Stage Pressence

[ibanezbob209]

Hey Everyone,

I am in a Christian Punk Band. We've been together for quite a while. But just recently, our bassist as been worrying about how he looks on stage more than how he sounds. He doesn't agree w/ me that it is more important how you sound. If anyone agrees or disagrees with me, please tell me

[Darklava]

Punk band worrying on how they look?Thought that

was the whole point of being a punk band,your not

supposed to care what people think about how you

look or sound.F$%k em all

[Guitarzan]

Jimi speaks the truth.

[Dr. Ellwood]

Its difficult to vote on this given the two choices? Why is it not possiable to look good AND sound good? why does there have to be a choice at all? Punk is punk I guess but you are in a most likely different situation..being a Christan group AND doing rock? Do you have any famous Christian punk groups to sorta pattern yourselves after... for instance I dont know your ages? but do you have any concern at all about how the parents of these kids react to how you look on stage??

[Ricochet]

Checked out Relient K? "Christian Punk" is how they originally presented themselves.

[Guitar55]

It is possible to look and sound good, but that's not the question. Pick one or the other.

[picker]

I didn't know punk bands were supposed to care about how they looked OR sounded, and I thought that was the point. Punk was supposed to loud, in your face, anti-virtuosic music that rebelled against everything, especially standards of appearance and musical competance. You ain't rich, good-looking, or able to play well? Who cares? Rich good-looking virtuosos are all wankers anyway. Anarchy!!! Get a crummy guitar and amp, turn it all the way up and beat on it while jumping around the stage wearing trashed-out thrift shop clothes and a safety pin through your cheek, and screaming that everything is crap. Voila! You're a punk rocker. I mean, that's how Johnny Rotten, Sid Vicious, Stiv Bators and Rat Scabies all did it.

[Dr. Ellwood]

Originally posted by Guitar55:

It is possible to look and sound good, but that's not the question. Pick one or the other.

Its the question as far as Im concerned.

[freddy bloggs]

Wait a minute, Christian & Punk?

Not!!

[revorhythm]

well, despite my opinions on the whole christian/music genre category. its pretty obvious that you must sound good, however, not for a second should you ignore stage presence. if your boring, then most likely so will your music, no matter how good it is. stage presence isnt something you should practice, or focus on, just something you adapt from your influences. so although you should sound good i would say you should put some effort into what your doin up there.

[Gruupi]

I guess it depends on what your goals are. If you want to be a professional touring musician , then stage presence is pretty important. I have always put the music first but I don't have any aspirations to be a rock star. In reality you can have one front man and everyone else be in the background.

 

Maybe your bass player has different goals. Maybe he is just there to meet chicks (not a bad reason at all). When you say he cares more about looks than sound what exactly does that mean. Did he just start playing last week and spent all his money on stage cloths and neglected to buy an amp? Or has your group been playing awhile and has had a hard time entertaining an audience.

 

If you are going to be in a succesfull band then yes the music has to be there, that is a given in my opinion and cannot be slighted. But there is so much more to taking it to the next level. You have to have people want to see as well as hear you. You have to have a good business sense also.

 

Most musicians in an audience will listen for the music first and not really judge the visual aspect as much. But the general public can't hardly tell if the musicians are even playing their instruments or lip syncing (finger syncing?). So this isn't really an either or situation. I will always put sound number one, but thats because I play for my own enjoyment, if anyone likes it I am pleased but thats not why I play.

[Tone Taster]

Ask the dude if his heart is into the music.

 

Then ask if he believes if the Bible is the Word of God

 

Since this thread relates to the topic of a Christian Rock Band and sound vs. appearance ask him what he thinks of this verse and whether or not it is relevant:

 

1Sa 16:7

But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for [the LORD seeth] not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

 

He either wants to please men or please God. Thats it !!

 

You either believe it or you don't. There is no DMZ

[The Geoff]

Hey, Caputo, do you lick your pencil on everything you write?

 

Geoff

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

I find this thread extremely weird.

 

a) Real punks don't really care about they way they look. And BTW Blink 182 aren't real punks.

 

b) I find the idea of Christian punks absolutely ridiculous, insofar as religion is very much a part of the establishment punks are supposed to be against.

 

 

So ok, if I have to take your question seriously, I's say that your SINGER most definitely has to have some sort of stage presence, and it certainly helps if your guitarist has some sort of presence as well. Your drummer is usually too far back and hidden by toms and cymbals and stuff so he's less noticeable. Same goes for bass players. And keyboard players don't even get to walk around the stage so they don't really need much presence either. Non sax-playing brass guys don't need stage presence either.

