Premier Rock Forum

steve wrote:Bands are way way way more important than whatever music they are making at the moment. Like miles ahead. I use the term "music" to mean the audible component of the band's aesthetic.

I remember you saying something like that awhile ago, but I don't quite remember the rationale. Why would the band be way more important than their collective creation? Why would anyone like a band if it were not for their music?

steve wrote:I've been in a band for the last 15 years, and the band is a fucking great ride. Some of the music we've made, meh, I don't know...

That's all well and good, but without the sound, what have you got? Without the music being the sole character defining quality, a band might as well be a troupe of drywallers.

steve wrote:Bands win. Who cares about the music.

I have said before that I think music is much more than sound, and this might illustrate what I mean. In this sense, I think the music is inseparable from the band as an entity. The sound -- the part you're probably referring to as "music" -- that's the part that I really don't give much of a damn about.

I see the music separately from a band's aesthetic value, or whatever else, chemistry, image, etc. The music can come from all of that, but there's not one band above their sound. I couldn't care less about who's who, who's playing what, what they look like, because that's not the special part. It makes a difference, of course, but no one's after anything but the music. It's the sound that Shellac makes that makes a difference, isn't it?

scott wrote:
I don't listen to bands, I listen to their music. I enjoy a band with some certain quality that makes it special, for sure. But usually I just like the music.

i feel the same way as you.
i just listen to the music. that's the only part of a band's aesthetic that matters to me. everything else is a plus. some of that "plus" can change my life, make me see things in a different way...but the sound part has to be good enough to get me curious on a band's aesthetic.
of course i love bands that know how to put on a good show, but they must sound good. the sound, that's the fundamental part.

in fake italian:
what the fuck all these bands around do? they play the music.
is the music good? yes, we can be friends.
is the music bad? vaffanculo, i say.

I've thought about this more, and Steve, I feel like I've totally missed what you're getting at. That wouldn't be the first time.

From the *inside* perspective, I understand feeling like the "band" aspect of one's band is more important than the music aspect.

But from the perspective of the "consumer" of the fruits of band/music/whatnot, rather than the insider, if the band is truly more important than the music, this is something I'll view as "sad but true". If that's how it is, that's a perfect explanation for why most of the music the world exposes us to is crap. It's why the folks who sell the most records are the folks with the most fancy videos and antics and bling, rather than the best music. I would even go so far as to say it's exactly what's wrong with music. That the band, their schtick and image and marketability, are worth more than the music.

Are you saying that the band is more important than the music because the thing that matters most is the experience of the person in the band, rather than all of the commodification and industry surrounding the product of the band? I'm trying to understand why you said what you did, and that's the best I can come up with. And I still feel like I'm not gettin it.

I think I understand Steve's perspective. If your band writes the greatest song ever (which it won't) but you are all completely miserable, then what's the point? Sure, there will be those who are in it solely because they want more drugs and/or women and/or social recognition, but we're not really concerned with those folks. For those who play because they enjoy playing and creating something original (or even the people who understand the joy of getting together and banging out cover tunes for an hour or two), playing can't really be that enjoyable if nobody gets along, can it? It seems similar to having a job that you loathe but that pays well (setting aside the satisfaction of being able to provide for people who are dependent on you).

I was in a couple bands several years ago whose music I enjoyed very much, but certain members (drummers in both instances, actually) made the whole thing a very painful experience. On the other hand, the music my current band makes is not my favorite, but the three of us get along very well and have fun with the band. Rehearsals go well, and when we play out I'm never looking around waiting for someone to screw something up. It makes me wonder how much it has to do with the fact that in the former cases I was friends with these people because we were in a band, while in the latter (my present situation) I'm in a band with these guys because we're friends.

From a consumption of music standpoint, I agree with what Scott has said pretty much verbatim.

scott wrote:I don't want to know what a band looks like, or what their stage antics are like, or if they're rich doudes or poor chicks or whatever. That stuff is irrelevant and even a distraction to me, especially if I find out they've got some important defining plot-point before I hear their music.

Skronk wrote:I see the music separately from a band's aesthetic value, or whatever else, chemistry, image, etc. The music can come from all of that, but there's not one band above their sound. I couldn't care less about who's who, who's playing what, what they look like, because that's not the special part. It makes a difference, of course, but no one's after anything but the music.

So you wouldn't mind if, when all the bands you enjoy play live, they just played behind a curtain? So they don't distract you from the music?

This is, naturally, a facetious point. But I personally find it completely impossible, with popular guitar music, to divorce music & sonics from image, interaction, record sleeves, business practices, history, personality etc. Also, with bands I have actually interacted with in even some small way, I find it near nigh impossible to like a band's music if I find their personalities odious. Similarly, I often (though not always) tend to enjoy the music of people I personally like.

