Apologies guys; it's another video game post!
Fans of Guitar Hero & Rock Band will know that the guitar chart for a song can make or break your experience. Casual players probably won't care but fans playing on Expert would spend afternoons on forums bitching about overcharts, undercharts and instruments that aren't guitar charted to guitar. Granted that those heated debates died out with the popularity of the rhythm music game genre but ever since Clone Hero took off (a free Guitar Hero mod that contains all the music from GH/RB and a seemingly infinite supply of customs), the importance of good guitar charts is back.
So what makes a "good" chart? Well, it frequently comes down to opinion but I like to think there are some rules that players generally accept when defining a good or bad chart. These are the rules I tend to follow when making the call:
DO put fun over realism
This is one that some players will probably disagree with but for me, I would much rather play a chart that's fun albeit slightly inaccurate than one that's closer to the way you actually play it on guitar that isn't as fun as it could've been. Sure, realism is somewhat necessary in these charts as a guideline but here's the thing: Guitar Hero and other music game variants are video games, they are not real and will never be real. Trying to make them realistic is a futile exercise that only serves to please the pedantic and frustrate everyone else. If the chart would be more fun with HOPOs throughout the solo when the reality is there would be frequent strums or if the chords used have four notes in them instead of two or three, you best believe that 99% of the time fun trumps realism.
DO some research
OK, you've listened to the song a hundred times and you can already picture how it should be charted in your head...but is that REALLY how the song is played? Is that REALLY how it sounds or have you mentally filled in gaps that didn't exist? Does the riff go G-R-Y OY, G-R-Y GY or should it go R-G-Y BO, R-G-Y YB (if you can guess the song I just charted there from the notes alone, we should hang out more)? Trust me, you might have a great idea for how it's played in your head but if you have no knowledge about how to play the entire song, you're almost certainly going to make a mistake somewhere. Fortunately, it's easy to correct yourself. If it's a real song by an actual band instead of some meme remix then you can probably find a decent tab on Ultimate-Guitar.com and if it's a well known song, riff and/or solo then chances are there's a detailed video tutorial on YouTube. Hit the web and do some learning before charting your favourite song for the benefit of the fans who'll be playing your work. NOTE: This is mostly referring to mapping the notes to the correct pitch and whilst it does sound like it contradicts my previous point, there's no fun in playing a chart made by someone who clearly couldn't tell a chord from a trill.
DO know when to use instruments other than guitar
Sometimes, a song may have a section on a completely different instrument pop up in a guitar chart. It'll commonly be keys of some sort but could also be harmonica, strings or even percussion in some rare cases ("We Will Rock You" - Queen on Lego Rock Band). Some players will draw a firm line in the sand and say no instruments other than guitar in a guitar chart. Personally, I feel that there are examples where keys or strings can enhance a chart but there is no strict rule for when to use them, hence the wording of this Do. If the song has plenty of guitar and there's an introduction on a different instrument (e.g. the piano in "Hold The Line" - Toto or the strings in "Afterlife" - Avenged Sevenfold), you can probably just leave those out. However, if there's a killer organ solo later on and the guitar is just gonna be sustains or chord strumming (e.g. "Roll With The Changes" - REO Speedwagon or "Burn" - Deep Purple), you can go ahead and spice your chart up with those tap notes. Ultimately though, no guitar chart is ever ruined by NOT putting different instruments in whereas plenty have been soiled by including other instruments where they're not welcome.
DON'T take the piss when over/undercharting
This is not the same as "Don't over/underchart". Whilst it doesn't happen often, I accept that there are a few occasions where the occasional over/underchart makes a song a bit more fun, e.g. putting in a couple of extra HOPOs where there'd normally be a pause to make a section of a solo flow better or making 3-note chords into 2-note ones to avoid giving players a severe case of wanker's cramp in their fretting arm. HOWEVER, there's an incredibly fine line to tread here. If possible, stick to charting sensibly but if you do feel the urge to over/underchart, don't be a tool. Don't fill a song with ridiculous sweeping note streams where there are none just to make it a Clone Hero meme (a.k.a. the rhythm music game equivalent of YouTube Poop, a.k.a. Art Cancer) and don't be a coward who only charts every other note because they can't play very well.
DON'T focus on just lead or rhythm guitar
Variety is key when making a fun chart. Sometimes you can only play the cards you're dealt but if there are songs with lead and rhythm guitar from start to finish, you can take a mediocre chart and make it exceptional. A good example would be "Sultans Of Swing" - Dire Straits in Guitar Hero 5. Neversoft knew that the rhythm on its own up until the guitar solo(s) probably would've got dull quickly if not for the brief sections with a small riff or melody now and then to keep players on their toes. Likewise, if you compare it to some of the charts in Rock Band 3 (and Clone Hero) that focus on just lead instead of rhythm, you'll find that there are moments where you could be playing a good riff but instead have to wait. Variety spices up standard charts whilst still using the materials provided by the song and yes, whilst it might not be "realistic" to play both lead and rhythm, you can always reread the first rule for clarity on my thoughts about that. Save lead OR rhythm for the Guitar Co-Op bullshit, not the regular charts.
DON'T cut corners
Well, you've done it. You've just placed the last note on your chart and it's ready to play, right? WRONG! There's a little thing called QA (quality assurance) that professional charts in GH/RB games had to go through so that fans didn't end up purchasing songs with inconsistent riffs, calibration glitches, strums instead of HOPOs, poor audio mixes, visual bugs, broken notes, missing notes, extra notes or one of the many other problems faced with creating something for a video game. Don't be that asshole who puts out a chart for an amazing, underrated song that nobody else thought to make that's absolutely full of technical problems. I know you're excited to get your finished product out there but if you haven't at the very least quintuple checked it to make sure everything runs smoothly then buddy, you ain't finished shit. At the same time, DON'T spend so long polishing it and tweaking things that don't need changing that by the time you release it, several identical (if not superior) charts for the same song have already been released. Again, fine line to tread; such is the joy of being a charter!
DON'T use open notes
Don't use open notes in a guitar chart. Don't do it. Not now, not ever. Open notes are ugly and always pointless in guitar charts; most of the time, you can just use the green fret and the other times where a 6th pitch is needed can often by avoided with creative charting. Open notes in bass charts are fine due to how they differentiate guitar/bass charts and the visual of the open note paired with the lower pitch of bass feels more appropriate. However, unless you plan on doing two different guitar charts (with/without open notes) then under no circumstances should your guitar chart include open notes. No guitar chart has even been improved with open notes: Fact.
Bonus "Don't" to express my hatred of open notes in Clone Hero charts!
If you want more tips or opinions on what makes a good Guitar Hero/Clone Hero/Rock Band guitar chart, feel free to follow me on Twitch where I frequently stream Clone Hero and discuss the quality of charts as I play. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go take a shower as that shameless self promotion has left me feeling mucky.
Showing posts with label Dos & Don'ts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dos & Don'ts. Show all posts
Monday, 30 July 2018
Saturday, 13 January 2018
Merchandise: Dos & Don'ts
Whilst it's important that bands continue to release great music and adapt their sound to fulfil the creative aspect of their careers, they also need to find ways of making money in order to keep writing and performing great music. Since record labels and digital distribution have made it difficult for bands to make substantial money through selling music alone, it's up to bands to release quality merchandise alongside their records and live shows if they want the extravagant Rock star lifestyle to help inspire their next big album.
There are undoubtedly plenty of safety regulations regarding certain types of merch but this blog post will be looking at Dos & Don'ts in a more comical, common sense manner that plenty of bands have neglected to consider when putting their name/image on T-shirts, mugs and tampon holsters. If you're a small Rock/Metal band who are just about to hit the big time and have no idea which route to take when making/selling merchandise, you should probably consult a proper website with actual business advice...BUT if you like Rock/Metal music, my blog posts and want to read something lighthearted looking at golden rules and cardinal sins of physical merchandise, enjoy the following six paragraphs!
DO use high quality material
If any of you have ever been to a gig and stopped by the merch stand, you'll know that even the smallest item can have a ridiculous price. Keychains for £10, T-shirts for £40, pointless programmes with pictures and information about the band that you can find online for free for any amount of money that isn't £0. It's a given that you're going to have to pay a stupid amount of money for what's basically a glorified way of saying you support a certain artist so it should go without saying that the thing you're charging fans through the nose for should be high quality. Your clothing should last for years, your jewellery should look attractive and not pinch the skin, your beer should taste good and get you comfortably shitfaced at a decent pace. If you put out a crappy product, you're no better than the shitheels who sit outside concert venues selling knock-off tat that'll fall to pieces after a couple of uses. Bands need to distance themselves from these wankers with high quality merch and speaking of those tosspots outside venues...
DO use a variety of designs on your products
The most common type of merchandise found at gigs and online stores are T-shirts. These are your moneymakers that not only sell for a high price but spread the word about the band too; if someone's wearing a Lynyrd Skynyrd shirt from a new tour with an interesting new design on the front and some tour date info on the back, they're essentially advertising on behalf of the band. With that in mind, you need to make sure that your "adverts" are eye catching and not just the same logo or mascot design that everyone's seen before for two reasons; primarily to give fans a new piece of art to add to their collection but also to distance themselves from aforementioned tat peddlers who are relying on shitty copies of album covers and stock photos for their pissweak goods. If you're a big name band with millions to spare, you can afford to come up with some new designs for baseball caps and posters, although you can still sell merch with old album covers and mascot photos if you're selling them WITH new designs.
DO know your audience
This piece of advice could probably be applied to any situation ever created but fuck it, I'm bringing it out again! When coming up with ideas for things to sell your loyal fans, you need to know exactly who your fans are. If you're a contemporary Indie band that's just getting started, you shouldn't be selling products for a more mature audience like the official Arctic Monkeys sleeveless sweater vest or Arcade Fire chewing tobacco. Likewise, if you're a Classic Rock band on a 40th anniversary album tour with one surviving original band member left, you probably don't want to produce a mobile app/game based around your back catalogue. Obviously you want to appeal to a wide audience but you should be doing that with your music, not trinkets. Trinkets are for the fans you've already hooked who are desperate to support you and show everyone how much they love you.
DON'T go overboard
We all know how ridiculous KISS are with their merchandise and who knows, maybe some of you have even purchased some of the more extravagant officially licensed KISS products as the KISS Kasket, KISS Waffle Maker and even KISS air-guitar strings. However, KISS aren't the only band to go overboard with their merch. U2 have released Achtung Baby condoms, The Rolling Stones have released a tongue and lips telephone, Muse have released towels with some of their lyrics on and Rammstein have released dildos. Some of the more ridiculous items in a Rock band's merch store are likely designed to be gag products but you shouldn't go overboard with those either. Pick one, maybe two, silly ideas if they're cost effective but focus most of your budget on designs that fans will get the most out of. A hoodie or unique band patch will give more joy to your fans over a longer period of time than an air freshener that smells of generic scent...unless your band happens to have released a song/album named Generic Scent.
DON'T make regional exclusive merchandise
Decades ago when world tours were more difficult for Hard Rock bands to pull off, selling certain types of merchandise exclusive only to areas in Europe or Asia was understandable. However, now that products are cheaper to make and the Internet has made it possible for someone to receive something they ordered from the other side of the planet in a few days, there's no real excuse for popular Rock/Metal bands to pull this shit anymore. I'm not saying that bands shouldn't release artwork or merch based around certain areas of the planet that start off being sold in specific countries (e.g. a T-shirt with the band's mascot in samurai armour or punching a kangaroo) but they should make sure that anyone with the money to pay for it is able to buy it afterwards, regardless of where they're geographically based. Granted that lesser known groups may find it tricky to do this but then again, it's unlikely that they'll be making regional exclusive content to begin with.
DON'T understock your merch stands at gigs
This is quite a tricky one to avoid but I've been to a couple of shows where whoever was in charge of getting enough T-shirts for each stand well and truly fucked this one up. Yes, it's impossible to predict how many fans will want certain shirts and no, you can't bring a stupidly high amount of merch to accommodate a rush that may never happen. However, when you've completely sold out of a certain T-shirt before the warm-up band's even played, that suggests you screwed up. The bigger the band, the more you should bring with you. This could also apply to warm-up bands, as they often have a chance to sell merch in between the doors opening and their last song. It's unlikely that a lot of people will want warm-up band merch unless it's a big warm-up band (e.g. Cheap Trick warming up for Deep Purple) but you should still stock accordingly.
That's me all caught up for the year so far! I'm not sure which posts I'll be writing in the near future but hopefully there'll be an album review coming soon.
That's not a tease, by the way. I'm genuinely hoping that a new album that I'm interested in listening to comes out soon after the dry spell of Q4 2017.
There are undoubtedly plenty of safety regulations regarding certain types of merch but this blog post will be looking at Dos & Don'ts in a more comical, common sense manner that plenty of bands have neglected to consider when putting their name/image on T-shirts, mugs and tampon holsters. If you're a small Rock/Metal band who are just about to hit the big time and have no idea which route to take when making/selling merchandise, you should probably consult a proper website with actual business advice...BUT if you like Rock/Metal music, my blog posts and want to read something lighthearted looking at golden rules and cardinal sins of physical merchandise, enjoy the following six paragraphs!
