Regurgitation: Trying to sound like a DJ!

[cassdad]

Forgive me for venting on this all-too-often discussed subject.  But I’m once again upset by some band members whose benchmark of quality musicianship is “sounding exactly like the original recording”.  I submit that, if what the audience wants is “the original recording”, then they want a DJ, not a live band.  I also suppose this closely aligns with the subject of using “backing tracks” discussed on another recent thread here.  IMO, live music can and should be so much more than just “regurgitating the original recording”.  I feel better now, even if I am in the minority.  😃

[KuruPrionz]

Just now, cassdad said:

Forgive me for venting on this all-too-often discussed subject.  But I’m once again upset by some band members whose benchmark of quality musicianship is “sounding exactly like the original recording”.  I submit that, if what the audience wants is “the original recording”, then they want a DJ, not a live band.  I also suppose this closely aligns with the subject of using “backing tracks” discussed on another recent thread here.  IMO, live music can and should be so much more than just “regurgitating the original recording”.  I feel better now, even if I am in the minority.  😃

I agree with you 100%!

I was in a Motown cover band, they were careful to not call it a "tribute" band. 6 pieces cannot reproduce an original Motown production, it's not possible.

 

Sometimes I gig as a solo singer/acoustic guitarist - the audience likes to hear all sorts of songs in all sorts of genres. No way a single acoustic guitar is going to sound like a completed recording.

 

I may be over-stepping my boundaries but it seems to me that the "just like the record" crowd lacks imagination and to a certain extent, talent. It could be that they were classically trained? That can be a barrier to playing music that is not classical, jazz and pop both come to mind as open to interpretation. I can't count the number of times I've heard major bands with lots of album sales play their songs differently than the albums. When I saw David Bowie, he had Adrian Belew on guitar. They played a broad cross section of Bowie's catalog and Adrian was allowed to play the guitar the way he plays the guitar, he didn't copy Mick Ronson to play the songs from Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars, just for one example. 

 

If the successful major label artists can re-invent their own songs, we should all be able to do that.  A recording is a document of a moment in time and not a requirement. 

[cassdad]

4 minutes ago, KuruPrionz said:

I agree with you 100%!

I was in a Motown cover band, they were careful to not call it a "tribute" band. 6 pieces cannot reproduce an original Motown production, it's not possible.

 

Sometimes I gig as a solo singer/acoustic guitarist - the audience likes to hear all sorts of songs in all sorts of genres. No way a single acoustic guitar is going to sound like a completed recording.

 

I may be over-stepping my boundaries but it seems to me that the "just like the record" crowd lacks imagination and to a certain extent, talent. It could be that they were classically trained? That can be a barrier to playing music that is not classical, jazz and pop both come to mind as open to interpretation. I can't count the number of times I've heard major bands with lots of album sales play their songs differently than the albums. When I saw David Bowie, he had Adrian Belew on guitar. They played a broad cross section of Bowie's catalog and Adrian was allowed to play the guitar the way he plays the guitar, he didn't copy Mick Ronson to play the songs from Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars, just for one example. 

 

If the successful major label artists can re-invent their own songs, we should all be able to do that.  A recording is a document of a moment in time and not a requirement. 

EXACTLY!, right?  Oh, THANK YOU!…..  so well stated!  

[ProfD]

Sometimes, the downside to playing in a cover band is having to deal with that mentality. 

 

Providing proof that artists and musicians take liberties with their own recordings *might* resolve the requirement to paint by numbers. 

 

1 hour ago, KuruPrionz said:

A recording is a document of a moment in time and not a requirement.

Correct. 

 

A recording is the musical equivalent of a business card.  It signals that a artist/band/musician has music for sale.  Record sells led to gigs. 

 

Unfortunately, when a recording has been played over the airwaves significant number of times, it becomes the definitive version of the song(s).

 

Still, recordings do not keep imaginative and creative musicians from thinking outside the box in how they choose to play songs.

 

 

Rest his soul.  I doubt that anybody in the audience told Joey D he was playing the song *wrong*.😁😎

[timwat]

1 hour ago, cassdad said:

But I’m once again upset by some band members whose benchmark of quality musicianship is “sounding exactly like the original recording”.  

 

Every musician is on their own journey. Hopefully, you're playing with folks whose journey is moving forward (at, of course, varying speeds...) and not with folks who are dogmatically stuck in their opinions.

 

Let us acknowledge that sounding anything close to an original recording is no small feat - and that is a decent benchmark for many players just to get the notes right, the rhythm and hits as illustrated, the phrases and feel...as illustrated in the recording. Thus, my hat is ALWAYS off to great tribute acts.