 

But if you're only a three piece then you better all have some sort of stage presence or else you're screwed.

 

Still, if your bass player is supposed to be a punk and worries about that sort of bullshit, I think he should ask himself how punk he really is and then go off and join a boy band.

[Tone Taster]

Originally posted by Geoff Byrne:

Hey, Caputo, do you lick your pencil on everything you write?

 

Geoff

I move for a more definite statement, son

[Tone Taster]

Strike the above. You asked a question and didn't make a statement.(kind of)

 

Geoff, what's the basis of your question?

[Phillydor]

Punk Christians? Let's go to the SOURCE! No it's not Post-Punk christian Nick Cave, it's not the Pope, it's not even Jimmy Swaggart. It's Steve Jones from the Sex Pistols, who by the way played quite well on his non-cheap Les Paul.

Steve in his blog on the indie 1031 radio site asks the question Do you think God made man to be curious and to want to advance?

[pauldil]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/pauldil1/Fernando_1.jpg

 

It is always better to look good than to sound good...

 

 

...NOT

 

Paul

[musicalhair]

I think a band could be Christian and genuinely punk-- and I grew up looking up to the real punk bands or the NYC versions of them anyway and have a definately idea of what "real punk" is. I don't think that a "real Christian" "real punk" band would look or sound very much like the "family values" crowd but all the iconoclast stuff and "mustard seed" idea and the ending of an existing order is both punk and Christian. There is an anarchist/non-violent punk thing going on in Europe that seems to take the Sermon on the Mount to heart. I'm just saying I dont' see a far stretch from either real punk or real Christian.

 

Caputo said it better than I could ever hope to. Besides, I thought looking "good" was specifically not punk. I mean there is a "look" but it comes from not replacing ripped jeans because one can't afford to and don't care, wearing what you have instead of what you want, skinny on the verge of stravation (with or with the drugs), and the hair style is short to avoid lice and messed because of lack of showering. Is that is "looking good" or getting beyond the facade of "looking good" due to a different set of realities.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Caputo:

Strike the above. You asked a question and didn't make a statement.(kind of)

 

Geoff, what's the basis of your question?

I think he's asking about why you always post in bold.

[Dr. Ellwood]

Originally posted by musicalhair:

I think a band could be Christian and genuinely punk-- and I grew up looking up to the real punk bands or the NYC versions of them anyway and have a definately idea of what "real punk" is. I don't think that a "real Christian" "real punk" band would look or sound very much like the "family values" crowd but all the iconoclast stuff and "mustard seed" idea and the ending of an existing order is both punk and Christian. There is an anarchist/non-violent punk thing going on in Europe that seems to take the Sermon on the Mount to heart. I'm just saying I dont' see a far stretch from either real punk or real Christian.

 

Caputo said it better than I could ever hope to. Besides, I thought looking "good" was specifically not punk. I mean there is a "look" but it comes from not replacing ripped jeans because one can't afford to and don't care, wearing what you have instead of what you want, skinny on the verge of stravation (with or with the drugs), and the hair style is short to avoid lice and messed because of lack of showering. Is that is "looking good" or getting beyond the facade of "looking good" due to a different set of realities.

Hair, let me ask because I have always wondered what it was as a musician that made you or for that matter anyone look up to punk bands..more especially punk guitar players? I know you know that their guitar playing abilities are very low and not accomplished at all... so Im thinking it must be their attitude,dress,hair, lyrics, all the things that have nothing at all to do with music... except lyrics. Or was it that at the time you looked up to them because you had not yet become a good player yourself and now you are? I think all the other things about them that is not music related is show business and nothing to do with skill...ok and yet another question is: at that same time you looked up to punks, did you also look up to bands where technical abilities where obvious? I think for the most part accomplished players snicker and make fun of punk players dont you?

[musicalhair]

Hey man, thanks for the question.

 

I definately got into listening to punk and early "new wave" before I could play. As such it was never about ability, but that which sounds cool. Think of so many great solos that wouldn't sound like anything good if not for that last sustained note that punctuates the line, it is about the phrasing more than physical ability. I'm sure we all know now that any physical ability we develop on guitar is really in pursuit of greater musical expressivness. Our playing is about the music and about the song.