DO use high quality material
If any of you have ever been to a gig and stopped by the merch stand, you'll know that even the smallest item can have a ridiculous price. Keychains for £10, T-shirts for £40, pointless programmes with pictures and information about the band that you can find online for free for any amount of money that isn't £0. It's a given that you're going to have to pay a stupid amount of money for what's basically a glorified way of saying you support a certain artist so it should go without saying that the thing you're charging fans through the nose for should be high quality. Your clothing should last for years, your jewellery should look attractive and not pinch the skin, your beer should taste good and get you comfortably shitfaced at a decent pace. If you put out a crappy product, you're no better than the shitheels who sit outside concert venues selling knock-off tat that'll fall to pieces after a couple of uses. Bands need to distance themselves from these wankers with high quality merch and speaking of those tosspots outside venues...
DO use a variety of designs on your products
The most common type of merchandise found at gigs and online stores are T-shirts. These are your moneymakers that not only sell for a high price but spread the word about the band too; if someone's wearing a Lynyrd Skynyrd shirt from a new tour with an interesting new design on the front and some tour date info on the back, they're essentially advertising on behalf of the band. With that in mind, you need to make sure that your "adverts" are eye catching and not just the same logo or mascot design that everyone's seen before for two reasons; primarily to give fans a new piece of art to add to their collection but also to distance themselves from aforementioned tat peddlers who are relying on shitty copies of album covers and stock photos for their pissweak goods. If you're a big name band with millions to spare, you can afford to come up with some new designs for baseball caps and posters, although you can still sell merch with old album covers and mascot photos if you're selling them WITH new designs.
DO know your audience
This piece of advice could probably be applied to any situation ever created but fuck it, I'm bringing it out again! When coming up with ideas for things to sell your loyal fans, you need to know exactly who your fans are. If you're a contemporary Indie band that's just getting started, you shouldn't be selling products for a more mature audience like the official Arctic Monkeys sleeveless sweater vest or Arcade Fire chewing tobacco. Likewise, if you're a Classic Rock band on a 40th anniversary album tour with one surviving original band member left, you probably don't want to produce a mobile app/game based around your back catalogue. Obviously you want to appeal to a wide audience but you should be doing that with your music, not trinkets. Trinkets are for the fans you've already hooked who are desperate to support you and show everyone how much they love you.
DON'T go overboard
We all know how ridiculous KISS are with their merchandise and who knows, maybe some of you have even purchased some of the more extravagant officially licensed KISS products as the KISS Kasket, KISS Waffle Maker and even KISS air-guitar strings. However, KISS aren't the only band to go overboard with their merch. U2 have released Achtung Baby condoms, The Rolling Stones have released a tongue and lips telephone, Muse have released towels with some of their lyrics on and Rammstein have released dildos. Some of the more ridiculous items in a Rock band's merch store are likely designed to be gag products but you shouldn't go overboard with those either. Pick one, maybe two, silly ideas if they're cost effective but focus most of your budget on designs that fans will get the most out of. A hoodie or unique band patch will give more joy to your fans over a longer period of time than an air freshener that smells of generic scent...unless your band happens to have released a song/album named Generic Scent.
DON'T make regional exclusive merchandise
Decades ago when world tours were more difficult for Hard Rock bands to pull off, selling certain types of merchandise exclusive only to areas in Europe or Asia was understandable. However, now that products are cheaper to make and the Internet has made it possible for someone to receive something they ordered from the other side of the planet in a few days, there's no real excuse for popular Rock/Metal bands to pull this shit anymore. I'm not saying that bands shouldn't release artwork or merch based around certain areas of the planet that start off being sold in specific countries (e.g. a T-shirt with the band's mascot in samurai armour or punching a kangaroo) but they should make sure that anyone with the money to pay for it is able to buy it afterwards, regardless of where they're geographically based. Granted that lesser known groups may find it tricky to do this but then again, it's unlikely that they'll be making regional exclusive content to begin with.
DON'T understock your merch stands at gigs
This is quite a tricky one to avoid but I've been to a couple of shows where whoever was in charge of getting enough T-shirts for each stand well and truly fucked this one up. Yes, it's impossible to predict how many fans will want certain shirts and no, you can't bring a stupidly high amount of merch to accommodate a rush that may never happen. However, when you've completely sold out of a certain T-shirt before the warm-up band's even played, that suggests you screwed up. The bigger the band, the more you should bring with you. This could also apply to warm-up bands, as they often have a chance to sell merch in between the doors opening and their last song. It's unlikely that a lot of people will want warm-up band merch unless it's a big warm-up band (e.g. Cheap Trick warming up for Deep Purple) but you should still stock accordingly.
That's me all caught up for the year so far! I'm not sure which posts I'll be writing in the near future but hopefully there'll be an album review coming soon.
That's not a tease, by the way. I'm genuinely hoping that a new album that I'm interested in listening to comes out soon after the dry spell of Q4 2017.
Saturday, 5 August 2017
Tribute Bands: Dos & Don'ts
It's been almost a year since I wrote a Dos & Don'ts blog post but here I am, back and as strong as I was the last time I wrote a blog post (about five days ago). This time, I'm looking at Tribute Bands; bands that pretend to be bigger acts and play smaller venues whilst delivering an experience akin to stadium gigs, albeit condensed into the size of a pub stage.
Note that these aren't the same as Cover Bands; bands who play a variety of different tunes from other bands in their own particular style. Tribute Bands play material from one band, usually in small venues rather than festivals (although some festivals made up entirely of different Tribute Bands exist), but there are still clear Dos and Don'ts to follow if you are part of or wish to be part of one of these acts.
As always, this is the work of opinion and whilst some of these observations might be obvious, a few others could be argued either way. Feel free to do so in the comment section or via Twitter if you wish.
DO have a catchy name
The Iron Maidens. The Faux Fighters. Lez Zeppelin. Fake No More. Oasish. Queen + Adam Lambert. All great tribute bands have an even better pun-based name (apart from that last one) so if you and your friends fancy learning the greatest hits of Pink Floyd then you better come up with a witty name first. Then reconsider this career choice as the world has all the Pink Floyd music it could ever need without another bunch of 50-year olds recreating their bland, uninspired tosh.
Ah you know what, I'm being a little harsh. Queen + Adam Lambert are apparently pretty good.
DO sound just like them if you're playing it straight
Many tribute bands decide to get cute and play a band's back catalogue with a twist. Maybe they're playing music with different instruments or blending the music of two bands together (Red Hot Chilli Pipers and Beatallica respectively) but the majority of lesser known tribute bands play it straight and simply aim to entertain in the same way the actual band do. If you're going to be one of those acts, you need to make sure you sound not just a little like the actual band but EXACTLY like that band. If you're going to be a Rush tribute band, your drummer needs to be fucking incredible, your guitarist needs to have the identical tone as Alex Lifeson and your frontman needs to be able to sing, play synth and kick ass on bass.
DO know more than just the basics
You want to be in a Thin Lizzy tribute band? You've locked down those riffs and your vocalist sounds like Phil Lynott? You're calling yourselves Fat Lizzy? These are all fine but are you playing the songs as the band played them in the studio or as they played them in live shows? This is just an example but there's often more to recreating the live show experience than just reciting the material everyone knows. Sometimes fans want a little more and whilst there's nothing wrong with playing "Cowboy Song" just like the original, playing tracks like "Jailbreak" without the solo or other equivalent songs without certain improvements from live shows might take the audience out of the shared "illusion".
DON'T actually pretend to be the band
I can imagine some shows where this might work if there's a certain stigma attached to the band the tribute act are pretending to be but nine times out of ten it will come across as kinda tacky. The audience are there to hear the band's music and are willing to suspend disbelief during each song if you're good/they're drunk enough. However, once you stop playing, you're just a tribute band again; talk to the audience as a tribute band, not as an actor playing Mick Jagger or James Hetfield, and definitely don't refer to each band member as their fake counterparts. After all, the audience aren't children watching a pantomime...unless they're seeing a My Chemical Romance tribute band.
DON'T go overboard with selling merchandise
You've travelled all the way to the venue, played your show and the audience loved it; now it's time to make a bit of extra cash from fans who are happy to spend it to support you a little bit more, so what do you sell them? Most things are probably acceptable if you remember the fact that you're a tribute band. Keychains, stickers, mugs, that kind of crap. Don't sell T-shirts. Nobody wants to wear a tribute band T-shirt and selling clothing from the actual band comes across shady as fuck. Speaking of shady, avoid CDs too.
If they're full of live music, it's doubtful anyone will want to listen to poor quality recordings outside of one of the shows and if they were recorded in a studio, there's a bit of a legal/ethical issue with releasing what is basically a covers album of studio recordings without licensing any of the tracks. Most audience members won't care about that aspect of it all but record execs might and if you're lucky, their legal team will only tear you one new arsehole.
DON'T let the role get to your head
This is similar to "Don't actually pretend to be the band" but relating more to the way you act off-stage. You might not be a legendary Rock band but finishing a gig with cheering fans satisfied at the way you performed music by the actual legendary Rock band can make you feel like a God. As a frontman, knowing you've got pipes as gold as Bruce Dickinson's or fretting fingers like Jimi Hendrix might give you a bit of an ego and, if left unchecked, can evolve into something worse; an attitude. Your crew (which, being a tribute band, consists of bandmates and family members/friends) will start to get pissed off by your dickish personality and landlords/venue holders may be less inclined to book you again if they think you're a wanker. Always remember; you might be awesome but you're not awesome enough to have your own record deal so show some humility, even if you are getting standing ovations each night.
At the end of the day, we should all give a massive shout out to tribute bands and go see them before musicians everywhere are replaced by holograms for the most sterile Rock concerts since Pink Floyd.
Nah, I'm just kidding. Hologram shows will probably have some cool stage effects.
Note that these aren't the same as Cover Bands; bands who play a variety of different tunes from other bands in their own particular style. Tribute Bands play material from one band, usually in small venues rather than festivals (although some festivals made up entirely of different Tribute Bands exist), but there are still clear Dos and Don'ts to follow if you are part of or wish to be part of one of these acts.
As always, this is the work of opinion and whilst some of these observations might be obvious, a few others could be argued either way. Feel free to do so in the comment section or via Twitter if you wish.
DO have a catchy name
The Iron Maidens. The Faux Fighters. Lez Zeppelin. Fake No More. Oasish. Queen + Adam Lambert. All great tribute bands have an even better pun-based name (apart from that last one) so if you and your friends fancy learning the greatest hits of Pink Floyd then you better come up with a witty name first. Then reconsider this career choice as the world has all the Pink Floyd music it could ever need without another bunch of 50-year olds recreating their bland, uninspired tosh.
Ah you know what, I'm being a little harsh. Queen + Adam Lambert are apparently pretty good.
DO sound just like them if you're playing it straight
Many tribute bands decide to get cute and play a band's back catalogue with a twist. Maybe they're playing music with different instruments or blending the music of two bands together (Red Hot Chilli Pipers and Beatallica respectively) but the majority of lesser known tribute bands play it straight and simply aim to entertain in the same way the actual band do. If you're going to be one of those acts, you need to make sure you sound not just a little like the actual band but EXACTLY like that band. If you're going to be a Rush tribute band, your drummer needs to be fucking incredible, your guitarist needs to have the identical tone as Alex Lifeson and your frontman needs to be able to sing, play synth and kick ass on bass.
DO know more than just the basics
You want to be in a Thin Lizzy tribute band? You've locked down those riffs and your vocalist sounds like Phil Lynott? You're calling yourselves Fat Lizzy? These are all fine but are you playing the songs as the band played them in the studio or as they played them in live shows? This is just an example but there's often more to recreating the live show experience than just reciting the material everyone knows. Sometimes fans want a little more and whilst there's nothing wrong with playing "Cowboy Song" just like the original, playing tracks like "Jailbreak" without the solo or other equivalent songs without certain improvements from live shows might take the audience out of the shared "illusion".
DON'T actually pretend to be the band
I can imagine some shows where this might work if there's a certain stigma attached to the band the tribute act are pretending to be but nine times out of ten it will come across as kinda tacky. The audience are there to hear the band's music and are willing to suspend disbelief during each song if you're good/they're drunk enough. However, once you stop playing, you're just a tribute band again; talk to the audience as a tribute band, not as an actor playing Mick Jagger or James Hetfield, and definitely don't refer to each band member as their fake counterparts. After all, the audience aren't children watching a pantomime...unless they're seeing a My Chemical Romance tribute band.
DON'T go overboard with selling merchandise
You've travelled all the way to the venue, played your show and the audience loved it; now it's time to make a bit of extra cash from fans who are happy to spend it to support you a little bit more, so what do you sell them? Most things are probably acceptable if you remember the fact that you're a tribute band. Keychains, stickers, mugs, that kind of crap. Don't sell T-shirts. Nobody wants to wear a tribute band T-shirt and selling clothing from the actual band comes across shady as fuck. Speaking of shady, avoid CDs too.
If they're full of live music, it's doubtful anyone will want to listen to poor quality recordings outside of one of the shows and if they were recorded in a studio, there's a bit of a legal/ethical issue with releasing what is basically a covers album of studio recordings without licensing any of the tracks. Most audience members won't care about that aspect of it all but record execs might and if you're lucky, their legal team will only tear you one new arsehole.
