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