Opinions wanted, what's the most significant part in a band?

[Danny Danzi]

Originally Posted by newkid

The real answer is that there is no most important part.
The band is teh sum total of everything.
They are all important.
If any of them are bad then the band is bad.
Could you eliminate something and do without it?
Sure, but then you have something different.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Would Aerosmith be anything without Tyler? Would Led Zep be the same without Plant? There's always one main guy, one secondary guy. One guy pulls off the performance end, the other usually writes the majority of the tunes.

Originally Posted by newkid

and who sez the singer sucks?
Somebody else is probably saying greatest signer they ever heard.
One size fits nobody.

Fans don't make that call, labels do. Who cares if local fans like a singer if the label tells you, you don't get a deal because they don't like the guy.

Originally Posted by newkid

Unless the band sez the singer sucks there is no problem.
And if the band doesn't like the singer then just replace them.
Like drew carey and the horndogs - stopped kate from singing but gave her a tambourine. still part of the band. just not the bad vocalist anymore. Or do like the beettles did to the first drummer. Your ethics your call.

But there is a problem when you look at the big picture. There's 2 sides to it. The local scene of your career, and the label side IF you get to that point. If your 2500 local fan base likes your singer and the labels you shop to do not, who do you listen to? You'd be missing a chance if you listened to the fans in this situation...or in any situation when the label is the one driving your bus. You mention the Beatles first drummer...that was a label decision, not a fan based decision. The dude was eliminated due to being too pretty for the the rest of the band...if my memory serves me right.

Originally Posted by newkid

I note that you imply the audience must be pleased. Sounds like you agree that fans are the most important factor.

Yes but not in the way you are thinking. Fans should have an impact on the material you pick to an extent, not dictate who is in your band and what happens on the business end of things. Respect and loyalty keeping their opinions in mind is one thing, listening to them exclusively in regards to a business they know nothing about is just ludicrous.

Originally Posted by newkid

Go ahead single me out
Sure it shoudl be fun. What is the point of doing anything , especially if you are trying to make money at it, that is not fun.

And if you are trying to make money you have to please the fans whether local following of a hundred or international millions.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. If Metallica gets rid of James because they can't take the dude anymore, should they listen to the backlash they'd get from die hard fans? I think not. You have to do what is in your best interest and some things are not for the fans to decide. Will it impact your career? I'm sure it will, but if you listen to the fans, then what you are doing is not fun if you are settling for someone that is disrupting your experience and making it feel more like a job than a band family with a lack of morale and a fun factor.

Originally Posted by newkid

Now you could do what some writers do. Write for two different fan bases. What is stopping a band from having two different sets of fans for different styles of music. Probably harder to pull off but feasible imho.

That I can definitely agree with...sometimes it's more trouble than it's worth though.

Originally Posted by newkid

And of course bands can reinvent themselves and morph from one style into another one. Slowly works better than faster.

Don't know if phish has every changed , although their biz model and related items have, cause everything they do sounds exactly the same to me.

Yep, slower works better than faster....which I covered. All in moderation. Too much too soon, you could lose people for life.

As for Phish, I can't say...but they were accepted for playing a certain style that sold, they enjoy that style so they stick with it. The die hard fans will never tire of this...however, too much of the same thing and it could get rough. Sounding exactly the same is the conservative route...and it's still a good one. If something ain't broke, you're paying your bills and enjoying what you do, you'd be a fool to mess with it...especially in these times when the industry is in shambles. You can't put a price on personal satisfaction and even limited success because it's all too easy for one thing to go wrong and your whole world comes crashing down.

[crooked09]

I don't recall fans being my favorite part of any bands I like.

Expanding on that: Fans are not part of the band or the music. You aren't drawn to a band because of its fans, you MUST be drawn to some other aspect. Therefore how could fans be the most important part??? (which they are not even a part at all)

Being a little less technical (which that barely is) and reading into the spirit of the comment, being that the most important thing a band must consider making music is the fans - I don't buy that. Do you honestly think any of the great bands became great because they sat down and wrote their music just thinking of what the fans want to hear? Well, maybe that's how pop music is made but in general the best music is the music that is very personal, and I don't see how its possible to make personal music if you are purposely writing for someone else.

But, I do understand that once you have a fan base you should take them into consideration and not just be all over the place with what you release. But note that the fan base had to have come from something else, which I would have to say is the more important part of the band...