Other music though, such as electronica, I completely agree though. I couldn't give a stuff what anybody looks like. It's a different aesthetic experience for me.

I'm not suggesting you are lying to yourself or anybody else as such. However I have a feeling most people who say "it's all about the music" when it comes to bands, are kidding themselves on one level or another, even if it is subconscious or oblique, such as the way you come across something in the first place. Music doesn't get presented to you in a volunteered-for, controlled, double-blind test.

johnnyshape wrote:So you wouldn't mind if, when all the bands you enjoy play live, they just played behind a curtain? So they don't distract you from the music?

As an experiment (copped from Tony Conrad, which was where I saw it) I played behind a scrim once so you could only see my silhouette. People who had seen me play before commented how it was not nearly as much fun to watch, since they couldn't see my inevitable "I fucked up this part, I hate myself" faces.

johnnyshape wrote:with bands I have actually interacted with in even some small way, I find it near nigh impossible to like a band's music if I find their personalities odious. Similarly, I often (though not always) tend to enjoy the music of people I personally like.

I tend to also give the musical output of people I like a little more slack than people I don't.

Some bands can perform, and some can't. It's just one of those things. I can think of a few bands who "give good show" and make fantastic music, and I can think of a larger number of bands who are incredible but lack "show." Which, I think, is also a personality issue.

steve wrote:Bands win. Who cares about the music.

spoken like a true complete fan.

johnnyshape wrote:So you wouldn't mind if, when all the bands you enjoy play live, they just played behind a curtain? So they don't distract you from the music?

Isn't this a slightly different point though (at least it is to me) in that a 'concert' is about the real-time creation of a musical event, and observing that creation with one's eyes is a natural part of the human process of experience, just as one smells, feels, tastes a concert (to lesser extents, obviously).

I don't think that the desire to observe a musical performance particularly infers that the manner in which the music is performed (excluding the actual musical output) is of great significance does it? I mean, I likes me a gig as much as the next man (well, maybe not) but I don't really care what the band looks like so long as the music is happening. Chelsea boots or converse, it's all the same to me.

However I have a feeling most people who say "it's all about the music" when it comes to bands, are kidding themselves on one level or another,

Who the hell knew what Napalm Death, or Husker Du, or JAMC or Bastard Kestrel or Electro Hippies or Walking Seeds or whoever looked like/behaved like when first encountered, finger poised above record button on Peel's shows? It was the music, just the music.

steve wrote:The sound -- the part you're probably referring to as "music" -- that's the part that I really don't give much of a damn about.

I'm wondering if you can expand on this thought a little bit more. What part of the music exactly is it that you don't give a damn about? Obviously, you give a damn about song construction, and what gear you choose to create the sounds you want, and what words are spoken/shouted/sung, and whether you want them to be funny, sincere, thoughtful, meaningful, or meaningless. These are all conscious choices that develop into the music itself.

So...if you don't give much of a damn about the music, do all these things not have anything to do with the music?

To address the original poster, I think it's easy to get distraught about bands when you think of them in the context of how they're being advertised to you. I don't really enjoy the idea of a band as a product to be consumed, but every time I've bought someone's record, regardless of whose it was, that's exactly what its turned into.

I also occasionally wrestle with the idea of live shows, and exactly what their appeal is. If I have a band's album, why do I want to see them play that music in front of me? I enjoy it, but it seems unusual - like spectating sports (which I also enjoy).

Ultimately, though, AS a musician, I love everything that goes into it - the craft of song, improvisation, presentation. The hope that the sound you are creating will stand out in a sea of other bands as yours and yours alone. The acceptance that, in most cases, it probably isn't.

That, for me, is what's cool about GOOD rock bands: When you know that they are doing something where maybe their influences aren't completely obvious, and they seem to be doing things on their own merits and aren't necessarily concerned with "image", even though I would imagine every band is, to some degree.

burun wrote:. People who had seen me play before commented how it was not nearly as much fun to watch, since they couldn't see my inevitable "I fucked up this part, I hate myself" faces.

Exactly. Emotion that hasn't gone through the "enhance / mask" filter of music technology.

Some 'turns' I really really like in many many ways, like Fugazi, could frankly release terrible records (if only) and I reckon I'd still like and enjoy them as a band. I know Ian M claims "the purpose of the band is to play music", and nothing else. Actually, I think his and Fugazi's actions as a band over the past couple of decades say entirely otherwise, whether he likes or intends it or not.

To me, when you create in front of other people, you don't keep all of 'your band'. Some of it escapes into the wild.