DON'T let the role get to your head
This is similar to "Don't actually pretend to be the band" but relating more to the way you act off-stage. You might not be a legendary Rock band but finishing a gig with cheering fans satisfied at the way you performed music by the actual legendary Rock band can make you feel like a God. As a frontman, knowing you've got pipes as gold as Bruce Dickinson's or fretting fingers like Jimi Hendrix might give you a bit of an ego and, if left unchecked, can evolve into something worse; an attitude. Your crew (which, being a tribute band, consists of bandmates and family members/friends) will start to get pissed off by your dickish personality and landlords/venue holders may be less inclined to book you again if they think you're a wanker. Always remember; you might be awesome but you're not awesome enough to have your own record deal so show some humility, even if you are getting standing ovations each night.
At the end of the day, we should all give a massive shout out to tribute bands and go see them before musicians everywhere are replaced by holograms for the most sterile Rock concerts since Pink Floyd.
Nah, I'm just kidding. Hologram shows will probably have some cool stage effects.
Friday, 19 August 2016
Album Openers: Dos & Don'ts
I'm aware that I've written about Album Openers before but this time, I'll be looking at what mistakes to avoid when arranging your tracklist as well as reminding you of examples where an album has picked a spot on opening tune.
Once again, this is a work of opinion and there may be exceptions to the rules that I've forgotten about but if that turns out to be the case, feel free to educate me in the comment section or via Twitter.
DO make sure it reflects the rest of the album
Even if the band have released one or two singles from the album before it drops, the album opener will be the first thing fans listen to when they eventually purchase the record. Whilst lead singles are designed to get people interested in the album so they want to buy it, the album opener is only truly enjoyed after the sale is complete. If your album opener is weaker than the rest of the album (or is a shining diamond in a 40 minute slog of shite), you're already setting listeners up for a bad experience.
The same can be said if your album opener stands apart from the rest of the songs. Got an album full of Riff Based Hard Rock? Open on a "Highway Star" or "Rock Brigade" type number, something catchy with plenty of awesome guitar. Got an album that's meant to represent a return to your older work after a dodgy previous album? Open on a song that showcases hallmarks of your classic sound, "The Threat Is Real" or "The Getaway" being great examples. It sets the expectation for the listener and if they like what they hear, it'll make them more excited to listen to the rest of the album.
DO try to save your title track/lead single for later
Sometimes, these tracks make great album openers. "Help!" immediately springs to mind but that's an example of an album opener that follows the other Dos on this list. However, for the most part, title tracks/lead singles are better saved for later on. See, most albums have two or three main beats. Album opener, title track & lead single. These are your three most important songs and since your average album has about 8-12 songs, you want to space those out appropriately.
Combining two leaves a lot of filler tracks which can cause problems for mediocre bands so the safest option is to leave them until later, although more talented bands that are sitting on a goldmine of quality material can get away with this. For example, Metallica could get away with "Enter Sandman" due to it representing their slightly more commercial sound in The Black Album, not to mention the fact that when all's said and done, it's a pretty sweet track.
DO pick a brilliant song
This should go without saying but I know there are some musicians or casual readers who'll assume an artist will think "Well every song on the album is brilliant, otherwise why would I release it?" and use that as an excuse to pick any song to open the album. Trust me, if a band comes out with that, they're full of shit. Producers might try that one on but there's nothing wrong with having favourites in your own collection, or at least thinking "Yep, that song is not as good as that one". The album opener shouldn't just be any old song that sounds OK, it needs to be a highlight. However, it's important not to confuse what I'm saying here with the next paragraph...
DON'T pick the best song
Rookie mistake, this. For the same reason that you should avoid opening an album with your title track, opening the album on your greatest song sets the rest of the album up for disappointment as you'll never be able to reach that peak again. Granted that opinion is subjective and one fan's "best song ever" is another's "shitty sellout track" but there are some albums where you can tell the producer has singled out the strongest song to open a relatively dull or unimpressive album. On an unrelated note, here are some random albums!
Bark At The Moon - Ozzy Osbourne.
Redeemer Of Souls - Judas Priest.
Wasting Light - Foo Fighters.
Hidden City - The Cult.
The Ritual - Testament.
DON'T start with conversation/an outtake
Yes, I know I claimed "Kielbasa" - Tenacious D is a great album opener and yes, that starts with pointless conversation. However, I did claim that the rest of the song makes up for the weak intro and if it just started with the main melody, it'd be so much better. There are other album openers that contain a false start or a few seconds of pointless feedback/warming up, wasting time before the song starts, and those always hinder the listening experience. Sometimes album openers are a short tune that plays before the TRUE album opener ("The Hellion" before "Electric Eye", for example) and those are fine, provided they either don't go on too long or aren't too short to deserve their own track.
DON'T feel the need to show off right away
This is similar to an earlier point but applies more to individual band members. If the guitarist wants to push themselves and create a solo that will inspire young musicians for decades to come, they don't need to pack it into the first song if it doesn't fit. Start with a solo that's appropriate and write a song with an opulent three minute guitar odyssey for the second half of the album if that's what you want; just don't assume that if you have a point to prove as a new musician that it needs to be made in the first four minutes of the album.
I'm aware I still have a post to make up for and I am currently writing one that I'll publish when it's ready. For now, it's just one post for this week. Hope you enjoyed it!
Once again, this is a work of opinion and there may be exceptions to the rules that I've forgotten about but if that turns out to be the case, feel free to educate me in the comment section or via Twitter.
DO make sure it reflects the rest of the album
Even if the band have released one or two singles from the album before it drops, the album opener will be the first thing fans listen to when they eventually purchase the record. Whilst lead singles are designed to get people interested in the album so they want to buy it, the album opener is only truly enjoyed after the sale is complete. If your album opener is weaker than the rest of the album (or is a shining diamond in a 40 minute slog of shite), you're already setting listeners up for a bad experience.
The same can be said if your album opener stands apart from the rest of the songs. Got an album full of Riff Based Hard Rock? Open on a "Highway Star" or "Rock Brigade" type number, something catchy with plenty of awesome guitar. Got an album that's meant to represent a return to your older work after a dodgy previous album? Open on a song that showcases hallmarks of your classic sound, "The Threat Is Real" or "The Getaway" being great examples. It sets the expectation for the listener and if they like what they hear, it'll make them more excited to listen to the rest of the album.
DO try to save your title track/lead single for later
Sometimes, these tracks make great album openers. "Help!" immediately springs to mind but that's an example of an album opener that follows the other Dos on this list. However, for the most part, title tracks/lead singles are better saved for later on. See, most albums have two or three main beats. Album opener, title track & lead single. These are your three most important songs and since your average album has about 8-12 songs, you want to space those out appropriately.
Combining two leaves a lot of filler tracks which can cause problems for mediocre bands so the safest option is to leave them until later, although more talented bands that are sitting on a goldmine of quality material can get away with this. For example, Metallica could get away with "Enter Sandman" due to it representing their slightly more commercial sound in The Black Album, not to mention the fact that when all's said and done, it's a pretty sweet track.
DO pick a brilliant song
This should go without saying but I know there are some musicians or casual readers who'll assume an artist will think "Well every song on the album is brilliant, otherwise why would I release it?" and use that as an excuse to pick any song to open the album. Trust me, if a band comes out with that, they're full of shit. Producers might try that one on but there's nothing wrong with having favourites in your own collection, or at least thinking "Yep, that song is not as good as that one". The album opener shouldn't just be any old song that sounds OK, it needs to be a highlight. However, it's important not to confuse what I'm saying here with the next paragraph...
DON'T pick the best song
Rookie mistake, this. For the same reason that you should avoid opening an album with your title track, opening the album on your greatest song sets the rest of the album up for disappointment as you'll never be able to reach that peak again. Granted that opinion is subjective and one fan's "best song ever" is another's "shitty sellout track" but there are some albums where you can tell the producer has singled out the strongest song to open a relatively dull or unimpressive album. On an unrelated note, here are some random albums!
Bark At The Moon - Ozzy Osbourne.
Redeemer Of Souls - Judas Priest.
Wasting Light - Foo Fighters.
Hidden City - The Cult.
The Ritual - Testament.
DON'T start with conversation/an outtake
Yes, I know I claimed "Kielbasa" - Tenacious D is a great album opener and yes, that starts with pointless conversation. However, I did claim that the rest of the song makes up for the weak intro and if it just started with the main melody, it'd be so much better. There are other album openers that contain a false start or a few seconds of pointless feedback/warming up, wasting time before the song starts, and those always hinder the listening experience. Sometimes album openers are a short tune that plays before the TRUE album opener ("The Hellion" before "Electric Eye", for example) and those are fine, provided they either don't go on too long or aren't too short to deserve their own track.
DON'T feel the need to show off right away
This is similar to an earlier point but applies more to individual band members. If the guitarist wants to push themselves and create a solo that will inspire young musicians for decades to come, they don't need to pack it into the first song if it doesn't fit. Start with a solo that's appropriate and write a song with an opulent three minute guitar odyssey for the second half of the album if that's what you want; just don't assume that if you have a point to prove as a new musician that it needs to be made in the first four minutes of the album.
I'm aware I still have a post to make up for and I am currently writing one that I'll publish when it's ready. For now, it's just one post for this week. Hope you enjoyed it!
Sunday, 24 April 2016
Metal Album Covers: Dos & Don'ts
Every now and then when I review an album on this blog, I dedicate a sentence or two to a particularly striking album cover. Modern Rock bands tend to go with photographs fresh from Baby's First Pretentious Instagram Post or maybe some soulless CGI guff that tries too hard to be impressive but no genre created a string of album covers fantastic enough to hang in a museum better than Heavy Metal.
I'm not saying the genre had a perfect track record but there's nothing quite like a damn good Metal album cover, hence why I'm focusing entirely on them for this post as opposed to album covers in general. However, despite my love for the genre's artwork, there are examples where the band or whoever pitched the idea to the artist should've thought it through a little more.
Time to look at some of the Dos & Don'ts of creating an awesome Metal album cover with a couple of examples of my personal favourites along the way, in case you care about that sort of trivia.
DO relate your cover to the content on the album
This might seem obvious but it's still worth noting. It doesn't have to be a concept album to have a cover related to the name or lyrical content of some of the tracks. Remember, if you thought the subject of one of your songs was strong enough to make it into a worthy title track, why couldn't it do the same for the album cover? It focuses the art so it actually belongs and doesn't just feel like a drawing that's cool for the sake of cool.
Not only that but it helps differentiate a career of striking artwork, compared to the Warpig collection of Motorhead album covers that are all but interchangeable. Sure, they look great in small spaced out doses but I challenge you to name the differences between Overkill, Another Perfect Day and Rock 'N' Roll without looking at pictures of them first.
DO base the work around one strong colour (usually blue or red)
The idea behind covers is that it needs to make the object stand out, whether it's for a book, DVD cover or incredible Metal album. The problem with album covers that use realistic photographs is that they blend in, whereas the album covers that perfectly combine realism in the drawings with the use of colour to make it stand out are almost always at the top of Greatest Metal Album Covers lists, or at least they should be.
Not convinced? Let's take a look at some other notable covers.
Point made.
DO try to shock
There's nothing wrong with safe album covers but if you want it to stand out and be truly awesome, you've got to make it eye-catching beyond colour. It's got to leave an impression and one surefire way to do that is to make it visually shocking. It'll make people more likely to give it a second and much longer glance, allowing them to take in the intricate details once the initial shock has faded.
Note that there's a difference between "shocking" and "offensive". Scorpions made this mistake when they released album covers featuring exposed breasts, military grave defiling and naked 12-year olds...consecutively.
DON'T hire a poor artist
No, I'm not saying this is poor and I'm not using poor in the financial sense. It's often quite hard to find information on the artists behind great album covers but most Metal fans will be able to tell you about Derek Riggs and Ed Repka, the artists who gave us Eddie The Head and Vic Rattlehead respectively. These guys create incredible works of art to match the art within the album sleeve itself. However, it's often quite hard to pinpoint what is and isn't great in the world of art...until now, anyway.
Take a look at the album cover above. Pretty fucking cool, huh. Now take a look at the cover below.
The difference is clear. One looks like something out of an acclaimed graphic novel, the other looks like it was painted on the side of a van known for being the only thing rape victims remember in their roofie-induced fugue.
Make sure you pick the right artist, especially in a day and age where it's not exactly hard to find amazingly talented individuals posting their work all over the Internet.
DON'T neglect your mascot
Some bands are known for using a character on their album covers such as The Guy, Murray or the aforementioned Vic Rattlehead. However, sometimes the band decides to take a break from their beloved mascot and goes in a completely different direction. Unfortunately, this new direction is often a worse one as proven by the album cover up above that looks like a bored teen drew it on their workbook in class.
I'm not entirely sure why bands would want to abandon their mascot when they've been established as an iconic unofficial band member, as the whole point of a mascot is to represent their music and image. Changing or even retiring them signifies a change to the band, something that fans are rarely ever happy with, and showing that with pride on the front of your album is a poor way to start the experience off.
Also, I'm aware that I had a pop at Motorhead album covers that use the mascot but my issue there isn't the use of Warpig; it's the lack of interesting designs other than "OOOFIERY-ESPLOSION!". I mean, just look at how many variants of Eddie The Head there have been in the 80's alone.