[adorian]

I think we are trying to come up with an empirical way to define a situation as complex as the American Economy. I think music is closely tied in to that, fashion, movies and other cultural things going on.

Case in point - an adult store needed to sell its merchandize and got the Sex Pistols to dress up, they became a smash hit.

Metallica - they totally shat on their old fans but still to this day keep on releasing platinum albums, regardless of the situation. In their case - great marketing machine, huge label support.

So what I am trying to say? With the right marketing campaign and at the right time you can sell to the American people any piece of t*rd as long as you push the right buttons.

[garageband]

Originally Posted by willjrockstar

In all serious duh its the songwriter.

In the modern perspective, this is an attractive notion. It doesn't hold water in the historical organization of a musical production. Before the Beatles, it was not expected that bands author their own material.

[newkid]

Originally Posted by crooked09

I don't recall fans being my favorite part of any bands I like.

Expanding on that: Fans are not part of the band or the music. You aren't drawn to a band because of its fans, you MUST be drawn to some other aspect. Therefore how could fans be the most important part??? (which they are not even a part at all)

Being a little less technical (which that barely is) and reading into the spirit of the comment, being that the most important thing a band must consider making music is the fans - I don't buy that. Do you honestly think any of the great bands became great because they sat down and wrote their music just thinking of what the fans want to hear? Well, maybe that's how pop music is made but in general the best music is the music that is very personal, and I don't see how its possible to make personal music if you are purposely writing for someone else.

But, I do understand that once you have a fan base you should take them into consideration and not just be all over the place with what you release. But note that the fan base had to have come from something else, which I would have to say is the more important part of the band...

hmmm......

you dont like the fans
you like the band
so you are the fan
for that band

the thought question was:
if you dont have fans do you really have a band at all?
or
if a band plays in the woods and nobody hears them
who cares?

if nobody knows about a band does it matter if they are a band?
[the just for funsies folks say yes -- the wanna get rich and famous folks say no]

so what comes first: band or fans?

never saw a bunch of fans create a band
but
without fans how long will a new band last?
most of them not that long
[or sure - a stray band here or there may stick together from hs through college and play at reunions after careers scattered them but most bands have a relatively small halflife]

and if the band stops existing then clearly the fans are the most important thing - fans keep bands going

[Zeke XIII]

The most important thing about a band is making good music. Without music, a band is just a bunch of guys in tight pants.

[Zeke XIII]

Originally Posted by newkid

hmmm......

you dont like the fans
you like the band
so you are the fan
for that band

the thought question was:
if you dont have fans do you really have a band at all?
or
if a band plays in the woods and nobody hears them
who cares?

if nobody knows about a band does it matter if they are a band?
[the just for funsies folks say yes -- the wanna get rich and famous folks say no]

so what comes first: band or fans?

never saw a bunch of fans create a band
but
without fans how long will a new band last?
most of them not that long
[or sure - a stray band here or there may stick together from hs through college and play at reunions after careers scattered them but most bands have a relatively small halflife]

and if the band stops existing then clearly the fans are the most important thing - fans keep bands going

fans arent even half of the authority behind whether or not a band is a band. ive been in bands that went nowhere and had little to no fans, and they still remain a part of my heart to this day. music make the band. a band doesnt need fans to be great. they just need to make good music.

[Xplora]

Most important part of the band? It totally changes in every band really. Primus is nothing without Les. Tool is nothing without Maynard or Danny. Cannibal Corpse is nothing without Alex. Slayer is nothing without Kerry or Jeff. Metallica is nothing without James. Megadeth is nothing without Dave. Rolling Stones are nothing without Jagger. ACDC are nothing without Angus, and arguably Malcolm.

A lot of the bands I've mentioned have had a LOT of personnel changes over the years and they survived quite well. The personality of a band is tied to the people and that dynamic changes with each band. Funnily enough, as much as Lars isn't the best drummer ever, his business sense and ability to speak to a camera or a microphone did just as much for Metallica as James did as a songwriter and frontman.

At the end of the day, you need some magic and that magic is sometimes the force of one will and other times it is chemistry, sometimes it is musical and sometimes it is business. There is an INDUSTRY in rap/hip hop etc built around a dozen guys who can pick a good rapper and make a record with them.

