What happened to BANDS

[Doctor J]

If your aim is to be rich and famous, your music is likely to be shite anyway. If you want to be a great musician or play great music, you're probably focussing on your music and technique, not drumming up Insta followers.

[Woodinblack]

58 minutes ago, Terry M. said:

How about Brian Epstein with the Beatles?

 

Well, in the 60s, most music was manufactured boy bands as that is what people wanted. Before that it was solo singers with hits written by songwriters, or in the states, sanitised rock/blues music.  The singles charts was always about what sold, it has never been different, just what sells is different.

 

There are still loads of groups, go on whatever your music service is and you will find them. Album charts are a bit less mainstream based - ie, in the top 30 as I look today there are 2 fleetwood mac albums, abba, linkin park, Oasis (proving that tastes are no better than they used to be),  arctic monkeys.

 

nah - stuff is the same

[gjones]

With any band there is aways the inspirational figure in the band, who is usually the frontperson songwriter, and then there's the rest of the band members. These days, with so little money coming from sales and publishing, there's just not enough money to feed the drummer, bassist, guitarist, cowbell player, as well as the frontperson/songwriter. 

 

So if you are a new act, you'll see a 'band' as just more mouths to feed. Why bother with a permanent band, just hire session players when you need to record or gig, if and when you need them. It's the brutal reality of the music business today.

 

Sad but true.

[Terry M.]

21 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Well, in the 60s, most music was manufactured boy bands as that is what people wanted. Before that it was solo singers with hits written by songwriters, or in the states, sanitised rock/blues music.  The singles charts was always about what sold, it has never been different, just what sells is different.

 

There are still loads of groups, go on whatever your music service is and you will find them. Album charts are a bit less mainstream based - ie, in the top 30 as I look today there are 2 fleetwood mac albums, abba, linkin park, Oasis (proving that tastes are no better than they used to be),  arctic monkeys.

 

nah - stuff is the same

I'm up on current albums featuring groups that appeal to me,they just aren't mainstream acts so a little more "searching" is required 👍

[Terry M.]

6 minutes ago, gjones said:

With any band there is aways the inspirational figure in the band, who is usually the frontperson songwriter, and then there's the rest of the band members. These days, with so little money coming from sales and publishing, there's just not enough money to feed the drummer, bassist, guitarist, cowbell player, as well as the frontperson/songwriter. 

 

So if you are a new act, you'll see a 'band' as just more mouths to feed. Why bother with a permanent band, just hire session players when you need to record or gig, if and when you need them. It's the brutal reality of the music business today.

 

Sad but true.

This should answer or address the OP quite well 👏

[Leonard Smalls]

There's loads of bands. You just have to go out and find 'em!

We're playing Rebellion this year, there's well over 300 bands playing ranging from 60+ OG punks to spotty 18 year olds.

And that's just one punk fest - check all the others, there's a few more than plenty!

As for charts, we haven't even registered our songs - you have to pay extra!

[p4ul]

I live next door to 3 good drummers, all in bands, father and two sons.

When they rehearse in the shed, I have a secret little jam along 🙂  [could be deemed as bass dogging, but i am not proud]

That said, bands aint dead, the music industry is.

[Bolo]

"the charts" are a vehicle for the labels to push their products.

It's NOTHING to do with good music. 

[BigRedX]

It's rarely enough to just be a musician. The real money is in songwriting.

[SpondonBassed]

3 hours ago, Terry M. said:

My point is the Boyband phenomenon predates the 90s as the OP mentioned originally. 

 

Hmm.  I will allow you that if only to keep the thread on track.

 

This boyband phenomenon, as you put it - Have you taken a moment to consider the Monkees?

 

They are an example of manufactured band of capable musicians who had to fight to become a proper band with their own material.  The Americans of the time couldn't get enough of the Beatles, you see.

 

Let's move on.

[SpondonBassed]

2 hours ago, Doctor J said:

If your aim is to be rich and famous, your music is likely to be shite anyway. If you want to be a great musician or play great music, you're probably focussing on your music and technique, not drumming up Insta followers.

 

Very well put.  Thank you.

 

Whatever happened to bands though?