DON'T use real life photographs on the front
I'll admit that there are some exceptions to this, such as Diary Of A Madman and Vulgar Display Of Power, but real photography definitely feels more appropriate on the inner sleeve or back cover (unless it's a Southern Rock album, then real photography works). In the same way realistic gameplay can make a video game less fun, real life photography can limit what you can include on the artwork unless you decide to fuck it off and fill it with CGI anyway. Remember, this isn't a college photography assignment and just because it's black and white doesn't mean it's deep. It's a fucking Heavy Metal album cover, make it pack a punch!
There's something special about a meticulously detailed piece of artwork, something that just makes the album look like more care and attention has gone into making it awesome that a simple photograph can't even hope to match. Unfortunately, drawn artwork on album covers is now considered quite dated when compared to the average album cover from modern acts such as Avenged Sevenfold and Rob Zombie but thankfully, some new bands are still keeping the tradition alive.
Took me ages to find that last one but I'm glad I did!
So what do you think about Heavy Metal album covers? Did I miss a classic that deserves a shout-out or are there any Dos/Don'ts I neglected to mention? Let me know on Twitter or in the comment section.
Next week I'll try to post a review of the new Sixx:AM album, if I get round to listening to it.
I'm not saying the genre had a perfect track record but there's nothing quite like a damn good Metal album cover, hence why I'm focusing entirely on them for this post as opposed to album covers in general. However, despite my love for the genre's artwork, there are examples where the band or whoever pitched the idea to the artist should've thought it through a little more.
Time to look at some of the Dos & Don'ts of creating an awesome Metal album cover with a couple of examples of my personal favourites along the way, in case you care about that sort of trivia.
DO relate your cover to the content on the album
Not only that but it helps differentiate a career of striking artwork, compared to the Warpig collection of Motorhead album covers that are all but interchangeable. Sure, they look great in small spaced out doses but I challenge you to name the differences between Overkill, Another Perfect Day and Rock 'N' Roll without looking at pictures of them first.
DO base the work around one strong colour (usually blue or red)
The idea behind covers is that it needs to make the object stand out, whether it's for a book, DVD cover or incredible Metal album. The problem with album covers that use realistic photographs is that they blend in, whereas the album covers that perfectly combine realism in the drawings with the use of colour to make it stand out are almost always at the top of Greatest Metal Album Covers lists, or at least they should be.
Not convinced? Let's take a look at some other notable covers.
DO try to shock
There's nothing wrong with safe album covers but if you want it to stand out and be truly awesome, you've got to make it eye-catching beyond colour. It's got to leave an impression and one surefire way to do that is to make it visually shocking. It'll make people more likely to give it a second and much longer glance, allowing them to take in the intricate details once the initial shock has faded.
DON'T hire a poor artist
No, I'm not saying this is poor and I'm not using poor in the financial sense. It's often quite hard to find information on the artists behind great album covers but most Metal fans will be able to tell you about Derek Riggs and Ed Repka, the artists who gave us Eddie The Head and Vic Rattlehead respectively. These guys create incredible works of art to match the art within the album sleeve itself. However, it's often quite hard to pinpoint what is and isn't great in the world of art...until now, anyway.
Take a look at the album cover above. Pretty fucking cool, huh. Now take a look at the cover below.
The difference is clear. One looks like something out of an acclaimed graphic novel, the other looks like it was painted on the side of a van known for being the only thing rape victims remember in their roofie-induced fugue.
Make sure you pick the right artist, especially in a day and age where it's not exactly hard to find amazingly talented individuals posting their work all over the Internet.
DON'T neglect your mascot
Some bands are known for using a character on their album covers such as The Guy, Murray or the aforementioned Vic Rattlehead. However, sometimes the band decides to take a break from their beloved mascot and goes in a completely different direction. Unfortunately, this new direction is often a worse one as proven by the album cover up above that looks like a bored teen drew it on their workbook in class.
I'm not entirely sure why bands would want to abandon their mascot when they've been established as an iconic unofficial band member, as the whole point of a mascot is to represent their music and image. Changing or even retiring them signifies a change to the band, something that fans are rarely ever happy with, and showing that with pride on the front of your album is a poor way to start the experience off.
Also, I'm aware that I had a pop at Motorhead album covers that use the mascot but my issue there isn't the use of Warpig; it's the lack of interesting designs other than "OOOFIERY-ESPLOSION!". I mean, just look at how many variants of Eddie The Head there have been in the 80's alone.
DON'T use real life photographs on the front
I'll admit that there are some exceptions to this, such as Diary Of A Madman and Vulgar Display Of Power, but real photography definitely feels more appropriate on the inner sleeve or back cover (unless it's a Southern Rock album, then real photography works). In the same way realistic gameplay can make a video game less fun, real life photography can limit what you can include on the artwork unless you decide to fuck it off and fill it with CGI anyway. Remember, this isn't a college photography assignment and just because it's black and white doesn't mean it's deep. It's a fucking Heavy Metal album cover, make it pack a punch!
There's something special about a meticulously detailed piece of artwork, something that just makes the album look like more care and attention has gone into making it awesome that a simple photograph can't even hope to match. Unfortunately, drawn artwork on album covers is now considered quite dated when compared to the average album cover from modern acts such as Avenged Sevenfold and Rob Zombie but thankfully, some new bands are still keeping the tradition alive.
Took me ages to find that last one but I'm glad I did!
So what do you think about Heavy Metal album covers? Did I miss a classic that deserves a shout-out or are there any Dos/Don'ts I neglected to mention? Let me know on Twitter or in the comment section.
Next week I'll try to post a review of the new Sixx:AM album, if I get round to listening to it.
Saturday, 6 February 2016
Live Shows: Dos & Don'ts
Part of supporting your favourite bands comes down to seeing them play live whenever they go on a certain tour, whether it's to promote a new album or just to remind everyone that the frontman isn't dead yet. Most of the time, bands get it spot on. They come out, they rock the house and leave to play again another day. However, there are a few bands that manage to successfully fuck it up and it pains me to say that it's often the older bands that think they're too famous to make mistakes.
This blog post is designed to highlight the parts of live gigs that bands SHOULD and SHOULDN'T be allowed to get away with. As always, it's all opinion based but it'd be great if some bands guilty of the Don'ts take these on board before their next performance. Let me know if you're one of those bands or if you just agree/disagree with that I've said.
DO engage in banter with the audience between songs
It's not exactly the main reason people go to gigs but it's a great break in between songs if the band has a frontman with charisma. It can be as simple as telling them brief stories about songs or asking if any of them have been to one of their gigs before, as long as it's not just "Here's one of our songs. Here's another song. Thank you for having us. Here's our latest single". I would say that the banter should be kept outside of the songs but I saw The Darkness recently and they frequently stopped tracks to tell jokes and piss about with the audience. It actually made the show more entertaining than if they just came out and played a set, so I guess it can work on occasion. However, I doubt it'd go down well at a Genesis or Opeth gig.
DO pick a good warm-up band
I'm sure I've mentioned it on this blog before but I have a theory that only "old" bands have good warm-up acts. Any time I go to see a band that started around the 70's or 80's, they always get a great warm-up. Iron Maiden got Sweet Savage, Deep Purple got Cheap Trick, Judas Priest got Saxon. However, whenever I see a band that became popular within the last 10 years or so, the warm-up is ALWAYS terrible. The Darkness got some twats playing the same boring Blues song over and over, Tenacious D got an annoying cunt dressed as a Sasquatch who thought he was incredible, Muse got about three different Indie acts who rocked about as hard as a used snot rag.
I'm not saying that bands like Royal Blood could get AC/DC as their opening act but surely there are better bands than all the ones that seem to be picked. I should also mention that sometimes older bands do pick shitty warm-ups, like the one before Motley Crue and Alice Cooper. I suppose the message here should probably be Don't Pick Bands Your Kids Like/You're Mates With If They Sound Nothing Like Your Music.
DO play an encore
I suppose I should add "unless the audience fucking hate you" but assuming the show goes well and the audience give you well deserved applause at the end, an encore is a must for any headline act. Not sure how many songs to perform? It's always 2 or 3, but here's a handy guide detailing the quantity of tracks played and a translation of what it represents:
No songs/encore: "We couldn't be fucked to do the thing that's kind of expected from every band by now because we don't care about you as a paying audience".
1 song: "There, we've done your precious encore. Now fuck off so we can go home".
2-3 songs: "Thank you, have a great night! We certainly did!"
4+ songs: "We could've included these in the main show but decided to include crap off our recent albums instead and had to put a bunch of tracks you wanted to hear after the main show finished".
2nd encore: "AREN'T WE THE GREATEST BAND IN THE WORLD?! TELL US HOW GREAT WE ARE SO WE CAN MASTURBATE SOME MORE!!"
DON'T neglect fan favourites
I can understand the reasoning behind bands choosing to omit some of their signature songs after decades of playing them. However, these bands need to remember that some of their fans will be experiencing them playing live for the first time. Sure, the venue will contain seasoned concert-goers but some of those will be bringing their kids along and some of them may even be adults who have recently discovered their music thanks to Spotify or some other music streaming service. They may have better songs but part of seeing a band live IS hearing at least one of their big songs performed there in person.
Bands that decide to cut songs that audiences love to hear just because they're bored of playing them or want to swap them out for new singles that they're plugging have forgotten the main reason they're playing live in the first place, or at least the reason they should be playing. It's understandable if the band doesn't enjoy playing 30-year old songs anymore but I'm pretty sure they can stomach one song in a 90 minute set.
DON'T make the audience do all the work
We've all heard anecdotes about bands/frontmen who get the audience to sing along for the majority of the chorus, the kind of egotistical twats who can only get off when they hear a stadium full of fans chanting their name or lyrics. In fact, it's probable that most of us have been to those gigs. For me, it was a Judas Priest gig where Rob Halford sung literally none of "Breaking The Law". I paid to hear a talented Metal vocalist sing the song, not a stadium full of drunk wankers! Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with the vocalist pointing the mic towards the crowd every now and then, especially if the audience are as loud as the band anyway. My problem is vocalists who do it for every bloody line.
DON'T get cute with your performance
I'll admit that I could be in the minority here but when I see a band live, I want to hear them playing the song off the album. I don't want to hear them playing a new solo, I don't want to hear them trying something new with the vocals and I definitely don't want to hear a fucking acoustic rendition just so the drummer can have a piss. There are some examples where adding some backing vocalists or maybe speeding the tempo up slightly can improve the song but when bands actively think "Hey, let's try something different with this one" and experiment by mixing another song into the middle of it (e.g. Whitesnake covering Deep Purple's "Burn" with "Stormbringer" clumsily wedged in the middle or David Coverdale/Glen Hughes screeching "AH! AH! AH! AH!" before the solos), it sounds less like a band performing for a crowd and more like a band performing for themselves so they don't get bored.
Coming soon: REVIEWS! There's quite a few albums coming out this month so if you want to read lots of reviews on here, keep checking back every weekend! If you want me to write other posts, request some on Twitter or the comment section!
This blog post is designed to highlight the parts of live gigs that bands SHOULD and SHOULDN'T be allowed to get away with. As always, it's all opinion based but it'd be great if some bands guilty of the Don'ts take these on board before their next performance. Let me know if you're one of those bands or if you just agree/disagree with that I've said.
DO engage in banter with the audience between songs
It's not exactly the main reason people go to gigs but it's a great break in between songs if the band has a frontman with charisma. It can be as simple as telling them brief stories about songs or asking if any of them have been to one of their gigs before, as long as it's not just "Here's one of our songs. Here's another song. Thank you for having us. Here's our latest single". I would say that the banter should be kept outside of the songs but I saw The Darkness recently and they frequently stopped tracks to tell jokes and piss about with the audience. It actually made the show more entertaining than if they just came out and played a set, so I guess it can work on occasion. However, I doubt it'd go down well at a Genesis or Opeth gig.
DO pick a good warm-up band
I'm sure I've mentioned it on this blog before but I have a theory that only "old" bands have good warm-up acts. Any time I go to see a band that started around the 70's or 80's, they always get a great warm-up. Iron Maiden got Sweet Savage, Deep Purple got Cheap Trick, Judas Priest got Saxon. However, whenever I see a band that became popular within the last 10 years or so, the warm-up is ALWAYS terrible. The Darkness got some twats playing the same boring Blues song over and over, Tenacious D got an annoying cunt dressed as a Sasquatch who thought he was incredible, Muse got about three different Indie acts who rocked about as hard as a used snot rag.
I'm not saying that bands like Royal Blood could get AC/DC as their opening act but surely there are better bands than all the ones that seem to be picked. I should also mention that sometimes older bands do pick shitty warm-ups, like the one before Motley Crue and Alice Cooper. I suppose the message here should probably be Don't Pick Bands Your Kids Like/You're Mates With If They Sound Nothing Like Your Music.
DO play an encore
I suppose I should add "unless the audience fucking hate you" but assuming the show goes well and the audience give you well deserved applause at the end, an encore is a must for any headline act. Not sure how many songs to perform? It's always 2 or 3, but here's a handy guide detailing the quantity of tracks played and a translation of what it represents:
No songs/encore: "We couldn't be fucked to do the thing that's kind of expected from every band by now because we don't care about you as a paying audience".
1 song: "There, we've done your precious encore. Now fuck off so we can go home".
2-3 songs: "Thank you, have a great night! We certainly did!"
4+ songs: "We could've included these in the main show but decided to include crap off our recent albums instead and had to put a bunch of tracks you wanted to hear after the main show finished".
