Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => Time Out => Topic started by: Mr. Air on November 12, 2009, 08:36:42 PM
-
Normaly I don't really dig 80's music, but this song has just caught on to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fD5YcFmke4
Anyone who likes it too?
-
80s Classics FTFW!
-
Dog muck
-
since we're dropping 80s classics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utUOt1kmP0o
-
Was it really that long ago?
-
since we're dropping 80s classics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utUOt1kmP0o
Thanks gwEm, I listened the chorus of this song on the first Pantera VHS and never knew what song it was (don't know that much about Priest, think I should research more)
-
(don't know that much about Priest, think I should research more)
Shob's jaw hits the floor!
-
damn you work internet!!! I want to watch the vids, what priest song is it?
priest rules
-
There was a lot of good music in the 1980's, some very interesting guitar playing - Nik Kershaw, Midgel Ure, Andy Taylor etc. Gets all mixed up with the makeup and shoulder pads, but there WAS some decent stuff going on back then...
Mark.
-
Was it really that long ago?
That's funny :D I guess it actually IS that long ago.
-
since we're dropping 80s classics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utUOt1kmP0o
What's up with the guitar routine??? That's hilarious! :D :D :D
-
Hmmm... sorry Mr Air... YUK!! :lol:
When I clicked the link and saw the title I thought "oh you gotta be kidding me..." but then I thought "I lived through it originally, it was all over the place, it was horrible, but maybe it was just overplayed..."
So I listened... and the first "intro" chorus sounds just as fab as I remember it... it sucks a young (and not so young) chap in with promise of melodic superbness... I even started to smile... and then the verse started... AGGHH!! It's even worse than I remembered it :lol:
gwem's superb post of a superb band doing a a fine early 80s metal anthem was, however, superb... :D
Edit:
since we're dropping 80s classics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utUOt1kmP0o
What's up with the guitar routine??? That's hilarious! :D :D :D
Them boys knew how to rock :D (they're probably still doing the same routine even now! :lol:)
-
Hmmm... sorry Mr Air... YUK!! :lol:
When I clicked the link and saw the title I thought "oh you gotta be kidding me..." but then I thought "I lived through it originally, it was all over the place, it was horrible, but maybe it was just overplayed..."
So I listened... and the first "intro" chorus sounds just as fab as I remember it... it sucks a young (and not so young) chap in with promise of melodic superbness... I even started to smile... and then the verse started... AGGHH!! It's even worse than I remembered it :lol:
gwem's superb post of a superb band doing a a fine early 80s metal anthem was, however, superb... :D
Edit:
since we're dropping 80s classics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utUOt1kmP0o
What's up with the guitar routine??? That's hilarious! :D :D :D
Them boys knew how to rock :D (they're probably still doing the same routine even now! :lol:)
How nice to hear from one who actually remember Cutting Crew from their hey days. If I weren't just a boy back in the 80's maybe I would dislike the song as much as you, Andy.
The only 80's song I know to be overplayed is Last Christmas and it has been for say 20 odd years now!
I have never listened to Judas Priest, but if they ever reunite (they broke up, right?) I'll sure go to a show if they're doing that same old routine :lol:
-
They reunited a good few years back now. They were touring this year even (I think?) - I suspect there's one or two on here that saw them.
I saw them a couple of years ago, and they were indeed doing some of the same moves to some of the songs :D.
-
Hooked on this riff at the moment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBZQ4kEI5v4
A bit over processed, but has that 80s tone.
-
Hooked on this riff at the moment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBZQ4kEI5v4
A bit over processed, but has that 80s tone.
Great hair metal! Makes me think of Def Leppard. And the lyrics are just ace!!! :D
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFUURKSjacs&feature=related
YOu get the full effect on this version....
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFUURKSjacs&feature=related
YOu get the full effect on this version....
Very professional performance IMO.
I think he should have plugged his guitar in though
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFUURKSjacs&feature=related
YOu get the full effect on this version....
Very professional performance IMO.
