TimR

I think the problem tends to be people not being honest with themselves, let alone the rest of the band, about what their motives are for being in a band and whether they can commit the time required to do it to the standard that the other band members are expecting. If everyone just wants to turn up and jam each week, and play the odd gig, then they should be up front from the start. Then the one or two who want to get better and gig regularly can treat it as such and get another band together.

[quote name='Rothers' timestamp='1353408404' post='1874613'] Our lead singer owns the PA as we only use it for vocal and to link in the monitors. The drummer owns a powered monitor and I have recently bought a slave to work directly from that. [/quote] That's a perfect example of why it's not just the singers responsibility. Monitoring. It can be a complete nightmare if you can't hear the vocals.

This question comes up often. It can cause quite a bit of argument if not handled correctly. Irrespective if it's 'just for vocals' it will end up being used for background music, announcements, backing vocals etc. The best solution is to buy the PA out of band funds and it's owned by the band as a consumable. Every gig the band puts £50 or whatever into funds. That money never belonged to anyone so is never owed to anyone. If you leave then you get nothing, if the band splits then the PA is sold and money split. The individual bits of a PA aren't worth much on their own. The problem with this approach is storage. Who loads the PA and brings it to gigs? Do they get paid? Then people who don't understand how quickly it all depreciates get frustrated when the band splits and want their £750 share from the £3k PA that's now only worth £750 in total. Owning bits of the PA doesn't work, if one person leaves with the speakers the band is stuffed. Hiring is a good solution, but gets old real quick when someone has to book and collect gear each gig. You end up getting different rig each gig. What I ended up doing was buying a PA and hiring it to the band. This also has problems as after so many gigs the band feel they have somehow paid for the PA and don't think thay should still be paying for it. What they don't see is you storing it, bringing it to gigs, fixing leads etc. The band were getting £3k worth of gear for £50 a time. I told them try to hire it somewhere and I would pay them £12 a gig and just turn up with my bass gear. They grumbled a bit, thought about it, then would bring up the question again every few gigs. You're dealing with people who don't generally understand what's happening in the world around them and just see £50 going into someone else's pocket and not theirs. I play in a different band now who do understand.

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1353355981' post='1874214'] Hoist by my own petard! [/quote] Aye. I should have changed Mozart to Mustang Sally but thought it was pertinent to the subject matter. It is very true and explains why some non musical people like it so much and those of us who understand music should remember that just because we don't like it doesn't mean others shouldn't.

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1353156754' post='1872178'] All music is made up of elements that create tension or release, harmonically. melodically, aurally, rhythmically etc. When we listen to a piece for the first ime, if it has too much tension, it confuses us. Too much release and it bores us. Whatever we dislike can usually be traced back to these concepts. Too complex a harmony will leave us finding something 'cerebral' and lacking in emotional content. Too complex a melody and it may sound 'self indulgent' or 'unmelodic'. Too complex rhythmically and it will sound 'busy' etc. But the tough bit of the formula is, our 'best fit' is changing all of the time and something that worked for us last year may not now (that's why we 'grow out of' bands we used to love). If you keep going back to something, eventually you may grow to like it or even favour it over stuff you used to love. If it is too simple for your tastes, however, you may never be able to learn to love it again e.g. Mozart. Don't forget that there are cultural factors in there also; nostalgia being one of them. [/quote]

I think it's an experience thing. If you are gigging regularly you soon start to rationalise the amount of effort you put into carting gear versus the amount of pleasure you're getting setting up and fiddling, and breaking down versus the amount of fun you get when playing. For me the multiple trips to and from cars in lifts and up stairs and ages fiddling setting up gear got boring real quick. Who wants to spend an hour setting up when you could be arriving later or chilling with the rest of the guys. At our last gig, I was set up in under 5 mins then helped with the PA and lights while the guitarist spent ages messing around with 4 guitars and countless pedals. We were all changed and having a beer while he was still tuning his last guitar. Then there is the cost versus leaving gear unattended issue. I was about to buy a £2k bass when I thought whether I was going to be comfortable gigging such an expensive bass. The answer was no and I could still get the sound and live with a sub £1k one.

It's very unwell that's for certain.....

[quote name='thumperbob 2002' timestamp='1353000656' post='1870386'] Wasn't this thread about mustang Sally. [/quote] No. Mustang Sally is the example, the undercurrent is that people who play it are lazy and lesser players and not worthy of being called musicians. Somehow playing it lessens you as a person or musician. Much the the same way as Moondance does for a Jazz bassist.

[quote name='Dr.Dave' timestamp='1352996685' post='1870325'] Matey - snobbery doesn't occur when you're being different to somebody else - vive la difference , as they say in Switzerland - snobbery occurs when you think you're being better than somebody else. [/quote] That's not quite right as we're all better than each other at a lots of different things. It's when you don't give people respect because they are not as good as you. Strive to be the best and celebrate when you are the best but remember you weren't always, and won't always be, the best.

[quote name='Dr.Dave' timestamp='1352991144' post='1870248'] ... My point is that there are people who think 'I'm a proper musician and it's beneath me to play it'. Well - that's bollocks , that is. [/quote] Exactly.