2nd encore: "AREN'T WE THE GREATEST BAND IN THE WORLD?! TELL US HOW GREAT WE ARE SO WE CAN MASTURBATE SOME MORE!!"
DON'T neglect fan favourites
I can understand the reasoning behind bands choosing to omit some of their signature songs after decades of playing them. However, these bands need to remember that some of their fans will be experiencing them playing live for the first time. Sure, the venue will contain seasoned concert-goers but some of those will be bringing their kids along and some of them may even be adults who have recently discovered their music thanks to Spotify or some other music streaming service. They may have better songs but part of seeing a band live IS hearing at least one of their big songs performed there in person.
Bands that decide to cut songs that audiences love to hear just because they're bored of playing them or want to swap them out for new singles that they're plugging have forgotten the main reason they're playing live in the first place, or at least the reason they should be playing. It's understandable if the band doesn't enjoy playing 30-year old songs anymore but I'm pretty sure they can stomach one song in a 90 minute set.
DON'T make the audience do all the work
We've all heard anecdotes about bands/frontmen who get the audience to sing along for the majority of the chorus, the kind of egotistical twats who can only get off when they hear a stadium full of fans chanting their name or lyrics. In fact, it's probable that most of us have been to those gigs. For me, it was a Judas Priest gig where Rob Halford sung literally none of "Breaking The Law". I paid to hear a talented Metal vocalist sing the song, not a stadium full of drunk wankers! Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with the vocalist pointing the mic towards the crowd every now and then, especially if the audience are as loud as the band anyway. My problem is vocalists who do it for every bloody line.
DON'T get cute with your performance
I'll admit that I could be in the minority here but when I see a band live, I want to hear them playing the song off the album. I don't want to hear them playing a new solo, I don't want to hear them trying something new with the vocals and I definitely don't want to hear a fucking acoustic rendition just so the drummer can have a piss. There are some examples where adding some backing vocalists or maybe speeding the tempo up slightly can improve the song but when bands actively think "Hey, let's try something different with this one" and experiment by mixing another song into the middle of it (e.g. Whitesnake covering Deep Purple's "Burn" with "Stormbringer" clumsily wedged in the middle or David Coverdale/Glen Hughes screeching "AH! AH! AH! AH!" before the solos), it sounds less like a band performing for a crowd and more like a band performing for themselves so they don't get bored.
Coming soon: REVIEWS! There's quite a few albums coming out this month so if you want to read lots of reviews on here, keep checking back every weekend! If you want me to write other posts, request some on Twitter or the comment section!
Sunday, 29 November 2015
Music Videos: Dos & Don'ts
DISCLAIMER: This post has been a bit of a rush (as I forgot to prepare a post this week) so I apologise if the standard is a little shitty.
Music Videos are definitely more of a Pop staple than a Rock one but ever since MTV's birth in the early 80's and the rise of the Hair Metal genre, Rock and Metal bands have been releasing music videos to promote their material for the last three decades. Some are straightforward performance based ones, some are more narrative with a clear story to them and others are purely conceptual with random ideas thrown together to make a fun abstract video to watch.
However, just like anything that requires talent or imagination to make, there are plenty of opportunities to go wrong. In this post, I'll be listing some of the Dos and Don'ts of how to make a decent Rock/Metal music video. As is always the case with Dos & Don'ts posts on this blog, my writing is almost entirely opinion based with a few facts thrown in. If you have any feedback or suggestions regarding the Dos and Don'ts of Music Videos, let me know in the comment section.
DO choreograph it properly
This is the kind of thing 11-year olds whose Youtube accounts consist of hundreds of videos of them playing video games with Linkin Park in the background completely fail to do so bands have no fucking excuse. Regardless of what's happening in your video, make damn sure that it fits in with the music. Cut to a different camera before or after a significant part of the song, slide your explosive special effects in during an explosive part of the song, have some fun with it for Christ's sake.
DO keep most of the song intact
I can understand the need for editing tracks to make them more suitable for promotion but if you have to hack apart a song so much that you're removing more than 90 seconds of it, you've picked a bad song to release as a single. I also can't understand the logic in trimming a track by a few seconds, as it seems like an unnecessary change to make. A song should be something that band has written with meaning, not just as a tool to make shitloads of cash. If a band are comfortable with heavily cutting up something they've created like a slab of donner meat in a kebab shop, chances are they don't give a shit about their own music and are likely only in it for the money/fame, hence the music video.
DO make it impressive
The best music videos are easily the ones that are memorable, that leave you wanting to watch it again regardless of your opinion towards the song. In fact, if a music video is THAT impressive, it might make you enjoy the song purely through positive association. If you're making a performance video, don't just have the band standing about playing like it's an ordinary rehearsal. If you're making a narrative video, tell a great story that's made even better with the song as a soundtrack. If you're making a conceptual video, make it stand out; don't just be weird for the sake of weird, be weird with style.
DON'T interrupt your song
Modern Pop-Rock/Alternative bands have a habit of doing this and it's bloody annoying. You'll be listening to the song, enjoying yourself and the video that you're watching, and the band decide to pause whatever's happening just for a shitty joke or self-indulgent moment. It ruins any kind of pacing in both the music and video, something that younger bands seem more inclined to do as opposed to older Rock/Metal acts that give a bigger shit about the quality of their music.
DON'T let your ego get out of control
Basically any video that has one or more of the band surrounded by women. It's bad enough when the band think "Hey, let's make a video showing a crowd of fans going mental over us", it's even worse when they imply the crowd are so into the show that they're ready to be fucked by whoever puts their instrument down first. This also includes music videos that show the band living out some kind of non-sexual fantasy like being superheroes or something, since being Rock Stars apparently isn't enough for these guys. I want to be entertained, not watch some arseholes entertaining themselves. It's the equivalent of vocalists who get the audience to sing most of the song at gigs.
DON'T underestimate a simple idea
You can throw a huge sum of money at a project without any drive or passion and it'll end up as a soulless piece of shit. Money doesn't automatically make something good, it merely makes a good thing better provided enough care goes into it. There are music videos that cost barely anything to make and are more iconic than any big-budget piece, partly down to the simplicity of it...that and it being amusing or impressive, as I said before. The point is a big expensive video can be cool but so can a cheap yet creative one. Don't overlook this just because you want to swing your dick about with a multi-million dollar advert.
Apologies again for the lateness of this post. If you have any ideas or requests for me, feel free to either use the comment section or Twitter!
Music Videos are definitely more of a Pop staple than a Rock one but ever since MTV's birth in the early 80's and the rise of the Hair Metal genre, Rock and Metal bands have been releasing music videos to promote their material for the last three decades. Some are straightforward performance based ones, some are more narrative with a clear story to them and others are purely conceptual with random ideas thrown together to make a fun abstract video to watch.
However, just like anything that requires talent or imagination to make, there are plenty of opportunities to go wrong. In this post, I'll be listing some of the Dos and Don'ts of how to make a decent Rock/Metal music video. As is always the case with Dos & Don'ts posts on this blog, my writing is almost entirely opinion based with a few facts thrown in. If you have any feedback or suggestions regarding the Dos and Don'ts of Music Videos, let me know in the comment section.
DO choreograph it properly
This is the kind of thing 11-year olds whose Youtube accounts consist of hundreds of videos of them playing video games with Linkin Park in the background completely fail to do so bands have no fucking excuse. Regardless of what's happening in your video, make damn sure that it fits in with the music. Cut to a different camera before or after a significant part of the song, slide your explosive special effects in during an explosive part of the song, have some fun with it for Christ's sake.
DO keep most of the song intact
I can understand the need for editing tracks to make them more suitable for promotion but if you have to hack apart a song so much that you're removing more than 90 seconds of it, you've picked a bad song to release as a single. I also can't understand the logic in trimming a track by a few seconds, as it seems like an unnecessary change to make. A song should be something that band has written with meaning, not just as a tool to make shitloads of cash. If a band are comfortable with heavily cutting up something they've created like a slab of donner meat in a kebab shop, chances are they don't give a shit about their own music and are likely only in it for the money/fame, hence the music video.
DO make it impressive
The best music videos are easily the ones that are memorable, that leave you wanting to watch it again regardless of your opinion towards the song. In fact, if a music video is THAT impressive, it might make you enjoy the song purely through positive association. If you're making a performance video, don't just have the band standing about playing like it's an ordinary rehearsal. If you're making a narrative video, tell a great story that's made even better with the song as a soundtrack. If you're making a conceptual video, make it stand out; don't just be weird for the sake of weird, be weird with style.
DON'T interrupt your song
Modern Pop-Rock/Alternative bands have a habit of doing this and it's bloody annoying. You'll be listening to the song, enjoying yourself and the video that you're watching, and the band decide to pause whatever's happening just for a shitty joke or self-indulgent moment. It ruins any kind of pacing in both the music and video, something that younger bands seem more inclined to do as opposed to older Rock/Metal acts that give a bigger shit about the quality of their music.
DON'T let your ego get out of control
Basically any video that has one or more of the band surrounded by women. It's bad enough when the band think "Hey, let's make a video showing a crowd of fans going mental over us", it's even worse when they imply the crowd are so into the show that they're ready to be fucked by whoever puts their instrument down first. This also includes music videos that show the band living out some kind of non-sexual fantasy like being superheroes or something, since being Rock Stars apparently isn't enough for these guys. I want to be entertained, not watch some arseholes entertaining themselves. It's the equivalent of vocalists who get the audience to sing most of the song at gigs.
DON'T underestimate a simple idea
You can throw a huge sum of money at a project without any drive or passion and it'll end up as a soulless piece of shit. Money doesn't automatically make something good, it merely makes a good thing better provided enough care goes into it. There are music videos that cost barely anything to make and are more iconic than any big-budget piece, partly down to the simplicity of it...that and it being amusing or impressive, as I said before. The point is a big expensive video can be cool but so can a cheap yet creative one. Don't overlook this just because you want to swing your dick about with a multi-million dollar advert.
Apologies again for the lateness of this post. If you have any ideas or requests for me, feel free to either use the comment section or Twitter!
Tuesday, 16 June 2015
Radio DJs: Dos & Don'ts
With services like Spotify taking over, it's unlikely that radio is the best way to discover music now. However, just because it's being usurped by new technology doesn't mean it's dead or even dying. In fact thanks to technology, the number of radio stations has increased since the early days, allowing dedicated stations for various genres. Whether you're into Pop, Rock, Hip-Hop, Free-Form Jazz or a mixture, there's bound to be at least one or two stations out there for you.
However, with each station, there are a band of DJs in charge of the music you get to hear and how you get to hear it. Sometimes, this adds extra entertainment and keeps you hooked long after you intended to turn the radio off. Unfortunately, it can also do the exact opposite and send you crawling back to whatever activity you were doing before you tuned in. With that in mind, here's a blog post for any aspiring radio DJs and avid radio listeners. Before you go in expecting a serious list of rules for broadcasting, I've left some of the genuine Dos & Don'ts out such as "DO speak clearly" and "DON'T swear".
As always with the Dos & Don'ts posts, this is a collection of opinions but I'd be interested to hear yours. Yes, you. Person reading now. If you agree with the majority of this post, let me know. If you think I'm talking out my arse, still let me know (although it'd be more helpful to know why I'm talking out my arse as well). Anyway, let the content commence!
DO play a variety of music
Nobody tunes into a radio station to hear one band or one song over & over. I'm not saying play a variety of genres on specific genre stations, but do pick a wide selection of tunes to play throughout your show. If you've played a lot of older songs, throw some new ones in there. Likewise, if you've played a load of songs from the last couple of decades, stick something from the 60's or 70's in there to attract people who perhaps aren't into modern music. Same for subgenres too, if you've played a lot of generic Hard Rock, maybe spice it up with the odd Punk or Prog tune.
I'm aware some shows are centred around specific decades or genres but even in those same categories, there's always an element of variety to be found if you search hard enough. Tom Petty and Queen are both Classic Rock bands with popular tunes from the 70's and 80's. Do they sound exactly the same? Nope! So with that in mind, pick music that doesn't homogenise your timeslot.
DO give us the name of the song and band you've just played
I feel like I shouldn't even have to say this as it's painfully obvious but the number of times radio DJs have forgotten this basic rule proves otherwise. Always, always, ALWAYS reveal the song and band after the song has finished or if you're playing several tracks in a row, list them when you start talking again. Keeping quiet makes it unnecessarily difficult to find the song afterwards and unless the listener has Shazam, they have to do that thing where they remember a certain lyric in the song & Google the phrase when they're in a place with an Internet connection. If you've ever made a listener do that, you lose 50 DJ points.
Sometimes DJs just do that cryptic shit ("Coming up, we've got a song by a band formed in the 90's and was released when I bought a new car and used in phone adverts the following years and rhymes with my favourite fruit..."), which only benefits people who know that piece of useless trivia, and sometimes they just give you the band. Notice I've said "name of the song AND band". It's not enough giving us one or the other, it has to be both!
DO more than just play music
There's a reason specific DJs and personalities have been hired to lead a show. Whether it's down to their encyclopedic knowledge of music facts, their personal well of stories regarding bands they'll be playing or their winning charisma and ability to speak in a way that's pleasing to listen to, they've been asked to do this job above any random bloke on the street. Any idiot can list their favourite songs and press 'shuffle', literally fucking anyone. It takes a bit more talent to mix humour & maybe some food for thought into the recipe without stumbling over repeated "Ummms" and "Uhhhs", like your average prick propped up against a bar telling his mates about last night's Game Of Thrones.