I think he should have plugged his guitar in though
Nah... with a hair-do like that, you don't need to plug in your guitar to produce the "full effect" :lol:
EDIT: I can't believe I've watched Cutting Crew twice in less than a week... (OK I switched it off pretty quick both times)
-
Wines mature with age whereas cheese like this just gets smellier.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFUURKSjacs&feature=related
YOu get the full effect on this version....
Very professional performance IMO.
I think he should have plugged his guitar in though
Nah... with a hair-do like that, you don't need to plug in your guitar to produce the "full effect" :lol:
EDIT: I can't believe I've watched Cutting Crew twice in less than a week... (OK I switched it off pretty quick both times)
That gotta be the top of play back. As far as I can see none of them have their guitars plugged in :D
And Andy. You might as well admit it. You're secretly being drawn back into the 80's by Cutting Crew and now you're hooked!
-
That gotta be the top of play back. As far as I can see none of them have their guitars plugged in :D
And Andy. You might as well admit it. You're secretly being drawn back into the 80's by Cutting Crew and now you're hooked!
Yeah they are lip synching/miming on the pop programme - but I loved this song back in the 80s and it still sounds good to me now
-
I have to admit I have sneaking regard for the song - and the performance even. It is a superb piece of songwriting craftsmanship...
but there's something about it that turns me off as well
I'm not sure what it is, but I think it might be something like the reaction that Paul McCartney's "Long and Winding Road" generates. I have loved that song ever since I first heard/learnt it - I think it's one of the best things he's ever written (I suspect he does too)... but I've yet to come across anyone who doesn't dismiss it as maudlin, wailing, whining, dross :lol:
-
I have to admit I have sneaking regard for the song - and the performance even. It is a superb piece of songwriting craftsmanship...
but there's something about it that turns me off as well
I'm not sure what it is, but I think it might be something like the reaction that Paul McCartney's "Long and Winding Road" generates. I have loved that song ever since I first heard/learnt it - I think it's one of the best things he's ever written (I suspect he does too)... but I've yet to come across anyone who doesn't dismiss it as maudlin, wailing, whining, dross :lol:
I like "Long and Winding Road". It's a great moody ballad. The lyrics might be a bit too much, but so they are in "I Just Died in Your Arms Tonight". I don't tend to focus too much on lyrics because mostly they so repetitive and unoriginal (almost always about love).
-
I'm not sure what it is, but I think it might be something like the reaction that Paul McCartney's "Long and Winding Road" generates. I have loved that song ever since I first heard/learnt it - I think it's one of the best things he's ever written (I suspect he does too)... but I've yet to come across anyone who doesn't dismiss it as maudlin, wailing, whining, dross :lol:
A friend of mine is a huge Beatles fan, he even likes McCartney's solo stuff (which I have great fun dismissing as "sugary bilge"). But.... he hates "The Long And Winding Road". So I guess that backs up your statement. :lol:
Isn't there a story that it was originally quite a simple, unembellished recording but then Phil Spector came along and added orchestras and heavenly choirs - to McCartney's dismay? I never understood why he couldn't just refuse to have that version released.... unless Phil pulled a gun on him. :wink:
-
Isn't there a story that it was originally quite a simple, unembellished recording but then Phil Spector came along and added orchestras and heavenly choirs - to McCartney's dismay? I never understood why he couldn't just refuse to have that version released.... unless Phil pulled a gun on him. :wink:
No, it was John Lennon... and Phil Spector. The latter just did what he was asked to do.
McCartney regarded it as a song to farm out to another artist perhaps - he and Lennon originally intended to be song-writers rather than what they turned into, and McCartney could see the "end" coming, and this song might be something for the future. The recording of Long and Winding was actually a demo with a good lead vocal and a passable piano on it - and was part of what was left over from the "live" project they aborted before they got George Martin back to do Abbey Road.