 

My own feeling is that they exist largely as a cult thing.  This is nothing new.  It's just that the Internet channels folk by preference in all things including music.  You aren't exposed to proper bands so much this way.  Bands survive by word of mouth and by reputation for consistency.  They also get more involved with their audience while performing.

 

Social MeMeMedia only goes so far.

[SpondonBassed]

2 hours ago, gjones said:

a new act

 

For three little words that opens a family sized can of worms.

 

Is a band really an act?  Not for me it isn't.  I'd call it a group if you are focussed on commercial success.  How's that for splitting hairs?

 

An act suggests a lot of scripting and choreography to make a musical show and go touring.  At this point you are merely part of a production company that exists purely to make that show profitable.  I have never aspired to becoming a musical Thespian, sorry.

 

Join your local AmDram society if that's your thing.  You will get better experience from it for what you are intending.

[80Hz]

I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about bands being dead. I mean, sure, they might be at a low ebb in terms of what "the kids" are listening to (not that I purport to be an expert on that). Hip hop has vast appeal, Spanish speaking artists/genres have vast appeal in the US (Rick Beato points this out often).

 

It doesn't mean that there's not something for everyone to enjoy and support out there even if "bands" aren't currently culturally ascendent.

 

I was watching the Irish Eurovision candidates on the Late Late show last night. There was just as much a range of talent, skill and originality (within genre confines) on display there, imperfections and all, as what you might find in "bands".

 

I think what I'm saying is - don't hate, listen widely, and, erm.. embrace being underground again?!

[Terry M.]

1 hour ago, SpondonBassed said:

 

Hmm.  I will allow you that if only to keep the thread on track.

 

This boyband phenomenon, as you put it - Have you taken a moment to consider the Monkees?

 

They are an example of manufactured band of capable musicians who had to fight to become a proper band with their own material.  The Americans of the time couldn't get enough of the Beatles, you see.

 

Let's move on.

You will "allow" me? Your response only proves what I said originally about the phenomenon pre dating the 90s in response to the OP. I neither know or care who the original boyband was whether Monkee, Chimpanzee or Orangutan. And anyway the Beatles initially flopped in the US. 

Edited Saturday at 18:10 by Terry M.

[mikebass456]

I don't think I've followed the charts at all in the last 20years! 

Most of my new music (and yes, most are bands/groups) have come from listening to stations like planet rock, or from falling down a rabbit hole on YouTube.  Either that, or when I have to learn new songs from artists/bands/groups that I've not heard of it never listened to before.

I've also got a couple of classical CDs in the car of the 1812 overture, and The Four Seasons........

[simisker]

1 hour ago, 80Hz said:

I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about bands being dead. I mean, sure, they might be at a low ebb in terms of what "the kids" are listening to (not that I purport to be an expert on that). Hip hop has vast appeal, Spanish speaking artists/genres have vast appeal in the US (Rick Beato points this out often).

 

It doesn't mean that there's not something for everyone to enjoy and support out there even if "bands" aren't currently culturally ascendent.

 

I was watching the Irish Eurovision candidates on the Late Late show last night. There was just as much a range of talent, skill and originality (within genre confines) on display there, imperfections and all, as what you might find in "bands".

 

I think what I'm saying is - don't hate, listen widely, and, erm.. embrace being underground again?!

 

I think that's fair and a level-headed approach.

 

The elephant in the room, as alluded to by the OP, is that bands as we maybe knew them are either dead or hibernating, and us bassists... well, we're supporting band members. With a few remarkable outre exceptions, we kinda need a band.

 

(As much as I'd love the idea of solo bass guitar becoming 'culturally ascendent'! :D)

Edited Saturday at 18:28 by simisker

[Agent 00Soul]

Nobody has mentioned recording techniques.  Home studios are now good enough for one person to do the lot on both sides of the microphone and it can sound professional if that person knows how to get the most out of the tech.  When/if they go on the road, they usually put a band together to play the stuff they recorded by themselves.

[simisker]

True, but then you're not a band member, you're a hired hand.

[Agent 00Soul]

10 minutes ago, simisker said:

True, but then you're not a band member, you're a hired hand.

 

I guess that depends on the signifcance you place on the semantics of what a band means.  I mean, no front person introduces the group they put together as their "hired hands".