[quote name='thumperbob 2002' timestamp='1352985536' post='1870135'] ... My point was I have seen bands- and depped for them - that have a set list of hundreds of songs to choose from and I also have been in bands where the set list has been really thought out well, even thought there have only been 30 odd. ... Dismissing a song is not really down to musical snobbery at all- I just think that to be a successful cover band you have to be different and have your own niche- and that may not include easy songs that any band could do in their sleep ( however popular ) [/quote] This is kind of my point. If it suits your set then play it. If not, don't jam it in just because it's popular. But then again, if you're a soul band then it is a basic requirement, however cheesy... Having a well thought out set is key. Turning up with a folder of 200 songs and throwing the set together on the fly never really works. As for making tunes more interesting, that's a whole can of other worms. I've just been listening to a live recording of a band where the bass player has tried to make his part more interesting, so have the keyboards, the guitarist, the trumpet, trombone and drums. It's certainly more "interesting".... It's only notes, how hard can it be!

[quote name='thumperbob 2002' timestamp='1352983010' post='1870063'] I think he knows what he's talking about. In my experience it is better to have a terrific set of a maximum of 35 songs than hundreds. There is a difference between having a so so set of many than a brilliant set of a few. [/quote] So you have only ever played 35 songs in your life? How long are your gigs? That's only two hours of material at a push! The point is; the band has played hundreds of songs. We've still got charts for them all and if we needed to we could play any one of them. The reason that we have a set list of 50 terrific songs that we play on a regular basis is because they're terrific. You find that out only by trial and error. Songs one band can pull off others can't, turn up to a pub gig full of a certain age group and try to get them going with Lady Gaga and you'll get into problems. If you can afford to chose which gigs to do then it's different, but if you're in the market for functions you will struggle. Mustang sally has 3 chords and 5 noes of the pentatonic scale. It's hardly taking up valuable space in your brain or learning time. Dismissing a song that the audience request and like because of snobbery is up to the individual band but no one is getting bookings turned down because Mustang Sally is on their setlist and the audience don't like it. If they were no one would play it.

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1352978666' post='1869992'] At first I thought your reply was a facetious response arguing that if you're not playing Mustang Sally you must be playing some indigestible self-indulgent nonsense, but then I realised it was a clever metaphor to demonstrate that the reason there are thousands of bands playing Mustang Sally is because none of them have the imagination to realise that there are acres of middle ground they could be occupying. [/quote] Quite frankly, you don't know what you are talking about. It's ONE song in hundreds of songs we play. If a band were to play a 10minute extended mix several times during their set you might have a case. Get a grip man!

It's one song in a 3 hour set. Hardly lazy! If there are other party songs we think that will go down well; we try them and if they don't go down well they get scrapped. After a few years all bands who have gone through this process end up with a back catalogue of a couple of hundred tracks, 50 of which we know will work. Why do all bands play similar sets? 1. They've been through the above process. 2. As people move from band to band they 'bring' songs with them. 3. We go to see a band and see what songs get a good reaction. 4.... We keep the rest of the set current by chucking out chart hits that have gone out of the charts and adding new ones. That can be a lot of hard work for sometimes little reward, especially if you're not gigging every week.

Difficult to dance to. Great to tap your foot, nod your head, air guitar, but the chicks can't dance to it.

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1352903692' post='1869139'] Could well have been Lenny himself, he's known to play all the instruments on many of his tracks and he's a supremely talented bass player! [/quote] Definitely Tony Breit.

Tony Breit?

[quote name='mep' timestamp='1352839380' post='1868284'] OK. this is the transcription for the whole song from a 1993 guitar magazine. ... [/quote] Yes that's the one. It's great. 5 bar, 6 bar, 9 bar and 17 bar sections and a bar of 2/4 thrown in for good measure. Drummers nightmare

I learned it from a transcription from a magazine and it's quite difficult in terms of extra bars, our drummer used to do 16 bars and try to come in and it always ended in a car crash, there's some odd stuff going on in the outro too.

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1352832041' post='1868111'] Count it out in your head - a straightforward 16 bars (divided into 2 sections of 8 bars)! [/quote] No. There's a 5 bar section just before the guitar solo, with a couple of beats of bass lead in, then the guitar solo is 17bars long. The 17th bar is ringing guitar and a couple of beats of drums. There's a few 6 bar sections throughout the song too. You may not be aware of it because a lot of it you feel rather than count.

It's odd. From memory as above it's just chromatics but it's not exactly 16 bars long.

.... and guess what. All those number 1s Stock Aitken and Waterman produced were covers of 50s and 60s tunes. Nothing changes. There will always be x-factor or opportunity knocks or whatever, there will always be original material of dubious quality, and there will always be tunes that stand the test of time. Time only, will tell.

[quote name='he man812' timestamp='1352678468' post='1866146'] He's right TIM, they are top bands [/quote] Yes, but he's missed Adam and the Ants, Tenpole Tudor, Toyah....

[quote name='bubinga5' timestamp='1352677859' post='1866127'] ...of course this depends on what bands you are refering to... [/quote] Exactly. I just remember, literally tons of sh*te being produced. There was some very good music, but at the time it was difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Who wants to have a stab at what music from the 2010s will be popular in the 2040s?

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1352677026' post='1866105'] You depressing bastard And wrong. [/quote] Lol. I'm wrong that it was sh*te, or wrong that it's now considered good? I hope to god it's the latter. Joking aside, Rick Astley, Mel and Kim and all the Stock Aitken Walkman stuff was well ahead of its time....