If the song had been regarded as a "Beatles track", even a few months earlier - they might have used the take, but he would certainly have replaced the utterly atrocious bass-line played by Lennon (McCartney played piano and sang the vocal live). It's hesitant and not even the right chords in places. I don't know why Spector didn't remove it further than he did - maybe it wasn't possible to cover it any further in strings without another bass-part. But why didn't they get a session man, or even the Beatles bassist in to record another bass part?? Perhaps Lennon/Spector didn't even notice it was bad. There are also theories that Lennon was scr@pping around for enough material, as fast as possible, to cobble together a Beatles album.
Anyway, after the last album Abbey Road, Mr Lennon went off and took things into his own hands, apparently without consulting anyone else. After previously telling George M to his face that "we don't want none of your f***ing trickery" on the "live" project (If I was Mr Martin, I might have been tempted to tell them to shove it when they came to him for Abbey Road after that :lol:), he then proceeded to draft in Phil Spector to "produce" a Beatles album by covering the live demos with, er, icky stuff.
When McCartney heard the recordings, particularly Long and Winding, I understand, which he was already regarding as non-beatles, and then he discovered that he couldn't stop the release of what we all know and love/hate as "Let it Be", he walked straight out of the studio to the waiting press, announced "I've left the Beatles", and walked away.
I don't know why he couldn't stop the issue of Let it Be, maybe he could have done, but I think it was more the straw that broke the camel's back. All sorts of weird and non-business like sh1t had been going down for months leading up to it.
Have you ever seen footage of the "live" project rehearsals? There's open animosity/hatred from Harrison while McCartney seems to be trying to get everyone to play together. I suspect that, regardless of the sense of it, Harrison at that time would have been voting "what does that c*nt want? I'll vote the opposite..." on everything.
McCartney wanted the Eastman family to manage them and their money (which was well out of hand by then) - I understand he was out-voted on that because they were his in-laws. Fair point, I reckon, but I believe he was utterly horrified that the rest of them couldn't even see that they needed actual business folk to take charge of the business.
And, er, around that time, John Lennon called an emergency band meeting... just to announce to them all that he was the Messiah!! :lol:
I haven't heard the "stripped down" Let it Be that was released a few years back now, I'm not even sure I want to, but it would be interesting to hear it.
-
Have you ever seen footage of the "live" project rehearsals? There's open animosity/hatred from Harrison while McCartney seems to be trying to get everyone to play together. I suspect that, regardless of the sense of it, Harrison at that time would have been voting "what does that c*nt want? I'll vote the opposite..." on everything.
Towards McCartney specifically, or everyone? I think I've seen bits of that footage, but I'm not the biggest Beatles fan so I never really give it my full attention! :lol:
It's interesting that McCartney seems to have successfully maintained a "nice guy" image over the years, and I expect essentially he is, but he's always struck me as quite arrogant and egocentric (in a nice guy sort of way, I suppose :wink: ). And Lennon seemed like a snidey smartarse who wouldn't be particularly considerate towards anyone else. I'm not surprised Harrison got pissed off eventually.
-
I presume this is the stripped down version in question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY_p7cmHjf8
-
Yes that is the version. None of the existing versions were ever supposed to be "the one" but Spector just used what he was given. Some have said that John's bass playing was deliberately bad, I prefer to think that it wasn't, it was just poor because of lack of interest/practice. Nevertheless I quite like the song-it could be interpreted as being directed to John -something that Paul couldn't have said to John given the atmosphere in the band but who knows. I have friends who have worked with Paul-some say he is very difficult but most say he is fine-demanding but reasonably pleasant-certainly no worse than other ego obsessed celebs.
-
I have to admit, Philly, that I most identify with McCartney - I come across as arrogant and egocentric as well, but I'm actually driven by the "project" and the bigger picture. I can see that in him. He knows how to do what he does, and how to achieve certain sounds. He also knows there might be better ways, but he is kind of expecting people to be listening to the overall picture and thinking and being pro-active in coming up with input that actually fits.
When it's your piece of music (rather than a band composition), it means you need people to play a certain way to achieve the effect in your head. If you can play all the instruments, you even know what the part is that you want.
