The Modern Gig Going Experience.

A bit of a follow up to a recent blog post called 'Twitter & TV".
Here's a link to it:
http://andymooseman.blogspot.com/2011/11/twitter-and-tv.html

There will be a further part to this discussion. I'll post it sometime in the next few days.

Tribute?

Tribute bands eh? Don't you just love them?
Or not, as the case may be.

I've been having some discussions recently, with a musician friend of mine, about tribute bands and their worth. And, because of my involvement, as a compere, at an upcoming local gig, headlined by an AC/DC tribute band, i posted a blog post on the Hastings Rock MySpace site, advertising the event and subsequent gigs as well.

But, after further discussions, since that recent blog post, i decided to share my own personal thoughts about this whole topic and this seemed like the best place to do it.

Anyone who knows me, knows that i am a big music fan and through my involvement as a DJ with Hastings Rock, i've developed a huge appreciation of local music and local musicians generally. But, as a DJ, i've only tended to play original music by those local musicians, rather than any cover versions and that is where my real interest lies.

Like anyone else, i go to pubs and watch the local covers bands doing their stuff and very good the vast majority of them are too. They provide a great service to those who just want to go out, have a few drinks and generally have a good time. And with that i have absolutely no problem at all.

My problem, if that is what it is, is with the, seemingly, ever increasing amount of tribute bands that do the rounds and have probably visited your own town recently.
These are the bands that are effectively a carbon copy version of the real thing. Often going as far as having members who look like the original members and certainly dressing the same as them.  They try to use the same instruments and also copy the stage acts and mannerisms of the original artists.
They also charge you quite a lot of money for the priviledge of seeing them too (I wonder if they have to pay any royalties to the original act? And if not, why not?)

The first band that i remember who fitted into this category, were The Bootleg Beatles. No prizes for guessing who they were copying. I did see them, many years ago and enjoyed them. They even split their set into two parts, to cover different periods of The Beatles career. Complete with a costume change.
Since then, the whole tribute band scene has developed and is now a pretty lucrative business. There are tribute bands to all of the major acts, both from the rock and pop world. These acts can be seen touring all over the UK and beyond. I've even seen whole festivals devoted to rtibute bands.

So, there is obviously a big market for this type of entertainment. But, that doesn't mean that i have to like it.
It's not that iwsh to stop people going out and enjoying themselves. My own problem with all of this is the effect that it might have on the nurturing of up and coming local, original, talent.
The whole world has gone copy cat mad and there is just no room left for new and original music.
I realise that this can be seen a a bit of an exaggeration. But, i do think it does have a noticable effect at a local level.

Local musicians, that i know, speak of their inability to get gigs when showcasing their own, original, music. All of the gigs seem to be taken up by bands doing those crowd pleasing cover versions. And, maybe, that's where, ultimately, the problem lies? People are voting with their feet and with their wallets and saying, "we want to hear familar music".
And, if you're the owner of a venue, the customer is always right. Aren't they?

So, maybe we've only got ourselves to blame for this situation? The problem is, where is all of the future original music going to come from?
And, is this yet another effect of the "X Factor" etc?
Yes, i know that tribute bands have been aroung longer that the "Pop Idol" type of shows. But, maybe those shows have had an effect on the popularity of the many tribute bands around and actually helped to increase their number?

Years ago the tribute bands that were around, like The Bootleg Beatles, seemed to only copy those acts that you just could not see. Whether that be The Beatles, The Doors, or Led Zeppelin etc, who had split up and therefore could not tour anymore. Or, maybe, some of those really big bands who toured infrequently and often only in huge arenas, miles from home and who were, quite frankly, past their prime anyway.

These days, just about everyone seems to have a tribute band based on them. It's probably become almost a badge of honour amongst acts, to have your own tribute band.

And that brings up another aspect to this whole topic.
I can understand why people might want to go and see a good tribute band, for an act like Led Zeppelin, or The Beatles. Those acts, as i said before, that it's just not possible to see live anymore, for whatever reason.
But, i can't see the same attraction in going to see a tribute of an act that is stil going strong, still in their prime and still available to see. For example, a local venue in my hometown recently booked a tribute act to the Kings Of Leon. I have no idea how many people turned up on the night. But, i wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a roaring success.

I suppose that it could be argued that by going to see the tribute act, of an existing band, that you are getting an approximation of the original band and at least you don't have to sit through all of those boring new album tracks, that you've never heard before! But, personally i'd rather save up and make the effort to go and see the real thing.