If you've been given a timeslot, you better find some anecdotes or interactive sections for the listeners to get involved in. Contests, opinion polls, even gimmicks like Simon Mayo's "Middle-Aged Mid-Week Mosh" on BBC Radio 2 (which also throws some variety in for good measure), it makes a difference. Playing music alone is fine but it also means your job can be done by an intern or other DJ, which means it WILL be done by an intern or other DJ at some point down the line. Make your show unique & give people a reason to want you in charge. With this in mind, just make sure you don't go overboard, bringing us neatly onto...
DON'T put your ego above the music
A good show includes great music and contributions from the DJ, although music should always take priority. About 90% of the time, the chat should be based around the music and not the other way around. This is why DJs who think they're the star and people only want to hear them are complete wankers. DJs who stroke their dick by only reading out letters/texts praising them unconditionally, DJs who only ever play their favourite music or the same song by a band with a wealthy back catalogue, DJs who have an entourage of dipshits with them in the studio purely tasked with the job of making said DJ seem funny, these are all signs of a typical shit DJ.
However, the worst thing they can do which trumps all those previous sins? Talking over a song.
If you've ever cut a song short just to chat over it or played a good chunk of the intro underneath your own voice, you are a Lord of shit DJs. In case you're wondering when it's OK to talk, wait until a song starts to fade. Once you can clearly hear the music getting quieter (and it's not a false fade, otherwise talking then makes you look like you don't know shit about music), feel free to chatter away...provided you remember to name drop the song and band.
DON'T play too much live music
Similar to compilation albums, live music should mostly be used as a last resort on the radio. If you can't acquire the original version of a song or perhaps you've dedicated part of your show to live music/covers, choosing a live song is acceptable. However, not tipping a delivery boy who's only driven round the corner to bring you your dinner is also acceptable, but that doesn't mean he's happy about it. For the most part, live songs are for specific fans and unless you enjoy the sound of applause/cheering peppered throughout, they're often alternate versions of tracks that already exist in much greater quality.
The only live song I can think of which is generally considered by all to be superior to the studio recording is "Do You Feel Like We Do" - Peter Frampton but you'd have to be fucking high to play all 13 minutes of that on the radio. Live songs can be better than or equal to studio recordings which is why I've written "Don't PLAY TOO MUCH" of it. The odd live song here & there (as in one or less per show) if it's a particularly good recording isn't worth getting annoyed over. However, DJs repeatedly playing live songs because either a) they were at the gig(s) or b) they personally prefer those recordings are worth your irritation.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say they're worth turning the radio off and tuning in again once their show has finished.
DON'T be a whore
"That was the latest track from Muse off their new album that's still at the top of the charts, and with good reason too. God, those guys are fantastic live. Definitely one of the best modern bands touring at the moment. If you want to get tickets to see them, they go on sale this weekend and pre-sale on Friday. I definitely recommend it as they've done some fantastic shows in the past!"
See that dialogue up there? Yeah, that's what a whore sounds like.
We get it, you like a band. Talk about how their albums are great and maybe pepper it with some song or artist trivia, that's all fine as long as it's related to the actual music on their CDs. But when you start plugging stuff that the radio station isn't affiliated with like tour dates, merchandise, even solo stuff from members of the band ranging from autobiographies to exotic drinks, you start to sound like a whore (or worse, a gushing fanboy).
I know radio stations occasionally have agreements with the band to plug their tour dates if the band is doing something special for the station, e.g. one of the members is taking over as a DJ for a week, the band are being interviewed on air, etc, and in those cases, mentioning things that the band are trying to sell has to happen. It's advertising, plain and simple, and I'd rather the ads relate to music than fucking PPI claims. With that in mind, if the band have asked you to give shout outs to their new line of bath soaps and towels in exchange for an exclusive play of their new single, that reflects poorly on the band as sell-outs, not the DJ.
However, plugging a new workout DVD from Brian May or brand of pain relief medication from Rob Halford when those musicians have no involvement with the station makes it look like the DJ is either taking a bit of extra cash on the side for the odd mention here & there or is trying to brown nose artists for any of several reasons. In other words, it makes them a whore and nobody wants to listen to one on the radio...unless it's during Howard Stern's show.
One more post this month and then we'll be onto July. So far, so good with the weekly updates!
However, with each station, there are a band of DJs in charge of the music you get to hear and how you get to hear it. Sometimes, this adds extra entertainment and keeps you hooked long after you intended to turn the radio off. Unfortunately, it can also do the exact opposite and send you crawling back to whatever activity you were doing before you tuned in. With that in mind, here's a blog post for any aspiring radio DJs and avid radio listeners. Before you go in expecting a serious list of rules for broadcasting, I've left some of the genuine Dos & Don'ts out such as "DO speak clearly" and "DON'T swear".
As always with the Dos & Don'ts posts, this is a collection of opinions but I'd be interested to hear yours. Yes, you. Person reading now. If you agree with the majority of this post, let me know. If you think I'm talking out my arse, still let me know (although it'd be more helpful to know why I'm talking out my arse as well). Anyway, let the content commence!
DO play a variety of music
Nobody tunes into a radio station to hear one band or one song over & over. I'm not saying play a variety of genres on specific genre stations, but do pick a wide selection of tunes to play throughout your show. If you've played a lot of older songs, throw some new ones in there. Likewise, if you've played a load of songs from the last couple of decades, stick something from the 60's or 70's in there to attract people who perhaps aren't into modern music. Same for subgenres too, if you've played a lot of generic Hard Rock, maybe spice it up with the odd Punk or Prog tune.
I'm aware some shows are centred around specific decades or genres but even in those same categories, there's always an element of variety to be found if you search hard enough. Tom Petty and Queen are both Classic Rock bands with popular tunes from the 70's and 80's. Do they sound exactly the same? Nope! So with that in mind, pick music that doesn't homogenise your timeslot.
DO give us the name of the song and band you've just played
I feel like I shouldn't even have to say this as it's painfully obvious but the number of times radio DJs have forgotten this basic rule proves otherwise. Always, always, ALWAYS reveal the song and band after the song has finished or if you're playing several tracks in a row, list them when you start talking again. Keeping quiet makes it unnecessarily difficult to find the song afterwards and unless the listener has Shazam, they have to do that thing where they remember a certain lyric in the song & Google the phrase when they're in a place with an Internet connection. If you've ever made a listener do that, you lose 50 DJ points.
Sometimes DJs just do that cryptic shit ("Coming up, we've got a song by a band formed in the 90's and was released when I bought a new car and used in phone adverts the following years and rhymes with my favourite fruit..."), which only benefits people who know that piece of useless trivia, and sometimes they just give you the band. Notice I've said "name of the song AND band". It's not enough giving us one or the other, it has to be both!
DO more than just play music
There's a reason specific DJs and personalities have been hired to lead a show. Whether it's down to their encyclopedic knowledge of music facts, their personal well of stories regarding bands they'll be playing or their winning charisma and ability to speak in a way that's pleasing to listen to, they've been asked to do this job above any random bloke on the street. Any idiot can list their favourite songs and press 'shuffle', literally fucking anyone. It takes a bit more talent to mix humour & maybe some food for thought into the recipe without stumbling over repeated "Ummms" and "Uhhhs", like your average prick propped up against a bar telling his mates about last night's Game Of Thrones.
If you've been given a timeslot, you better find some anecdotes or interactive sections for the listeners to get involved in. Contests, opinion polls, even gimmicks like Simon Mayo's "Middle-Aged Mid-Week Mosh" on BBC Radio 2 (which also throws some variety in for good measure), it makes a difference. Playing music alone is fine but it also means your job can be done by an intern or other DJ, which means it WILL be done by an intern or other DJ at some point down the line. Make your show unique & give people a reason to want you in charge. With this in mind, just make sure you don't go overboard, bringing us neatly onto...
DON'T put your ego above the music
A good show includes great music and contributions from the DJ, although music should always take priority. About 90% of the time, the chat should be based around the music and not the other way around. This is why DJs who think they're the star and people only want to hear them are complete wankers. DJs who stroke their dick by only reading out letters/texts praising them unconditionally, DJs who only ever play their favourite music or the same song by a band with a wealthy back catalogue, DJs who have an entourage of dipshits with them in the studio purely tasked with the job of making said DJ seem funny, these are all signs of a typical shit DJ.
However, the worst thing they can do which trumps all those previous sins? Talking over a song.
If you've ever cut a song short just to chat over it or played a good chunk of the intro underneath your own voice, you are a Lord of shit DJs. In case you're wondering when it's OK to talk, wait until a song starts to fade. Once you can clearly hear the music getting quieter (and it's not a false fade, otherwise talking then makes you look like you don't know shit about music), feel free to chatter away...provided you remember to name drop the song and band.
DON'T play too much live music
Similar to compilation albums, live music should mostly be used as a last resort on the radio. If you can't acquire the original version of a song or perhaps you've dedicated part of your show to live music/covers, choosing a live song is acceptable. However, not tipping a delivery boy who's only driven round the corner to bring you your dinner is also acceptable, but that doesn't mean he's happy about it. For the most part, live songs are for specific fans and unless you enjoy the sound of applause/cheering peppered throughout, they're often alternate versions of tracks that already exist in much greater quality.
The only live song I can think of which is generally considered by all to be superior to the studio recording is "Do You Feel Like We Do" - Peter Frampton but you'd have to be fucking high to play all 13 minutes of that on the radio. Live songs can be better than or equal to studio recordings which is why I've written "Don't PLAY TOO MUCH" of it. The odd live song here & there (as in one or less per show) if it's a particularly good recording isn't worth getting annoyed over. However, DJs repeatedly playing live songs because either a) they were at the gig(s) or b) they personally prefer those recordings are worth your irritation.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say they're worth turning the radio off and tuning in again once their show has finished.
DON'T be a whore
"That was the latest track from Muse off their new album that's still at the top of the charts, and with good reason too. God, those guys are fantastic live. Definitely one of the best modern bands touring at the moment. If you want to get tickets to see them, they go on sale this weekend and pre-sale on Friday. I definitely recommend it as they've done some fantastic shows in the past!"
See that dialogue up there? Yeah, that's what a whore sounds like.
We get it, you like a band. Talk about how their albums are great and maybe pepper it with some song or artist trivia, that's all fine as long as it's related to the actual music on their CDs. But when you start plugging stuff that the radio station isn't affiliated with like tour dates, merchandise, even solo stuff from members of the band ranging from autobiographies to exotic drinks, you start to sound like a whore (or worse, a gushing fanboy).
I know radio stations occasionally have agreements with the band to plug their tour dates if the band is doing something special for the station, e.g. one of the members is taking over as a DJ for a week, the band are being interviewed on air, etc, and in those cases, mentioning things that the band are trying to sell has to happen. It's advertising, plain and simple, and I'd rather the ads relate to music than fucking PPI claims. With that in mind, if the band have asked you to give shout outs to their new line of bath soaps and towels in exchange for an exclusive play of their new single, that reflects poorly on the band as sell-outs, not the DJ.
However, plugging a new workout DVD from Brian May or brand of pain relief medication from Rob Halford when those musicians have no involvement with the station makes it look like the DJ is either taking a bit of extra cash on the side for the odd mention here & there or is trying to brown nose artists for any of several reasons. In other words, it makes them a whore and nobody wants to listen to one on the radio...unless it's during Howard Stern's show.
One more post this month and then we'll be onto July. So far, so good with the weekly updates!
Thursday, 30 April 2015
Guitar Solos: Dos & Don'ts
We all love a good guitar solo. Even if you're not particularly fond of Rock music as a genre, chances are you can appreciate a well placed, well structured solo.
However, it's easier than you may think to balls up a solo in the middle of a great song. It's not a cardinal sin but it's definitely the difference between your Free Birds and your I Want To Break Frees. Much like my piece detailing Dos and Don'ts of Compilation Albums, this post will look at the highs and lows of some solos along with common misconceptions and perhaps even a few underrated gems.
Naturally, you may disagree with some of my opinions regarding good/bad solos but hopefully, you'll agree with the points I'm trying to make about solos in general. Right, here we go!
DO get the first few notes right
It doesn't matter if you've got the next Hendrix playing lead and he reckons it's his magnum opus, if he gets those first few notes wrong then he may as well not bother. In fact, that's probably why the solo for "One Vision" - Queen is so short and shitty, because Brian May fucked up before it even began. Anyway, getting back on topic, this is quite a simple step but that doesn't mean it can't go wrong. "(Don't Fear) The Reaper" - Blue Oyster Cult is one of the few songs where I prefer the radio edit with the solo omitted and why's that? The dodgy start to the solo.
You're probably sat there thinking "But musical taste is subjective, how can you define what is and isn't a good start to a solo?" Good point. It's tough to define something that's around about 90% personal taste but the rule still applies. Don't be one of those few bands who mess up at the first hurdle, even though it probably won't affect the rest of the song provided it has a hell of a good riff to fall back on.