Last band I tried really hard to let the rest of them "create" within the confines of my songs (they wouldn't get off their @rses to bring anything of their own to the party) songs got damaged just for the sake of changing things, bassists trying to turn ballads into grooves, etc... and I let them do it because I thought it was right or would maybe encourage them - it was utterly soul destroying, and I'd still get snide comments and all the bullsh1t (a la Harrison! :lol:)
So that's McCartney out of the way - except I'd LOVE to work with him! I like demanding, I'm demanding when it comes to generating music. :lol: To make music that sounds relaxed, and spontaneous, the musicians involved have to work very hard and be very focussed - yeah have a few beers as well, and enjoy it, but to create "good stuff" you gotta work at it and be business like. If McCartney asked me to play a certain riff, I'd be playing it like he asked before I suggested anything else, and I know if I asked him to play a certain way, he'd play that first before suggesting something else. Also, I kinda think he'd be at the session to make music, not sit around smoking/drinking and talking about the football or whatever :lol:
Lennon I think was basically a decent chap but thoroughly confused by then - I agree with 38th, I like to think he just wasn't putting the effort in on that track - it was probably a "rehearsal" anyway!
Harrison, at the time, sounds like an utter sh1t as far as I'm concerned - I'd hate to have worked with Mr Harrison of the late 60s early 70s. He's the guy who tore junior engineers off a strip with "I'm a f***ing beatle, you don't talk to a f***ing beatle like that" when they were trying to do their job to get a take set up. He's the guy who hit the roof and left the band during the white album because Yoko ate one of his chocolate digestives without asking!
But on the other hand look at what they'd all been through - we'd all be a bit crazy if we'd done what they had in the space of 8 or 9 years :lol:
EDIT: What was this thread about again?? :lol:
-
EDIT: What was this thread about again?? :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P6I4pT_tVA
what it's all about...
-
EDIT: What was this thread about again?? :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P6I4pT_tVA
what it's all about...
Now that's a cheesy '80s song I actually do like, I can't deny it.
Blimey Andy, you sound just like Yngwie Malmsteen! :lol:
-
Blimey Andy, you sound just like Yngwie Malmsteen! :lol:
:lol: Is he a tortured, driven, artistic type that waffles a lot then?
I've not got as many guitars - but I do have the same "put it down there for a moment while I grab this other one" approach to guitar handling (my own guitars anyway - if I was at your place and it was your guitar, I'd be putting it in your hands and let you figure out how to dispose of it safely :lol:)
-
Blimey Andy, you sound just like Yngwie Malmsteen! :lol:
:lol: Is he a tortured, driven, artistic type that waffles a lot then?
Nearly. Lets say he's a tortured fat, driven, artistic type that waffles a lot.
No, it was this bit that made me think of the Yng. Although I doubt he tries hard to let anyone "create" - he writes the drum parts and everything, and expects them to do as they're fockin' well told:
When it's your piece of music (rather than a band composition), it means you need people to play a certain way to achieve the effect in your head. If you can play all the instruments, you even know what the part is that you want.
Last band I tried really hard to let the rest of them "create" within the confines of my songs (they wouldn't get off their @rses to bring anything of their own to the party) songs got damaged just for the sake of changing things
-
EDIT: What was this thread about again?? :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P6I4pT_tVA
what it's all about...
What the F*** was Limahl thinking when he gut that hair due. It's horrendous! :x
This song isn't really doing it for me, but this one does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7CuJ8cR9sg
-
What the F*** was Limahl thinking when he gut that hair due. It's horrendous! :x
(http://api.ning.com/files/gp3HXZZQM0pHaa4ot*z3emC4INQ*mMgBKwZrcjD-Y-BtkGq4aeYGexmLqk2DVdy1JIUBI6rsrjKq-RqyUIMBBmiaNqiQTlzt/geo1.jpg)
Probably the same as George Lynch... :P
-
(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p216/phillyq/geo1.jpg)
-
No, it was this bit that made me think of the Yng. Although I doubt he tries hard to let anyone "create" - he writes the drum parts and everything, and expects them to do as they're fockin' well told:
When it's your piece of music (rather than a band composition), it means you need people to play a certain way to achieve the effect in your head. If you can play all the instruments, you even know what the part is that you want.
