Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidJames  I mean, all we want is for them to play cover versions of tracks to a certain BPM - are bands genuinely too stupid or what? |
Often, yes. Or at least, they have big egos, and they think "we're the musicians, we know what tempo to play". I think the most successful "live band at a MJ event" I've seen was at someone's birthday party where he knew the band really well. And basically, they played what he wanted them to. Sadly, that's pretty rare.
Of course, there's an argument that says if all you want is a band to play covers, then why bother having a band in the first place? That's the other side of the coin, and it's a trap I felt some of the live bands at Ashtons fell into a few years ago. All they did was play mainstream covers, and as live bands go, they were very good to dance to - right tempo, etc. But I was left thinking what's the point? I'd rather hear the original, to be honest.
Look at SCD, for heavens sake. I would assume the band they are using is one of the best in the business - they certainly seem a cut above anyone I've seen on the MJ circuit in terms of number of instruments, signers, etc. And yet every week there's at least one song (and usually several) that is left sounding like a pale imitation of the original recording.
Quote:
|
So is the lack of live music an inherent weakness, or is that just the way things are?
|
I think there's an inherent problem making live music actually add anything to the event. From an organizers point of view, a band is only going to play for a small part of the evening, so you still have all your DJ costs. So a band is always going to cost extra. And they are going to have to be exceptionally good to seem better than music that was recorded under optimal circumstances.
Let me throw the question back. What do you see as the advantages of having a live band?