 

That being said, it's certainly not the only benchmark in music. Learning that how you play with others to make a sound together (which is I think close to the word "symphony" actually derives from "sounding together" in Greek) is more important that what you are playing. Learning that what you don't choose to play is at least as important as what you do play. Learning that playing softer or louder can make all the difference with a single note. Etcetera.

 

And that's before we get to creative liberties / innovation / re-arranging / re-harmonizing / re-imagining an entire vibe. 

 

For those of us who bring a jazz perspective (sensibility?) to popular music, there is often an itch that begs to be scratched in the temptation to re-imagine everything. Like a restlessness to re-create for the sake of exercising creativity. At times, however, that's not the wisest decision - is my re-imagining or attempt to reharmonize "After the Love is Gone" really going to add something worthwhile to that excellent composition of Foster's?

 

I guess this is my typically long-winded way of suggesting the others in your band may be at a point in their journey where their idea of musical perfection isn't at the same point of the journey as yours. You get to decide if you have the patience to play in that sandbox politely, or try to chat with them about why they have those opinions, or perhaps it's time to find more like-minded folks.

 

Personally, I kind of stopped making this a hill to die on a while ago. When my primary purpose is playing music that I didn't write for money, well, I'm mostly concerned with whether it sounds good to the audience and if the check will clear the bank. Because if this gig is all about sounding like the record, the chances are good that next week's gig will be with folks who will let me take more liberties.

[ABECK]

I play frequent album cover gigs.  While I do listen to the original recordings, I often look for samples of how the original band covered the work live.  That tends to be more interesting and a good reminder that it doesn't always need to sound JUST like the album.  I figure the more creative license the original band takes live, the more comfortable I am doing the same.

[CEB]

Not the thread I expected. I tried to cover DJ parts in the Pop band by loading risers,drops and scratch samples into the Fantom that I will trigger with pads or through key mapping on the Kronos.  
 

As far as making material your own vs playing accurately… the proof is measured by your gross annual gig receipts.   There is also such a thing as making crap up because you can’t or won’t learn the source material.    I’ve done all the above. There are no absolutes.  You do you.  

[Docbop]

Back is my musical day the 60's and 70's we didn't call them Cover bands they were Top 40 bands and that was a good description we play tune from the Top 40 list of records and then a bunch of popular songs that people liked to dance to.   Back we didn't have a lot of gear most players had one instrument not two or more.   So you played the songs the best you could with what you had.   That actually was a great education on finding different sounds on your instrument that would work with a song using different instrument types.    Play a song with horns parts a lot of the time the guitar player would do horn parts as part of their rhythm part.  That was great education in learning the horn parts and playing them in the  band.   Playing the songs off the Top 40 taught a lot in how songs were written and ear training.  Playing little bars because just about every bar had a band you learned about reading the audience for the songs they performed that night and adjust the setlist accordingly.    In a lot of way we were just a human jukebox, but it was a great education we were receiving.   

 

Back  then there weren't tribute bands which sounds like a really boring gig to me.   I like the Top 40 gig because you were play lots of genres of music and pick more of the genre the band prefered.  There were Show band then that had the band uniforms and maybe some dance steps and their idea of making was getting book in Las Vegas.    

 

Now DJ you talk like Hip Hop DJs or dance club DJs to me those are drastically different things.   Dance club DJ's might play some games with tempo for some transition effects creating 20-30 minutes of non-stop music also controlling lighting.   Only than the transition only creative part was tune selection and reading audience to when to slow things down for a bit.  Hip Hop DJs are more of an art in mixing parts of tunes. scratching, effects, loops, and so on.  They are like Jazz improvising on  the spot. 

 

So to me two types of DJ and sadly for many of you I expect DJ's at first started taking gigs because they were cheaper and many weddings and small events were a one stop for PA, music, lighting, and other specialities like photo booths and etc.   I said "were" cheaper because I hear a lot of DJ's on getting paid more than entire bands do because they are a one stop for entire night of entertainment for a party or event.     I feel something something has to go away to become the hot new thing and that might what needs to happen with live Pop/Rock music.   Live music has to disappear in order to become the hot new thing real musicians playing music. 

[Old No7]

I don't think it has to be "either, or"...

 

Maybe a mix of some tunes close to the original recordings, if you can; and other tunes where some creative license is allowed; even a mashup or a medley of 3 or 4 tunes from the same band works.  To me, that's probably the best option for many venues -- and it satisfies both groups within the audience (hint: "and the band").

 

6 hours ago, KuruPrionz said:

A recording is a document of a moment in time and not a requirement. 

 

That is a great quote, but there are those in the audience who will appreciate you "recapturing that moment" if you can.  You know, like when they think back to "Yeah, Diane and I were in the backseat of Dad's old Chevy when 'Paradise by the Dashboard Light' came on -- and she gave me that look..." 😁

 

Old No7