Last band I tried really hard to let the rest of them "create" within the confines of my songs (they wouldn't get off their @rses to bring anything of their own to the party) songs got damaged just for the sake of changing things
That's quite interesting actually - does the Yng pay the musicians himself?
The only illustration I can think of (where I know much about it) is Rory Gallagher.
Rory Gallagher got round the problem by deciding, after Taste, (for financial reasons initially) that he was the artiste, and that he'd pay the band out of his own pocket. They were his employees, so he could tell them what to do/play. According to my reading of the bassist's take on this, it kinda worked.
It meant Rory was able to give them a free-hand on coming up with their parts, but if he didn't like what you were doing he'd tell you to stop doing it and you stopped and did it his way - you learnt to anticipate and play the parts the "act" and the song wanted/needed, which is actually what being an ensemble musician is all about anyway, but we all tend to forget it with our musicianly egos...
Rory was also quite happy to accept input and change, but he only took what he wanted, and because you were a paid employee you wouldn't be getting song-credits (mainly cos he didn't want your songs) or any song-writing royalties for playing your part as you were paid to.
He chose guys according to how they played and interracted. When the line-up stopped working or going in the direction he wanted, he'd get rid of them and start again.
To do this, he payed them a weekly wage, with album, tour, and christmas bonuses. They could go off and do other stuff, but because he paid them a weekly wage retainer, even when he wasn't working, he would expect them to fit what they were doing round his plans.
That meant, when they were gigging regularly and he was having successful albums (72 to 82 or so), Gerry McAvoy was making roughly the equivalent of, say, a highly paid company exec. Not bad, getting paid that much to do what you wanna do, as long as you don't want to be the creative force or front man, and as long as your artiste is successful. Trouble is, Rory didn't wanna big a big star - say like what Bruce Springsteen became (and all those who were around Rory, and folk like me who saw him, are convinced he could have been that big and that much of a household name) - instead he wanted to be an old bluesman, a wayfaring gigging guy whose music spoke for him... and so he actively shunned the publicity machine, and deliberately stopped any moves that might have taken him there. This kinda put a limit on the salaries of his employees.
Anyway, creatively, this system seems VERY attractive to me, but even here it has a major flaw - when the wheels came off Rory's creative bus in the mid-80s, as it will for anyone who takes full creative responsibility like this, it meant he had nowhere to go, no-one who felt able to, or allowed to, help him or push him... :(
Anyway - I've never been in a position to salary a backing band like this. If you can't pay them, how on earth can you expect them to shut up and stop blithering when (you think) they're wrong? And blither and moan they do, which destroys the morale and creativity of the songwriter(s) in the set up.
If you can pay them, there's a better dynamic for an Yng, a Rory, a Sir Paul, whoever... that is until you've dried up everything you're capable of saying artistically, or what you can say has gone out of fashion...
We're all doomed ... :lol:
-
What the F*** was Limahl thinking when he gut that hair due. It's horrendous! :x
(http://api.ning.com/files/gp3HXZZQM0pHaa4ot*z3emC4INQ*mMgBKwZrcjD-Y-BtkGq4aeYGexmLqk2DVdy1JIUBI6rsrjKq-RqyUIMBBmiaNqiQTlzt/geo1.jpg)
Probably the same as George Lynch... :P
And what the F*** was George Lynch thinking? :D
-
I can empathise with Andy's take on things. Rather like the hijacking of this thread ( :oops:) if you bring a song to a band and they all start adding and amending it can end up as something vastly different to what it was originally.That isn't always bad of course but usually the writer has a notion of what he or she wants.I was once in a band where the (unwritten) rule was that you did whatever the song writer said-provided he had a clue that is. We settled into this routine and it worked well for a couple of years until a new member joined with an ego the size of a star system who thought he was the band leader and it all collapsed within months. Guys who'd grown up together ended up not talking for many years after that and in some cases never wanting to again-all because of someone who wanted to be king. Sorry, just wanted to get that off my chest as Andy's comments prompted a memory.