 

When I hear the Pistols "Anarchy in the UK" or Nirvana's "Smells like Teen Spirit", I hear great guitar solos. I never for a moment considered they playing ability as what I hear are great songs and the "solos" were right to the spot. I know other guys that dont' hear it like that but I do.

 

Blondie, The Clash, The Pistols, The Ramones, The New York Dolls (and their various solo projects), and so many others had great songs. Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, Misfits, man that is some great stuff. Really, songs that stand the test of time. They make social and political statements and express feelings like no other music can. I'm going to single the Buzzcocks and a great great band with great songs and if they "can't play" then we need to redefine "playing". I think the Clash is one of the greatest bands ever and the "journey" they took musically is just amazing.

 

It is no different than comparing Steve Via to Pete Seeger: which one plays better. "Can" Via play guitar for Pete Seegar? Yes he "can", but would he be restrained enough? Who plays better? It only matters if we're talking in the abstract. Many times I'm board to death by Pete Seegar, but too often I have to turn off Via because there is absolutely no sense to be found in his noise. When he makes music, it is beautiful, but man when he starts making noise I can't sit through even while holding out hope that there is some music "in" it or after it. I've found no music "in" it and I've tried. I gave him the benefit of the doubt too often and listened to that noise trying to make sense of it. It is a shame because I love his music but now I listen almost guardedly in case he feels a "noise attack" coming on.

 

I think it is interesting that Neil Young gets a lot of crap for his playing. I love Neil Young, and his playing. I'd not change a thing (all that often anyway). I see his playing as part of what he is good at expressing. Same with "punk" in that what they can express they do better than Mahler or Bach or Stevie Wonder.

 

I see music as I see the range of human experience and so Punk is a valid form of expression and those that are good at it should be judged by that expression and not physical ability. No one looks at a "cluttered" arranger or composer and says "well, he can sure modulate into a remote key mid-melodic phrase smoothly". Skill is tied to expression, it is the tool and not the craft in and of itself.

 

Punk was really pushed foward by the Ramones. They were hanging outside a club they were playing and speaking to kids during a tour in England. The kids were like "man we'd like to do what you're doing". The Ramones were like "we don't know any more about this stuff than you. Get up and start playing if you want to do this, it has nothing to do with ability". Obviously I'm paraphrasing, but I heard an interview with Joe Strummer and that is basically how he told it. That little meeting created a few famous bands. Then when other kids saw them, more bands were started. I think Siouxsie and the Banshees started at a Buzzcocks concert and the Buzzcocks started at a Clash concert, literally with the new bands not even playing anything but deciding to play.

 

The one thing about punk bands that can't and don't really want to play well is that when they suck at a show they really suck. I heard a broadcast of a Patty Smith show and they played a couple of tunes that they just didn't know or something was drastically wrong. Theuy sucked. I'm sure you know that the crowd didn't hear any of the "suckage" but heard the rocking attitude and the 'courage' to mess up a song that badly-- if they heard any of it at all.

 

Do I make any sense here? Thanks for asking, you've got a great way of keeping threads going and pulling info and views out of people. I'm glad I had a chance to share what I like about punk.

[Tone Taster]

Originally posted by Vince C.:

Originally posted by Caputo:

Strike the above. You asked a question and didn't make a statement.(kind of)

 

Geoff, what's the basis of your question?

I think he's asking about why you always post in bold.

FOR EASIER READABILITY

 

Lol, if that was the basis, then it's a pretty good one. About the best one I've heard yet concerning why I post in bold

[Dr. Ellwood]

Hair ..well put man.. You most likely being an intutive guy guessed that I dont share the same opinion of punk material that you do... but thats the fun of posting and thanks for the kind words and by the way your posts are thought provoking as well... I would like to know your opinion of the MC5 if you have any experience with them and their material? I ask this because I did know them very well and can shed some light on them inside.

[musicalhair]

Nah, I really thought you were serving up a softball for me to hit outta the park.

 

I imagined that you are a classic rock/Booker T and the MG's old Bar-Kays/Stax kind a guy, as I am very much also. The little tour I did last year I listened to Booker T before every show and driving from town to town-- and that was doing hippie folk-rock stuff. So, if anything I figured you might not "dig" punk stylistically, but I had no sense of any feeling you had about it's validity as an art form.

 

As for the MC5, no I'm not that up on them. I know they are one of the proto punk bands, perhaps "the" proto band. I really dig the balls they had at the '68 Democratic convention. That is about all I know. I had a lot of freinds that were all into the stuff coming out of England, and got into it that way-- Stiff Little Fingers, Anti-Nowhere League, etc. Also, a friend's older sister was dating the manager of the Misfits so I got hip to a lot of local stuff that way.