As for those bands who are no longer in their prime, or who just don't exist anymore. Maybe, those good tribute bands are a worthy substitute?
After all, what you get to see is a re-creation of whichever band, in their prime and playing a greatest hits set. A band that you quite possibly never had the chance to see in their heyday.

I was lucky enough to see Led Zeppelin in their prime, The Who with Keith Moon, AC/DC with Bon Scott and Lynyrd Skynyrd before the plane crash and i would not wish to spoil those good memories, by paying to see a re-creation of those days.
And maybe, that is at the heart of my objections?

Having said that, is a tribute band any worse than a band using the original name, but having very few, if any, original members in the existing line up? To me, that is just plain wrong.

I've just read that Big Country are re-forming. Despite the fact the band's founder, singer, songwriter and main guitarist, Stuart Adamson, died 9 years ago. WTF?
To me that is just as ridiculous as The Jam without Paul Weller, Thin Lizzy without Phil Lynott, The Doors without Jim Morrison and just in case they get any ideas, Led Zeppelin without Robert Plant.

Just don't get me started on that one!

Encore, Encore.

New YouTube video.



Just some thoughts on encores. Do we really need them & who should do them?

David vs Goliath

I woke this morning to the news that Britain had a new heavyweight boxing champion of the world.
Now, i'm not normally a big boxing fan. But, this is a little bit different & it got me thinking.

The new champion, David Haye was around 7 stone lighter than his opponent Nikolay Valuev. (That's approx 98 pounds for you Americans out there) Haye is also considerably shorter.
So, it appeared that he was at a considerable disadvantage. But, as is so often the case with these so called mis-matches, the outcome wasn't quite what some thought it would be.

So, how did David Haye overcome his far bigger opponent. Well, to use a boxing term, he boxed clever & won easily on a points decision. Apparently, he was also pretty close to knocking out his giant opponent.

What has this got to do with anything i hear you ask?

Well, yesterday i posted a blog all about the possible future of the Internet & how the big entertainment companies wanted to radically change the way the Internet was used.
At the end of that blog i asked for people to get involved & help spread the word. But, i'm sure a lot of people might think it's a battle that isn't worth fighting. After all, what hope have we all got against the might & power of the huge entertainment companies?

I'm sure we all know the Bible story of David slaying the giant Goliath & now we have seen another great example it. One that we also know to be true, i might add.

So, don't be downhearted when it comes to trying to fight huge corporations, governments & any other David vs Goliath situations you care to think of. The little man can & does win sometimes.
I'm sure we can all think of battles, whether personal, or between countries, governments etc in which the little guy has won, or at least given their opponent a bloody nose.

Sure, you have to fight & you might even get a few bruises along the way. But, you can still win, just as David Haye showed last night.
You don't even have to knock your opponent out. Winning on points is good enough.

So, get out there & fight for what you know is right.

Entertainment? & Other Charitable Thoughts

I was checking the TV schedules earlier, to see if there might be something worth watching this evening. When i happened to notice the following programme, "7 Days On The Breadline". It turns out to be a programme where so called "celebrities" try to live "on the breadline" for a whole 7 days. The idea, presumably, is to show how the other half live, or try to live.

Whilst i can see that by using celebrities, the programme might highlight an important social issue. For me, this is just the latest in a long line of recent TV programmes pretending to outrage us. But, really using outrage as entertainment. Personally, i see no entertainment value in social deprivation.
Also, if the TV company really wanted to highlight a real issue. Why not concentrate on the families themselves, instead of having to drag celebrities into the mix?
Do they really think that we take more notice of an issue, or are more outraged about something, just because a celebrity has to live it for 7 days?

I'm beginning to think that they do. After all, why are celebrities often dispatched to far flung parts of the world to highlight a certain issue & often in the name of the United Nations, a Government, or a well known charity organisation.

I suppose i can see why this happens now. After all, think of all the money raised by Band Aid & Live Aid in the mid 1980's. For me anyway, that seems to have been the real start of all this.
And, yes, i bought the records, watched the concerts & donated money, just like the rest of us.
So, is this all Bob Geldof's fault? I wonder what he makes of the current situation & whether he ever envisaged this happening?

Maybe this is just another indication of the weird world of celebrity culture that we now live in? We seem to need a celebrity to tell us something before we will either listen to it, or take any notice of it.
I'm sure the particualr charity, or organisation involved aren't very worried as long as the money rolls in. And you can't blame them for that i guess?

After all, this is really just advertising, but on a grander scale isn't it? And, as we all know, advertising works.
They wouldn't waste all that money on it otherwise, now would they?

(By the way. This blog post has ended up being completely different to the one i intended to write. It was ever thus)