-
That's quite interesting actually - does the Yng pay the musicians himself?
I don't know it for a fact, but I'd assume that all the musicians who've passed through Yngwie's band have been employees, just as you've described for Rory Gallagher's band.
It's pretty much a revolving door - at a guess, he's gone through at least 10 each of vocalists, drummers and bassists, and almost as many keyboard players. On the albums, he'll often play bass himself and tell everyone else exactly what to play. I've always had the impression he's a bit more relaxed with people he respects (usually ex-members of Rainbow!) and lets them make more of a contribution.
Incidentally, on the subject of Rory, there's quite a big article about him in the current issue of Guitar World (Lynyrd Skynyrd on the cover). It's written by someone who doesn't seem to be a fan particularly, so it's all quite factual and objective - he's even prepared to suggest that Donal's versions of events may contain an element of blarney!
-
I can empathise with Andy's take on things. Rather like the hijacking of this thread ( :oops:) if you bring a song to a band and they all start adding and amending it can end up as something vastly different to what it was originally.That isn't always bad of course but usually the writer has a notion of what he or she wants.I was once in a band where the (unwritten) rule was that you did whatever the song writer said-provided he had a clue that is. We settled into this routine and it worked well for a couple of years until a new member joined with an ego the size of a star system who thought he was the band leader and it all collapsed within months. Guys who'd grown up together ended up not talking for many years after that and in some cases never wanting to again-all because of someone who wanted to be king. Sorry, just wanted to get that off my chest as Andy's comments prompted a memory.
I much appreciate this post - sorry it prompted bad memories, but I guess many of us have them. Mine are still making me refuse to contemplate getting involved in a band again.
I made a mistake in my last band. We had a song of mine that was two or three years old, and that I had already gigged. It was going well in this new band, and then the bassist left. It was the first song the new bassist (drummer's brother) learnt. One rehearsal, he went "yeah, but the chorus isn't working". It was true, with this line up, it was falling flat - I wish I'd spotted the "with this line up", because then we would have fixed it by sorting the bass part, and possibly the drums, they were changing slightly to fit the new bass. Instead I told them yeah, it's not is it? After some discussion, drummer said "looks like Angus (me) takes it away and works on it some more..."
I said no, that won't work, I was never quite happy with the chorus anyway, this is the version that ended up working live, but it is a compromise. I see what (bassist) means, but I don't undertand how to do it. We either figure it out in this room, or we play it like it is, or we drop it, there's no real point in me shooting around in the dark on my own - in my mind it's a completely different song than how we're playing it. They didn't want any of the options, they wanted me to write a "better" version and bring it back for them to decide whether it was better or not. But I talked them into it with a "(bassist) what do you actually have in mind" - the minute he played a bassline I saw what he meant, I worked out how the chords would work, taught them to the other guitarist, then explained to the drummer what was going on. I wasn't able to sing over it until I'd learnt it and reorganised the lyric a bit, but that was it - that's what we ended up with.
From my "rules", if we'd got anywhere and published that version, all other versions would die, and every guy in that room would have an equal share in the songwriting.
OK so far. Except it set a precedent - every single song I wrote after that got taken apart to accommodate the bass, he changed harmonic structures, removed the power of melody lines by forcing the band to follow the melody line's syncopation, endless fiddling sh1t - and whenever I tried to explain why it was written like it was, and the effect it was designed to have, it was always "that's your point of view, there are four of us here". After a while the drummer started joining in this as well - "you do the singing, I'll play the drums" - kinda doesn't matter too much if the drum fill walks all over the vocal between the verse/choruses then?? Apparently not... (showed up really badly in the demo we recorded in the studio :lol: "oh I didn't realise what you were on about..." he stopped playing the fill live in the one or two gigs after that)
In the end I didn't want to play, and I left music for 2 or 3 years. Considered burning all the guitars and songs, but I didn't (the woman who is now my wife talked me out of it).