Vocals are usually important but there are a thousand pretty faces who want to say something; it's important to maintain humility and dignity for all people concerned. You can't presume that vocals are all important when they might simply be a sideshow to a great bassline.

[garageband]

Originally Posted by Xplora

Most important part of the band? It totally changes in every band really. Primus is nothing without Les.

If I hear you, it sounds like the most important part is the guy with the "it" factor.

[Danny Danzi]

Originally Posted by Xplora

Most important part of the band? It totally changes in every band really. Primus is nothing without Les. Tool is nothing without Maynard or Danny. Cannibal Corpse is nothing without Alex. Slayer is nothing without Kerry or Jeff. Metallica is nothing without James. Megadeth is nothing without Dave. Rolling Stones are nothing without Jagger. ACDC are nothing without Angus, and arguably Malcolm.

How many of the bands you listed there, rely on the vocalist though? I don't know a thing about Primus, Slayer or Cannibal Corpse....but James is the singer in Tallica, Dave is the singer in Mega as well as a killer guitarist, Jagger the vocalist in the Stones and though you mentioned Angus and Malcolm, it's safe to say ole Brian Johnson has made as much of an impact being in the band as Bon Scott in my opinion. It's very difficult to keep your band going when you change a singer, don't you think?

Vocals are usually important but there are a thousand pretty faces who want to say something; it's important to maintain humility and dignity for all people concerned. You can't presume that vocals are all important when they might simply be a sideshow to a great bassline.

I don't know if I can buy into that in the real world scheme of things. The bands with the good bass lines also usually have hooks in the material as well as singers that can deliver the goods. Could you see fans listening to an entire show of bass lines, over a singer singing with an acoustic guitar delivering the hooks and allowing people to sing along?

Sure, there are key members in every band that help it to be what it is. But I do not believe those key members make the band what it is by themselves. In *most* situations, you have to understand that common folks do not care about how great a guitar player is, how he shreds or how much he spent on his guitar tone. They don't care if a bassist pops and slaps all over the place. They could care less if the drummer twirls his sticks, uses double bass or sets his kit on fire. We're talking common listeners here....the majority that buys albums. Not musicians. You can't base your claims on what a musician may think because if you do, I sincerely think you're missing the big picture. Not everyone buys albums due to a key player. Though the majority may like Van Halen because of Eddie, Dave has just as big a following and is just as much the reason the band was successful. He's not even that great of a singer, but common people don't look at it this way.

The same as musicians can say "Well, Eddie was decent in his day, but he ain't shit now" they may be correct in saying that. Ask a fan that knows nothing about guitar if they give a shit or notice the differences. Most will not know the difference. It's all about being in the concert atmosphere for a common music listener that knows nothing about music or theory. They love the element, the surprises, the lights, the clothes, the presentation, the sing along stuff...they aren't watching as carefully for musicianship or if Flea is doing a bass solo. Flea is the Chilli Peppers to me...but to the common folks, it's all about the hooks and the grooves in the songs as well as how the singer delivers the goods.

Look at Chris Cornell....the dude sings sharp...in every song. SHARP! No one noticed but musicians. The chicks love the dude. Hootie and the Blowfish....how many albums sold? Dude sings flat in every song! LOL!! But, he sold music and sold it in a language people could relate to...and they didn't have to be musicians to enjoy the material.

Yes, key players in a band will certainly help that band to sell albums. I'm not denying or disagreeing with that. But I think the amount of sales that may come from this are less than you may think. There really are many elements as to what people may feel are significant in a band. But in the real world scheme of things, I sincerely feel it's the vocalist and the hooks within the songs that will always be the real winner. Yeah, musicianship, image, presentation, band aura etc...it all walks hand in hand.

But, if you take all the bells and whistles away...all the glitz and glam, the lights, the sound, the props, the power of the band, the show part....what are COMMON people that aren't musicians that are the majority left with? You got it...a voice within the tune. 7 out of 10 times, a band that changes a singer fails or doesn't exceed past expectations. Then again, the flip side to that is....musicians make the singer....but that voice usually is what sells. We've seen musicians in super groups leave to do other things. Some are successful, others are not. Put a killer singer that has acclaim that was once in a super group by himself, he'll still sell as history has shown us. As soon as you step into the musician realm, you're missing the big picture. Common folk music lovers will always be the majority over musicians.