DO let your solo last the right amount of time
I would say a good solo lasts approximately the length of a verse and a chorus but there are many exceptions which are either longer or shorter than that combination. However, they still abode by this rule and found just the right amount of time to last before returning to the song. If your solo is too short, it may feel like all the build-up has been a waste of time, e.g. "Pull Me Under" - Dream Theater or "Master Of Puppets" - Metallica, whereas a solo that goes on and fucking on can be considered arrogant like the guitarist is just polishing his cock up and down the fretboard for his own ego, e.g. "Stranglehold" - Ted Nugent.
Compare these songs to others that have nailed the time frame for their instrumental. "Catch Your Train" - Scorpions is a tidy 22 seconds but considering the amount of work that's going on throughout the entire song, it's a perfect example of getting it just right in a designated solo-slot. Also "Wanted Dead Or Alive" - Bon Jovi. Bursts in after the second chorus and takes you neatly onto the third without disturbing the rhythm.
DO more than just "shred"
So many aspiring guitarists or young fans of the genre seem to think that the more complicated and furious a solo sounds, the better it is. Yeah, it demonstrates technical know-how but that means sweet F.A if you can't tie it together with a great melody and some self-control. Whilst these mental solos may be fun to play on Guitar Hero, they often fail to make Top 10 lists written by anyone above the age of 15. That being said, shredding is always welcome provided it doesn't make 100% of the solo.
Take "Rainbow In The Dark" - Dio, a song which goes all out and damn near busts a nut during the middle of the solo. However, it still takes a breather every now and then to replace a clusterfuck of notes with actual music. Compare this to the work of Orianthi or rather two of her more popular songs "According To You" and "Suffocated". The soloing is bland, soulless and there for the sake of it, not because it adds any power or depth to the song. They're also what I call "Roofie Solos" in that after listening to it, you can't remember anything that happened...all you know is that you've been screwed.
DON'T prematurely blow your load
OK, so we've established that you can show off your skills during your solo. Do you break straight into shredding like a greyhound at a track?
NO! Christ, no!
Build up to the shredding, give the listener a chance to grow accustomed to the sound of your guitar before you start wailing on them. There are plenty of songs with excellent solos that get progressively more intense until they peak, simmer down and return to the song again. To name a few:
"My Sharona" - The Knack
"Tornado Of Souls" - Megadeth
"A Farewell To Kings" - Rush
"Hitch A Ride" - Boston
Those are just some examples of songs with great solos that start out small before escalating towards greatness. How about some songs that do the complete opposite and go out guns blazing in the first bar, leaving the solo nowhere else to go and therefore plateauing at the worst possible part:
"Crazy Train" - Ozzy Osbourne
"Mr Crowley" - Ozzy Osbourne
"Believer" - Ozzy Osbourne
OK, so you get the picture. I've made my thoughts about Randy Rhoads clear as day on this blog and he's definitely at the top of the list of guitarists who get away with this shite.
DON'T recycle your material
Writing a good solo must be pretty difficult, presumably explaining why a lot of mainstream modern Hard Rock bands tend to skip them altogether. I can understand why some guitarists who are perhaps lacking the same imagination and talent as their idols resort to using similar riffs, hooks and/or licks across different songs. This especially applies to ones who are currently on their 12th album and have likely been told by a producer to listen to their older material and original influences to help catch the fire that they once had or some tosh.
However, what I can't understand is why some guitarists not only get away with but also feel happy knowing that they've recycled elements of a solo they've already used. If Randy Rhoads was the representative of the last item on this list, Joel O'Keeffe of Airbourne is the champion of this one. Even without trying, you'll stumble across songs on their second album, No Guts No Glory, starting with the same 2-3 sustain notes before breaking into a shred and some songs even have the same shredding pattern ("Born To Kill", "Raise The Flag" and "Back On The Bottle" to name a few).
Granted there are several solos that are slightly different, even if they are similar to OTHER solos he's recorded, and technically all of them are well played and fun to listen to but it still feels cheap as if he wanted to rush through the creative process regardless of how good the songs actually were. Besides, if other bands can come up with amazing solos several decades after their first album, it just shits on the quality of a group who have run out of ideas just over five years into their career*.
DON'T just repeat the vocal melody on guitar
So the last point was about not reusing material and this point is also about not reusing material, yes I recognise the irony or hypocrisy or whatever you want to call it. However, I still feel they deserve their own subheadings. Both are examples of laziness in songwriting whereas this adds even less to the song. At least an existing solo might work better with the other track or introduce the listener to a brilliant piece of music in case they only hear one of the songs but using the same vocal refrain on guitar is just rehashing something that you can be 100% certain the listener has heard.
Perhaps this point has annoyed me so much because there's no sensible way you can defend it and yet it exists on songs that are critically acclaimed. The solo in "Smells Like Teen Spirit" - Nirvana is probably the most well known example. I can live with people insisting that the track is "good" in any way but when idiots start putting the solo anywhere near "Top Guitar Solo" lists, it feels like they're all in on some shite joke that I missed out on.
Other solos are unlikely to make the same level of acclaim but the earlier mentioned "I Want To Break Free" - Queen, "Madness" - Muse and "Back In The USSR" - The Beatles** are also guilty of phoning it in when it comes to the guitar solo. For the same reasons of the last point, it feels completely cheap and pisses all over the effort of the rest of the band. I can kind of understand guitarists feeling the need to copy the vocal line on a filler track when they're up against time constraints and can't come up with a good enough original solo but those songs are all fairly well known!
Anyway, that's a handy guide for any aspiring guitarists out there. Does it tell you how to write a hit or a guaranteed chart topping solo? No, although I imagine nailing your scales and arpeggios will do you a world of favours.
However, if you're in the middle of writing a solo, ask yourself if you've shamelessly plagiarised another tune or gone in guns blazing within the first few seconds. If you have, it's back to the fret board with you!
* In the interest of fairness, I should also mention that Airbourne aren't the only band who do/have done this. Not that anyone has listened to any of the other songs on The Final Countdown - Europe but "Rock The Night" and "Love Chaser" share almost exactly the same intro to the solo and damn near the same musical formula too. For this sin, they're doomed to be remembered for only one song despite having several others that are just as good if not better.
** Many years ago, I claimed "Back In The USSR" - The Beatles was one of my favourite guitar solos. However, I also claimed that the organ solo in "Highway Star" - Deep Purple was one of my favourite guitar solos so I think it's fair to say that I had no idea what I was talking about back then.
However, it's easier than you may think to balls up a solo in the middle of a great song. It's not a cardinal sin but it's definitely the difference between your Free Birds and your I Want To Break Frees. Much like my piece detailing Dos and Don'ts of Compilation Albums, this post will look at the highs and lows of some solos along with common misconceptions and perhaps even a few underrated gems.
Naturally, you may disagree with some of my opinions regarding good/bad solos but hopefully, you'll agree with the points I'm trying to make about solos in general. Right, here we go!
DO get the first few notes right
It doesn't matter if you've got the next Hendrix playing lead and he reckons it's his magnum opus, if he gets those first few notes wrong then he may as well not bother. In fact, that's probably why the solo for "One Vision" - Queen is so short and shitty, because Brian May fucked up before it even began. Anyway, getting back on topic, this is quite a simple step but that doesn't mean it can't go wrong. "(Don't Fear) The Reaper" - Blue Oyster Cult is one of the few songs where I prefer the radio edit with the solo omitted and why's that? The dodgy start to the solo.
You're probably sat there thinking "But musical taste is subjective, how can you define what is and isn't a good start to a solo?" Good point. It's tough to define something that's around about 90% personal taste but the rule still applies. Don't be one of those few bands who mess up at the first hurdle, even though it probably won't affect the rest of the song provided it has a hell of a good riff to fall back on.
DO let your solo last the right amount of time
I would say a good solo lasts approximately the length of a verse and a chorus but there are many exceptions which are either longer or shorter than that combination. However, they still abode by this rule and found just the right amount of time to last before returning to the song. If your solo is too short, it may feel like all the build-up has been a waste of time, e.g. "Pull Me Under" - Dream Theater or "Master Of Puppets" - Metallica, whereas a solo that goes on and fucking on can be considered arrogant like the guitarist is just polishing his cock up and down the fretboard for his own ego, e.g. "Stranglehold" - Ted Nugent.
Compare these songs to others that have nailed the time frame for their instrumental. "Catch Your Train" - Scorpions is a tidy 22 seconds but considering the amount of work that's going on throughout the entire song, it's a perfect example of getting it just right in a designated solo-slot. Also "Wanted Dead Or Alive" - Bon Jovi. Bursts in after the second chorus and takes you neatly onto the third without disturbing the rhythm.
DO more than just "shred"
So many aspiring guitarists or young fans of the genre seem to think that the more complicated and furious a solo sounds, the better it is. Yeah, it demonstrates technical know-how but that means sweet F.A if you can't tie it together with a great melody and some self-control. Whilst these mental solos may be fun to play on Guitar Hero, they often fail to make Top 10 lists written by anyone above the age of 15. That being said, shredding is always welcome provided it doesn't make 100% of the solo.
Take "Rainbow In The Dark" - Dio, a song which goes all out and damn near busts a nut during the middle of the solo. However, it still takes a breather every now and then to replace a clusterfuck of notes with actual music. Compare this to the work of Orianthi or rather two of her more popular songs "According To You" and "Suffocated". The soloing is bland, soulless and there for the sake of it, not because it adds any power or depth to the song. They're also what I call "Roofie Solos" in that after listening to it, you can't remember anything that happened...all you know is that you've been screwed.
DON'T prematurely blow your load
OK, so we've established that you can show off your skills during your solo. Do you break straight into shredding like a greyhound at a track?
NO! Christ, no!
Build up to the shredding, give the listener a chance to grow accustomed to the sound of your guitar before you start wailing on them. There are plenty of songs with excellent solos that get progressively more intense until they peak, simmer down and return to the song again. To name a few:
"My Sharona" - The Knack
"Tornado Of Souls" - Megadeth
"A Farewell To Kings" - Rush
"Hitch A Ride" - Boston
Those are just some examples of songs with great solos that start out small before escalating towards greatness. How about some songs that do the complete opposite and go out guns blazing in the first bar, leaving the solo nowhere else to go and therefore plateauing at the worst possible part:
"Crazy Train" - Ozzy Osbourne
"Mr Crowley" - Ozzy Osbourne
"Believer" - Ozzy Osbourne
OK, so you get the picture. I've made my thoughts about Randy Rhoads clear as day on this blog and he's definitely at the top of the list of guitarists who get away with this shite.
DON'T recycle your material
Writing a good solo must be pretty difficult, presumably explaining why a lot of mainstream modern Hard Rock bands tend to skip them altogether. I can understand why some guitarists who are perhaps lacking the same imagination and talent as their idols resort to using similar riffs, hooks and/or licks across different songs. This especially applies to ones who are currently on their 12th album and have likely been told by a producer to listen to their older material and original influences to help catch the fire that they once had or some tosh.
However, what I can't understand is why some guitarists not only get away with but also feel happy knowing that they've recycled elements of a solo they've already used. If Randy Rhoads was the representative of the last item on this list, Joel O'Keeffe of Airbourne is the champion of this one. Even without trying, you'll stumble across songs on their second album, No Guts No Glory, starting with the same 2-3 sustain notes before breaking into a shred and some songs even have the same shredding pattern ("Born To Kill", "Raise The Flag" and "Back On The Bottle" to name a few).
Granted there are several solos that are slightly different, even if they are similar to OTHER solos he's recorded, and technically all of them are well played and fun to listen to but it still feels cheap as if he wanted to rush through the creative process regardless of how good the songs actually were. Besides, if other bands can come up with amazing solos several decades after their first album, it just shits on the quality of a group who have run out of ideas just over five years into their career*.
DON'T just repeat the vocal melody on guitar
So the last point was about not reusing material and this point is also about not reusing material, yes I recognise the irony or hypocrisy or whatever you want to call it. However, I still feel they deserve their own subheadings. Both are examples of laziness in songwriting whereas this adds even less to the song. At least an existing solo might work better with the other track or introduce the listener to a brilliant piece of music in case they only hear one of the songs but using the same vocal refrain on guitar is just rehashing something that you can be 100% certain the listener has heard.
Perhaps this point has annoyed me so much because there's no sensible way you can defend it and yet it exists on songs that are critically acclaimed. The solo in "Smells Like Teen Spirit" - Nirvana is probably the most well known example. I can live with people insisting that the track is "good" in any way but when idiots start putting the solo anywhere near "Top Guitar Solo" lists, it feels like they're all in on some shite joke that I missed out on.
Other solos are unlikely to make the same level of acclaim but the earlier mentioned "I Want To Break Free" - Queen, "Madness" - Muse and "Back In The USSR" - The Beatles** are also guilty of phoning it in when it comes to the guitar solo. For the same reasons of the last point, it feels completely cheap and pisses all over the effort of the rest of the band. I can kind of understand guitarists feeling the need to copy the vocal line on a filler track when they're up against time constraints and can't come up with a good enough original solo but those songs are all fairly well known!
Anyway, that's a handy guide for any aspiring guitarists out there. Does it tell you how to write a hit or a guaranteed chart topping solo? No, although I imagine nailing your scales and arpeggios will do you a world of favours.
However, if you're in the middle of writing a solo, ask yourself if you've shamelessly plagiarised another tune or gone in guns blazing within the first few seconds. If you have, it's back to the fret board with you!
