fisherman bob wrote:You guys are killing me. There are countless succesful bands, some local, some regional, touring, etc. They have to be doing something right. I had a constructive argument with Paper Dog on a previous thread. I'm a pro bassist/lead singer/songwriter. I don't thrive in an environment where one person dictates everything. I think you guys might get a pleasant surprise by trying to invite creative professionals to COLLABORATE on songs instead of dictating everything. Creating a "jail cell" around each tune, one way (yours) to do everything might be keeping really good musicians (like me) from responding to your search inquiries. You also might be surprised that bass players can write some pretty damn good songs. Paul McCartney, Sting, John Deacon (Queen) weren't too bad at it.
Here we go again! Bob Bob Bob !!!!!
I don't know where you get this idea of a 'jail cell' description of attitude. Maybe it's in my prose, which throws off the meanings here... (Although, they say that readers bring their own baggage to each page)
RE SUCCESSFUL BANDS... To me "Successful" bands is a broad and subjective concept. Actually, (and this is me speaking for me) ... If I can't make chart, then I aint sh*t...Its that simple. I will agree with you that there are a million working, thriving bands... who successfully maintain their status-quo. But in my perspective, they aren't all over the air and on the charts. Thus they are not "successful" (according my definition of success.)
I am under the distinct impression that you would like to see me handle a band like a democracy,
or a Utopian realm of equality for everyone ... You define this as a successful approach. I do not.. Here is why:
The Utopian realm of equality in a band,
from a business perspective, is suicide for that band's potential successes on so many levels. The key word here is "Business". In business of production, who has time to debate and quibble or stroke egos...or walk tight wires. Anybody packing and walking out is just another way of saying they don't have what it takes to be successful in the business as it unfolds at that level. If you do not believe me, consider the extraordinary work of Eric Clapton, who took charge of the Royal Albert Hall, the Engineers, and a hundred + Musicians, Plus an Indian Symphony, plus the public relations and directed, coordinated the Benefit Concert For Harrison...WHILE UNDER CONTRACT with his own responsibilities to his own label. You see this man pull it off without hitch and ya have ask yourself..
."Now WTF was i crying about a minute ago??... Turn the volume down?..as in... its not an attack on me as a person? oh Ok, sure!"
Do you honestly think that Paul McCartney cares what his guitarist 'wants' to do on
Paul's Album. Do a Google on
Rusty Anderson (Who, by the way, rocks!) and tell me how many songs of
his made it to "Chaos and Creation in The Backyard". That last time I heard Sting rattle off a new song, I seem to recall the station DJ saying that "
Sting wrote a new song". There was nothing in there about Sting's guitarist writing a new song. Tom Petty was notorious for being an asshole about Practices. He was so adamant about work structure that it got the attention of George Harrison, who invited him into the Traveling Wilburys (and Petty's band eventually got to play ball with that, too.). I don't guess you ever heard John Lennon tear up and rage on Phil Spector , have you? I mean , lennon was always vitriolic, calling some body a 'stupid cunt' when they made silly mistakes... Pete Townsend and Roger Daltry were always at odds with each other...it got physical at times...
My whole point here is that 'the big boys' aren't about Utopian realm of equality... They appeared to be more interested in the actual work they did, rather than how it "Looks like to work."
Shakespear said "The Play is the thing"
I'm borrowing that and I'm saying "The song is the thing" Everything else takes a back seat.