[musicalhair]

OH, and Thread high-jackers of the world, UNITE!

[Dr. Ellwood]

Well ya those groups for sure but also Cream..Stones ..Hendrix.. Journey.. ZZ.. SRV... Chicago.. Who..Animals.. Triumph... Rush..Mahogany Rush.. Mountain... Johnny Winter... Slayer.. NOT Santana.. Buddy Guy.. Bill Perry.. Like that.. I wont got into the motivation of the MC5 or Iggy and that whole mess. the only part of your original answer that you dindt cover was the part about..."at that same time you looked up to punks, did you also look up to bands where technical abilities where obvious?"

[musicalhair]

Not Santana?? Even the early stuff?? Wow, that surprises me.

 

I was a young teen when punk blew up. Richard Hell and the Voidiods and Television and all that was just a different kind of music, new and topical. As a younger guy I was lucky to have an uncle that got me into Hendrix and the Doors and Cream. The first record I bought was BTO Not Fragile-- when it was a new release--, and it is still one of my favorites. I got into music at a young age and a handful of friends were also "into music" on a deeper level. Mostly guys that had older brothers. I heard Brain Salad Surgeory on eight track in Quadraphonic sound when I was like in the fourth or fifth (maybe as late as sixth) grade. I later went on to play bass in a band-- my first band-- with that kid's older brother, the guy that had the quad set up and the ELP eight track.

 

The idea that the punks couldn't play didn't even occur to me. A lot of studio fixing probably had a lot to do with it. As far as bad singing, well we all grew up on Bob Dylan and Neil Young. Debbie Harry can sing, and Johnny Rotten and Richard Hell used their voices effectively and definately got the sound they wanted to get. William Hung can't sing, Johnny Rotten can as far as I'm concerned.

 

I mean if the music doesn't speak to you then that is all that matters. If they are complete frauds, well that is another matter. And in a sense it doesn't matter. Some look at Dylan as a fraud, I mean come on. Is Madonna a fraud, or does she have some talent with melody and catching the "pop pulse" from time to time (in the past anyway). One thing I had to admit was that she has a couple of catchy melodies. If I were to only consider what her music doesn't have, I could dismiss it all out of hand. But, what is gained? Nothing. If there is some melody and if there is some cute turn of a phrase that the people that bought it found in it, then that is the "value" in it artisitically. We can sneer at it or dismiss it, but nothing is gained that way.

 

We can knock the Clash, but we can also look at Malmsteen and see that his first two or three records were in large parts just re-workings of Rainbow Rising. There is value in just about any music-- the Macarena's of the world not withstanding.

[Phillydor]

Punk was a revolution - one example being the role that women played in rock music before and after punk - no point arguing after the fact, it's like still arguing about whether Dylan was a traitor or not when he went electric. And the guy who shouted out that Dylan was Judas will always be remembered as possibly the biggest wanker of all time. I wonder if he ever came forward and revealed himself as 'the guy who yelled out Judas'? He could have made a career out of it I suppose, doing talk shows and putting out books and stuff.

[Dr. Ellwood]

Originally posted by Philemec:

Punk was a revolution - one example being the role that women played in rock music before and after punk - no point arguing after the fact, it's like still arguing about whether Dylan was a traitor or not when he went electric. And the guy who shouted out that Dylan was Judas will always be remembered as possibly the biggest wanker of all time. I wonder if he ever came forward and revealed himself as 'the guy who yelled out Judas'? He could have made a career out of it I suppose, doing talk shows and putting out books and stuff.

Hair, you are alot more open minded than I and you do a good job at expressing your broad ideas. I guess I just look at the technical and creative abilities of the groups I have always admired and learned from them. Ive never heard anyting from punks that I could use or didnt do on guitar years ago. But you all have heard me go on about that many times so Ill just let that one go. I just dont have any respect for what they have done in anyway. As far as revolution? what was the revolution? against what.. skillful playing and writing?(anything come to mind other than the woman thing?) Ok I guess to me they never where significant or memorable I dont even think they mattered in a political context to my knowledge? SO another question ...What was the revolution? I did see a time when accomplished musicians, writers, arrangers, studio guys..couldnt get much work because the rage was punk garbage, when great groups couldnt get studio time at all, most likely they didnt spit at their audiences enough? ya think?