* In the interest of fairness, I should also mention that Airbourne aren't the only band who do/have done this. Not that anyone has listened to any of the other songs on The Final Countdown - Europe but "Rock The Night" and "Love Chaser" share almost exactly the same intro to the solo and damn near the same musical formula too. For this sin, they're doomed to be remembered for only one song despite having several others that are just as good if not better.
** Many years ago, I claimed "Back In The USSR" - The Beatles was one of my favourite guitar solos. However, I also claimed that the organ solo in "Highway Star" - Deep Purple was one of my favourite guitar solos so I think it's fair to say that I had no idea what I was talking about back then.
Sunday, 31 August 2014
Compilation Albums: Dos & Don'ts
Apologies for the late post. I've been settling into my new home and new job, leaving this space empty whilst more important parts of my life take priority. However, I have a bit of spare time so I thought I'd go ahead and type up some bits and bobs about something every music fan is familiar with.
Compilation Albums.
We've seen them advertised on TV and dotted around record stores. We mostly just assume they're a collection of well known songs by the band from all their albums on one handy CD, but there's a little bit more to them than that. Some bands decide to add tunes from a select number of albums across 10 years and a few even choose to add lesser known tracks just because they're favourites among band members.
Either way, for every magnificent compilation representing the band's greatest triumphs of Rock and Metal (although usually Rock), there's one that's clearly been churned out by means of generating cash by the record label. If you're like me and find yourself occasionally buying the old compilation album from a band you're not hugely into but still enjoy listening to, maybe you'll agree with some of these cardinal sins and shining diamonds in the world of musical anthologies.
Firstly, Dos!
DO learn the difference between "Greatest Hits" and "Best Of"
Technically, bands should never release Greatest Hits OR Best Of albums if they're still recording music, since it's basically them saying "Yeah, we're still making albums but fuck it, the songs we recorded 20 years ago shit all over them. You might as well not bother. We certainly didn't!". However, if you're a band that realises that fans will always see the classic material as the collection of superior tunes (or if you're Deep Purple), there's no point pretending anything you write now can be considered the best of your efforts.
So you come out with a compilation album. What do you call it?
WELL, if you're releasing a compendium of all your most successful songs that comprise fan favourites, chart topping singles and/or songs that gained popularity through use in the media, you go with "Greatest Hits" or "The Singles Collection".
If, however, you're choosing songs that consist of both well AND lesser known tracks that are highly regarded by fans and band members alike, you call it "The Best Of".
The number of fucking times I've seen an album boasting the "Essential" songs by a band, only to find some of their most awesome tunes absent is too damn high. What's more, it shows that whoever named it couldn't be arsed to actually listen to the songs included, which means the album is no more worthy of your ears than a Spotify playlist assembled by a deaf tween.
DO include stories about each song from band members in the leaflet
If the band are popular enough to have a compilation album and you like them enough to buy it, chances are you're at least a little bit interested in their history. Plus, some of these songs that'll probably end up on compilations have some rather fascinating stories behind them. If you're not bothered about that, you don't have to read the leaflet but the info in there about each song is a lot better than some blurb about the band in general written by their manager or some pillock who works for a music magazine.
"Oh but what if there are songs that don't have fun stories behind them?"
Song ideas have to come from somewhere, whether it's a bad day, a strange encounter, a handy dream or just plain ol' life experience. If a guitarist came up with a riff because he wanted something to sing in the shower, I call that a good enough story to share. The point is that songs included on these compilations can't just be ones that the band made by fucking about and even if they are, that's an anecdote in itself. Don't believe me? Check out the story behind Sweet Child O'Mine.
DO include album versions of songs
9/10 times, the album version of the song is a lot better than the single edit. Some songs work better with an edit, yes, but when a compilation butchers songs and removes some of the awesome elements like the guitar solo or an extra verse, forcing you to either settle for a substandard edit or pay more money for the full album version, it feels like a slap in the face. The only time single edits are suitable on compilations is when they're on "The Singles Collection". "Greatest Hits" is debatable, "Best Of" is a giant no-no.
And now for the Don'ts!
DON'T include live versions
This is the ultimate fuck you from whoever's responsible. I don't care if it's because the record label only has permission to use live tracks or if the band think they're better than the studio versions, it's a giant middle finger and nothing else. It's very rare for a live version to be better than the original (unless you're there at the gig, you're a fan of that band or it's pre-plane crash Lynyrd Skynyrd*) and it's even rarer for people to want the live version on a compilation.
OK, if a live version was released as a single, it has its place then. Also, if you include the original on one disc and a live version on another, that's understandable too. But live versions without the studio on a compilation album? Hell. Fuckin. No. The same can also be said for "remixes". Remasters are fine, remixes can piss right off.
DON'T release US and UK versions with different songs
A while ago, I acquired a Billy Joel compilation album. Recently, I revisited it after seeing the same album online with the song Scenes From An Italian Restaurant. But what's this? My version didn't have that track. So for some reason, a different region wants different songs, right?
WRONG!!
Nobody wants that. Same compilation, same tracklist. Every time; no excuses.
DON'T release a load of them with a mishmash of tracks across compilations
So a band decides to release a compilation that you go out and buy? Good. Same band release another compilation with different songs on it? Great! Band release another compilation with most the songs previously used on existing compilations? NO NO NO!
I accept that sometimes this is inevitable. If a band have existed for over 30 years and the compilation was released near the start of their career (an aforementioned sin), it might be necessary to include the earlier songs on a large compilation also including a lot of unused songs. However, including the same songs over and over whilst neglecting some that deserve a place more than the same hit used five times is a result of only one motivation. Greed.
Aerosmith are guilty of this and Black Sabbath had the fucking cheek to release two different compilations with exactly the same tracklist on both. I shit you not! There had to be better ways of promoting their godawful recent album than to rip off gullible fans like that.
In fact, there has to be a better way of handling compilation album tracklists in this digital age. There should be a company like Spotify that has access to entire back catalogues from bands and allows you to pick a selection of the band's material to burn onto a blank CD, which they send you for a price. Minimum 10 songs, maximum...I dunno, 15-20? Depends how much CD space there is.
£7.99 for 10 songs (plus small postage fee), £12.99 for over 15, custom album artwork from a selection of pictures on a band's "page", you can choose between studio, live, alternate and re-recordings and the money is split between the website and the band. I have no idea if a concept like this already exists for compilations but if it doesn't, the idea originated from me on August 31st 2014 and this blog post is proof.
I think the Kaiser Chiefs did something like this for their fourth album (pity it wasn't as good as their second) but an idea like this would be perfect for people who want a large selection of the band's entire existing material without spending a small fortune. It would also show bands which album tracks or B-sides people want to hear due to how often they're selected, in case they're struggling to think of new songs to add to a live setlist.
I guess people are moving to digital media rather than purchasing CD's so this idea probably wouldn't take off in the same way iTunes did but I dunno, I think it could work if done correctly with a wide selection of musicians supporting it. Anyway, that's it from me. Do you have any pet peeves about compilation albums? Let me know in the comment section. Until next time, be seeing you!
* Even though "One More From The Road" boasts material that blows nearly all of Skynyrd's studio work out the water, I would still want the originals on a compilation. If you want the live versions, buy the fucking live album.
Compilation Albums.
We've seen them advertised on TV and dotted around record stores. We mostly just assume they're a collection of well known songs by the band from all their albums on one handy CD, but there's a little bit more to them than that. Some bands decide to add tunes from a select number of albums across 10 years and a few even choose to add lesser known tracks just because they're favourites among band members.
Either way, for every magnificent compilation representing the band's greatest triumphs of Rock and Metal (although usually Rock), there's one that's clearly been churned out by means of generating cash by the record label. If you're like me and find yourself occasionally buying the old compilation album from a band you're not hugely into but still enjoy listening to, maybe you'll agree with some of these cardinal sins and shining diamonds in the world of musical anthologies.
Firstly, Dos!
DO learn the difference between "Greatest Hits" and "Best Of"
Technically, bands should never release Greatest Hits OR Best Of albums if they're still recording music, since it's basically them saying "Yeah, we're still making albums but fuck it, the songs we recorded 20 years ago shit all over them. You might as well not bother. We certainly didn't!". However, if you're a band that realises that fans will always see the classic material as the collection of superior tunes (or if you're Deep Purple), there's no point pretending anything you write now can be considered the best of your efforts.
So you come out with a compilation album. What do you call it?
WELL, if you're releasing a compendium of all your most successful songs that comprise fan favourites, chart topping singles and/or songs that gained popularity through use in the media, you go with "Greatest Hits" or "The Singles Collection".
If, however, you're choosing songs that consist of both well AND lesser known tracks that are highly regarded by fans and band members alike, you call it "The Best Of".
The number of fucking times I've seen an album boasting the "Essential" songs by a band, only to find some of their most awesome tunes absent is too damn high. What's more, it shows that whoever named it couldn't be arsed to actually listen to the songs included, which means the album is no more worthy of your ears than a Spotify playlist assembled by a deaf tween.
DO include stories about each song from band members in the leaflet
If the band are popular enough to have a compilation album and you like them enough to buy it, chances are you're at least a little bit interested in their history. Plus, some of these songs that'll probably end up on compilations have some rather fascinating stories behind them. If you're not bothered about that, you don't have to read the leaflet but the info in there about each song is a lot better than some blurb about the band in general written by their manager or some pillock who works for a music magazine.
"Oh but what if there are songs that don't have fun stories behind them?"
Song ideas have to come from somewhere, whether it's a bad day, a strange encounter, a handy dream or just plain ol' life experience. If a guitarist came up with a riff because he wanted something to sing in the shower, I call that a good enough story to share. The point is that songs included on these compilations can't just be ones that the band made by fucking about and even if they are, that's an anecdote in itself. Don't believe me? Check out the story behind Sweet Child O'Mine.
DO include album versions of songs
9/10 times, the album version of the song is a lot better than the single edit. Some songs work better with an edit, yes, but when a compilation butchers songs and removes some of the awesome elements like the guitar solo or an extra verse, forcing you to either settle for a substandard edit or pay more money for the full album version, it feels like a slap in the face. The only time single edits are suitable on compilations is when they're on "The Singles Collection". "Greatest Hits" is debatable, "Best Of" is a giant no-no.
And now for the Don'ts!
DON'T include live versions
This is the ultimate fuck you from whoever's responsible. I don't care if it's because the record label only has permission to use live tracks or if the band think they're better than the studio versions, it's a giant middle finger and nothing else. It's very rare for a live version to be better than the original (unless you're there at the gig, you're a fan of that band or it's pre-plane crash Lynyrd Skynyrd*) and it's even rarer for people to want the live version on a compilation.
OK, if a live version was released as a single, it has its place then. Also, if you include the original on one disc and a live version on another, that's understandable too. But live versions without the studio on a compilation album? Hell. Fuckin. No. The same can also be said for "remixes". Remasters are fine, remixes can piss right off.
DON'T release US and UK versions with different songs
A while ago, I acquired a Billy Joel compilation album. Recently, I revisited it after seeing the same album online with the song Scenes From An Italian Restaurant. But what's this? My version didn't have that track. So for some reason, a different region wants different songs, right?
WRONG!!
Nobody wants that. Same compilation, same tracklist. Every time; no excuses.
DON'T release a load of them with a mishmash of tracks across compilations
So a band decides to release a compilation that you go out and buy? Good. Same band release another compilation with different songs on it? Great! Band release another compilation with most the songs previously used on existing compilations? NO NO NO!
I accept that sometimes this is inevitable. If a band have existed for over 30 years and the compilation was released near the start of their career (an aforementioned sin), it might be necessary to include the earlier songs on a large compilation also including a lot of unused songs. However, including the same songs over and over whilst neglecting some that deserve a place more than the same hit used five times is a result of only one motivation. Greed.
Aerosmith are guilty of this and Black Sabbath had the fucking cheek to release two different compilations with exactly the same tracklist on both. I shit you not! There had to be better ways of promoting their godawful recent album than to rip off gullible fans like that.
In fact, there has to be a better way of handling compilation album tracklists in this digital age. There should be a company like Spotify that has access to entire back catalogues from bands and allows you to pick a selection of the band's material to burn onto a blank CD, which they send you for a price. Minimum 10 songs, maximum...I dunno, 15-20? Depends how much CD space there is.
£7.99 for 10 songs (plus small postage fee), £12.99 for over 15, custom album artwork from a selection of pictures on a band's "page", you can choose between studio, live, alternate and re-recordings and the money is split between the website and the band. I have no idea if a concept like this already exists for compilations but if it doesn't, the idea originated from me on August 31st 2014 and this blog post is proof.
I think the Kaiser Chiefs did something like this for their fourth album (pity it wasn't as good as their second) but an idea like this would be perfect for people who want a large selection of the band's entire existing material without spending a small fortune. It would also show bands which album tracks or B-sides people want to hear due to how often they're selected, in case they're struggling to think of new songs to add to a live setlist.
I guess people are moving to digital media rather than purchasing CD's so this idea probably wouldn't take off in the same way iTunes did but I dunno, I think it could work if done correctly with a wide selection of musicians supporting it. Anyway, that's it from me. Do you have any pet peeves about compilation albums? Let me know in the comment section. Until next time, be seeing you!
* Even though "One More From The Road" boasts material that blows nearly all of Skynyrd's studio work out the water, I would still want the originals on a compilation. If you want the live versions, buy the fucking live album.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)