Anyway, that original song... the "new" version, from a blues/country/rock song, we have a 80s/90s rock/metal chorus jumping out of it!! Years down the line, it's obviously the work of amateurs, the chorus belongs to a different song. I should have dropped the song, there were plenty others, and got them to build a different one round the chorus. Now, if I ever record it, it's straight back to the original version - "Joshua Tree era" U2 play country/blues/rock. And no-one's getting a f***ing credit for something that existed in it's entirety, and had been gigged, before they even heard it...
... hmmm... bad memories? I'm still quite bitter about how I got treated by that bunch of people. And what really gets me is that they couldn't see they didnt have an act without me. That's where I sound arrogant, I know, but it's true I'm afraid. No songs, no singer, no-one capable of putting together two hours of songs that people want to hear. They replaced me with a girl singer and her boyfriend who could play guitar and keyboards a bit. I saw one of their last gigs - everyone shoe-gazing, no "show" or characters to watch, and a set list full of ten minute two or three chord songs each one with a variety of bass solos in!!
Out of two one hour sets, the lead guitarist had two country/blues solos (where he can excel) - I talked to him afterwards... "yeah, it kind of lost direction after you went, I'm kinda glad it's finishing". During the gig, a great chunk of the audience were asking me to get up with them at the end for a jam (drummer was emigrating, I'd played on and off with him for over 20 years) - I said "no, they haven't asked, and even if they did, I cannot do that to them...". I told the guitarist about it after, and he looked at me sadly and said "it would have been great to have a jam, but thanks for not doing it..."
Well and truly hijacked thread - SORRY everyone, and thanks for reading - it was helpful typing it! :lol:
Incidentally, on the subject of Rory, there's quite a big article about him in the current issue of Guitar World (Lynyrd Skynyrd on the cover). It's written by someone who doesn't seem to be a fan particularly, so it's all quite factual and objective - he's even prepared to suggest that Donal's versions of events may contain an element of blarney!
Yep, Donal seems to have a somewhat different idea of what was going on (even to the extent of remixing and resequencing one of the albums to make it better than it was...). Read bass-player Gerry McAvoy's book "Riding Shotgun" - it's a bit traumatic in places, but he's upfront and open about his relationship with Rory.
-
They replaced me with a girl singer and her boyfriend who could play guitar and keyboards a bit.
Oh my god! Not.... Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham? :o :o
Sorry Andy. Interesting story, never having been in a band I've never experienced band politics, but I've always imagined it must be "interesting" being thrown together with a bunch of people who are there for what they can do, even if you don't necessarily get on personally. Kind of like work, in fact. But being in a band is supposed to be fun isn't it?
I've been thinking about this "benevolent dictatorship" McCartney/Gallagher/Malmsteen approach. It seems to me the very best bands have two or (ideally) more members with equal creativity and control/influence. You'd never have had a Led Zeppelin, Queen or Rush if it had just been "leader plus sidemen".
Of course it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. :)
-
That's true - my favourite bands are Led Zeppelin and Queen. Queen especially.
When we were all younger, we wanted to be in that sort of set up. But I think you do it from "young" before you grow too much musically, and hopefully, with success, you gain respect for each other... Queen certainly, made such amazing stuff because you had four completely different musical backgrounds pulling in different directions. You gotta have strong reasons for keeping that lot together...
I hate to mention U2 twice in the same thread, but I saw an interview with them a while back. One of the things they talked about was "U2", and they openly admit, all four of them, that "@rsehole Bono" was a bit of a problem for them at first, but when it didn't seem to damage them, they decided they just had to accept it as it is...
That's what Queen had to do as well...
If you've got a charismatic frontman, that does the job, that's what you've got to do as well - otherwise you'll kill him, or if you're lucky, you'll just kill the spark that's in him... showmen (and women) are like that for a reason.
The other thing U2 said was when they were discussing their longevity. They said how they realised, at some point, that U2 is bigger than Edge, U2 is bigger than Bono, etc... They've all got egos, but U2 has it's own ego, and it's bigger than all of them. Somehow they spotted that early on, and that meant they've survived..
I hate to praise U2, but... yeah, they seem to have managed both extremes at once! :D