ChaosZen wrote:Any time you step out into a strange place, including that of minds and genres, you're likely to almost never find two people who imagine or hear things in the same way. When you try something new like mixing genre or collaborating differing styles, the only way for any part of it to be productive is to let each person involved go ahead with demoing their ideas, then sit together patiently with open minds to give them all a listen and then jointly critique or imagine the potential that comes of it. Commit to nothing contractually, so you maintain your own vision in any final product, but be willing to give all possibilities a chance. It may come down to a flip of a coin or 50-50 chance that anything would even be usefull, but if something does come of it, your music could find appeal with a number of previously unconsidered audiences.
Unfortunately, it seems like only one of the band members was open enough to new ideas and concepts and the usual kismet occurs. On one hand, he's able to see new options, while on the other, the less flexible members of the band question his loyalty.
I have seen where a musician or entire band would be working on music of several different genres and simply publishing each differing or contrasting style under a different name. I did the same thing myself in the 90's, being a loyal, contributing and participating member of the industrial-noise group called UPC, while using my more refined compositions deemed too well-structured for the UPC image, to release on my own either as solo projects under the name "Chaos Zen", or in collaborations with a more trance-like, techno-ambient group called "Obsession". This was during a time when a severe left-hand injury left me unable to play strings for a while. Otherwise, I likely would have had much more diverse genre interests to add into the mix including punk and metal.
That's pretty open minded... I actually believe that works best with familiar members and not so much with strangers...Then again... I don't really know...
I have found, that it can get very expensive to offer existing material up for debate.
I'm not talking about "how the lead track should sound... I'm talking about structural change or major rearrangement and direction of a song. Its so easy to morph out of one idea into another... But It would have to be a pretty convincing argument to get me to subscribe to a 180 on a given song.
As for the supporting parts, I'm a laissez fair person... If you are in my band and you are the bassist, I already trust you enough and I "expect you " to contribute your own signature and touch without putting you through major scrutiny... Its like "...Please don't make me think about the bass part..its why I have you... " thing.
To have that disinct luxary.... In the name of new hope...makes me wanna celebrate right now with a beer ...