 

Also, what about the situation where Beck put together a group of top session musicans for his Odelay tour in 1997 and they more or less became his permanent live group if I'm not mistaken?  They might still be playing with him.  They've also been hired regularly to do the same thing for Air and Charlotte Gainsbourg. Justin Meldal-Johnson was the bassist if I recall.

 

From what I understand, part of the reason Bruce Thomas parted ways with Elvis Costello because was because he thought they were a "band" and Elvis ultimately saw The Attractions as the backing musicians that he had put together and was paying, albiet the best possible band for the gig.

Edited Saturday at 18:42 by Agent 00Soul

[simisker]

1 minute ago, Agent 00Soul said:

 

I guess that depends on the signifcance you place on the semantics of what a band means.  I mean, no front person introduces the group they put together as their "hired hands".

Heh - no, true... because they're aware of the fragility of egos. Or if they aren't, they soon would be made aware

 

Maybe it's because I come from the indie/rock/alternative side of the tracks, but I've interpreted a 'band' as an artistic collaboration between all members [in variable proportions, obviously/famously].

 

And maybe I'm being presumptuous, but it's this collaborative definition that, I think, is what OP/Beato/Richard Osman et al have all been all been implying when they refer to a 'band'. Beck wasn't a band. CMat isn't a band. Idles ARE a band. At least, that's how I'm interpreting it.

 

Just don't ask me what The Fall were  

 

 

 

[Agent 00Soul]

6 minutes ago, simisker said:

Maybe it's because I come from the indie/rock/alternative side of the tracks, but I've interpreted a 'band' as an artistic collaboration between all members [in variable proportions, obviously/famously].

 

 

 

 

I come from the same side of the tracks and believe me, I wish this were more true.  But it's not been my experience.  Every band I've been in has been dominated by 1 or 2 people.  Unfortunately IMHO, I've found a lot of people in bands just want to be told what to do and be left to do it by the songwriter, who will guide them as to what he or she thinks might fit their tune best.

[SteveXFR]

When people like Machine Gun Kelly and Jelly Roll can get platinum records, it's fair to say the human race deserves extinction. 

 

If you're not familiar with these "artists" Machine Gun Kelly comes across as a rich kid meth head wannabe gangster playing bad country music infused with bad rap.

Jelly Roll is like Adele but for dudes with a tool belt

 

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 19:40 by SteveXFR

[80Hz]

3 hours ago, simisker said:

we're supporting band members. With a few remarkable outre exceptions, we kinda need a band.

 

 

Totally appreciate that, and I'm coming more from the perspective of a listener and strictly amateur bedroom noodler (well, that's what it says on my OnlyFans).

 

[BigRedX]

The reason that bands have become seemingly invisible to whoever wrote the text that was used in the OP (it certainly wasn't composed by @Bass4real) is that the charts are all about recorded music and for most bands the money is in live performance and not the selling of recordings.

 

Certainly here in the UK, the charts have had less impact on the typical member of the public since Top Of The Pops was taken off the air. Also the current charts are even more artificial than ever before. Partly because of the demise of the "single" and mostly because it has become necessary for the chart compilers to apply negative weighting to streams and downloads of anything that isn't a current release otherwise those acts currently topping the charts wouldn't get a look in, as the top 50 would be almost totally dominated by recordings made over 30 years ago.

 

There are plenty of new and interesting bands out there gigging for anyone who can be bothered to go and look for them, and while it has always been cool for bands to say that they aren't interested in the charts, these days they might actually really mean it. When the charts are all about selling recordings, but for a well-organised and entertaining band at grassroots level it's all about live performance, because that when coupled with T-shirt sales is where they can make money.

 

Record companies won't take chances on new bands and because of this by the time most bands have got to the level where record companies start to take notice of them there is very little that a record company can offer them. When you can make a great recording on your home computer, a video on your phone and get them on all the digital platforms for about $50, the lure of the record company advance becomes less compelling. And the more successful a band becomes on its own the less important record companies become. No wonder they stick to young "solo" artists who are easier to manipulate and exploit.

 

The problem for Rick Beato and his "sad old men club" is that the industry is no longer what it was 25 years ago and they still don't appear to recognise this.

[Dan Dare]

20 hours ago, Bolo said:

"the charts" are a vehicle for the labels to push their products.

It's NOTHING to do with good music. 

 

So no change from the "good old days", then.