drTStingray]

Without a certain level of musicianship you don't have a band (unless it's one of those bands which don't play the music just mime to it, appealingly). Beyond that there are lots of other factors including stage presence, audience connection and also that good old one, the band being better than the sum of its parts - rather like a good sports team - can play and perform well together. 

Edited March 14, 2018 by drTStingray

[tinyd]

I think that a lot of modern bands manage to be both great musicians plus great performers. I don't really keep up with contemporary pop / rock but whenever I see young bands on Jools / YouTube / whatever I'm often impressed by their overall ability compared to some of the bands of my youth. My theory is that it's a lot more competitive out there these days so to get anywhere at all bands really have to work at all aspects of their act, plus the sheer amount of material available online means that the bar is set higher (you can't get away with being sloppy because you have easy access to videos of great bands).

This is not to say that older musicians aren't also great; I'm just saying that the days of cool-looking but musically-suspect young bands getting record deals are probably in the past.

[SpondonBassed]

Good ole Cab.

[grandad]

I often tap my foot in time and on occasions a gentle nod or indeed nodding in the direction of the rhythm guitarist helps us synchronise. All this showmanship is performed from my seat behind the music stand. Should there be a need to stand, any swaying would probably be an aid to keeping my balance rather than any theatrical performance.

[Lozz196]

I`m not sure about this as a whole, but I do know that having worked with great musicians/great song-writers who had those as their only redeeming features, I wouldn`t choose to work with similar again.

I`m not sure if I have any stage presence, aside from - not my words I should add - looking scary and staring the audience out. Which in fact means that with my middle-aged eyesight I`m just looking at the audience to see if they`re enjoying it.

Wearing appropriate clothing for genre, and not looking at the floor, even if you don`t leap about like a deranged gibbon conveys a better stage presence than looking like a bunch of guys who don`t even know each other, and won`t make eye contact with the audience. If the people on stage look together, look like a band, and connect with the audience even if they don`t say a thing, well already their stage presence has taken a step up.

[chris_b]

When I started seeing bands musicianship was enough to get the job done.

There was never much "show" in gigs by John Mayall, Fleetwood Mac, Cream, Jeff Beck, Alexis Korner and most of the others, but that didn't matter. There were lots of great bands that did "show" like Geno, Jimmy James, Zoot Money. We had a lot of choice.

Me? Sadly a personality black hole. I make John Entwistle look animated. I don't like to look back at videos and see what is actually happening when I'm going through my "moves". . . . because the reality is there is never a lot to look at. At the moment I can get away with it because the main guy I play with does it all, dancing on the tables, out in the garden. He attracted the interest of the Police one night, soloing on the side of the A30, when they didn't believe that he was performing in the pub on the other side of the dual carriageway!

Anyway, I don't loose too much sleep over it. I'm at the age when I fall over if I move too suddenly.

Blue is right. We can be musicians in the rehearsal room, but on a gig the best of us are also entertainers.

[SpondonBassed]

2 hours ago, grandad said:

...Should there be a need to stand, any swaying would probably be an aid to keeping my balance rather than any theatrical performance.

I especially like the way in which you almost but not entirely managed to convince yourself with that statement.

My swaying is usually a result of altitude sickness from standing up too quickly.

2 hours ago, Lozz196 said:

...Wearing appropriate clothing for genre, and not looking at the floor, even if you don`t leap about like a deranged gibbon conveys a better stage presence...

I'm not so sure as you on that one Lozz.

I am now thinking that my fantasy band should have a gibbon in a monkey suit playing a Gibson and fronting the band whilst doing gibbon stuff between killer licks.  In fact it's such a USP that we will be playing our debut on Saturday night in Town of Gibbons.

Edited March 14, 2018 by SpondonBassed

[Lozz196]

Yeah, Gibbons with Gibsons, has a certain ring to it.