OK musicians, advise me!

[Lemonade]

I need some advice from bands/sound guys etc. or even gig-goers who know a bit about music. I have a conundrum.

I've got a bunch of songs that I've written over the last couple of years, maybe 8 or so. I don't really think they're that good, though that may be down to not having the confidence to play my self compositions to other people, a problem I've always had. But I like them. Recently it's occured to me to maybe bite the bullet and record them and pass a few copies out to see what people of think of them, and possibly put a band together to play a few of them if the feedback is good.

BUT

The problem is that they are all completely different styles. There's a couple of sort of slow, haunting acoustic numbers, a couple of heavy, rock/grungey kind of songs, a couple of stupidly cheerful folk numbers, and even one tribal sounding instrumental thing. Obviously on a CD or at a gig the songs aren't going to sit properly together each other due to the vast change in sound, style and tempo. I've sort of tried making them all a bit more uniform to sit in together, but it just doesn't work - they lose their edge. Thus my question really is, does a band or artist need to have a "Sound"? If you go to see a rock band you hear rock, if you go to see a folk singer, you hear folk - I'm going from Nirvana to Cat Stevens in one move! So what do I do? Record them all, see which ones come out best and drop the others and go for a specific trademark sound? Or do I go from heavy palm muting in one song to major jazz chords in the next and just confuse everybody? I didn't intentionally go out to be eclectic or offbeat, the songs just generally reflect the mood I was in when I was writing them, and I have a huge array of influences that all seem to have got muddled in with each other.

Any advice?

[Afro Droid]

Sounds ace, I say go for it, regardless of how it all hangs together, the common thread will be you and the other musicians performing. Good luck.

[HateEvent]

There shouldn't be any limitations on what you write. Sounds cool that you have such a vast array of influences coming together in your writing scheme.

I can't think of a round about way of saying what I basically mean which is that you should just go ahead and put the stuff out there no matter how varied it is!

It *may* be slightly more difficult to find people that would share interest in all these contrasting styles but it would certainly be something to see!

[Bodast]

If it came to anything, you could always try to separate your styles into two (or more..?) groups so you could pursue them separately, maybe with different people, without having to try to dampen the ideas into one style. But for now, I'd say the same as the others, go for it all and good luck

[scottyboy]

i agree just to stick them all together, since you're just after a bit of feedback. if you were to form a band, the other members would bring on board their influences anyway

[Diesel]

I need some advice from bands/sound guys etc. or even gig-goers who know a bit about music. I have a conundrum.

I've got a bunch of songs that I've written over the last couple of years, maybe 8 or so. I don't really think they're that good, though that may be down to not having the confidence to play my self compositions to other people, a problem I've always had. But I like them. Recently it's occured to me to maybe bite the bullet and record them and pass a few copies out to see what people of think of them, and possibly put a band together to play a few of them if the feedback is good.

BUT

The problem is that they are all completely different styles. There's a couple of sort of slow, haunting acoustic numbers, a couple of heavy, rock/grungey kind of songs, a couple of stupidly cheerful folk numbers, and even one tribal sounding instrumental thing. Obviously on a CD or at a gig the songs aren't going to sit properly together each other due to the vast change in sound, style and tempo. I've sort of tried making them all a bit more uniform to sit in together, but it just doesn't work - they lose their edge. Thus my question really is, does a band or artist need to have a "Sound"? If you go to see a rock band you hear rock, if you go to see a folk singer, you hear folk - I'm going from Nirvana to Cat Stevens in one move! So what do I do? Record them all, see which ones come out best and drop the others and go for a specific trademark sound? Or do I go from heavy palm muting in one song to major jazz chords in the next and just confuse everybody? I didn't intentionally go out to be eclectic or offbeat, the songs just generally reflect the mood I was in when I was writing them, and I have a huge array of influences that all seem to have got muddled in with each other.

Any advice?

Well Bro, I've got two things to say to that - Led Zeppelin III & Physical Grafitti. Two extremely eclectic albums that somehow work beautifully - go for it!

Music doesn't advance one iota without variation and courage.

Look at Queen's early work, Blues Rock, Metal, Folk & even Vaudeville - all on the same album - and it worked.

[Hog]

All I can say is that it is refreshing for a local musician to make music that is so varied.

My fave musicians...

Ulver- black metal, orchestras then ambient then retro 70's surrealism.

Devin Townsend- Death Metal, acoustic ballads, waltz's, dark ambience.

[Guest DustyDeviada]

Hmm, I don't think comparing his idea to Queen or Devin Townhend is likely to inspire him too much.

But I would agree that the best artists are often the ones that don't get tied into a particular genre, look at Beck, lots of cool different stuff going on on his records.

[Diesel]

Hmm, I don't think comparing his idea to Queen or Devin Townhend is likely to inspire him too much.

*Adopts stuffy attitude* I was merely quoting examples of albums that weren't tied to any specific genre and at yon time the morning (couldnae get tae sleep), that was the best I could come up with....hmph!

[FatHand]

Sounds really interesting. I prefer that kind of song writing myself, go for it.

[soundian]

That may be tricky to do live, a folky sound is going to difficult to achieve if the channels are set up for a grungy sound, and vice-versa.

You have the best plan though, record them (I'd use the same set-up for every song, just so you can get an idea of how difficult it might be to change from a sound engineers perspective) roughly, see what works and what doesn't, then take it from there.

[HairyScaryMark]

I've sort of tried making them all a bit more uniform to sit in together, but it just doesn't work - they lose their edge. Thus my question really is, does a band or artist need to have a "Sound"? If you go to see a rock band you hear rock, if you go to see a folk singer, you hear folk - I'm going from Nirvana to Cat Stevens in one move! So what do I do? Record them all, see which ones come out best and drop the others and go for a specific trademark sound?

Any advice?

Pick a few (maybe 4-5) which you think are your best or link together in some way and record a demo.

Some musicians have a voice or style which will shine through, reguardless of what he/she plays. I think however you should have a certain amount of consistancy in sound between music you release on one CD. Production can account for a certain amount of this but it is also important in what you choose to play or release.

I generally find most bands or artists have a problem with their songs sounding too similar rather than too great a contrast.

[Marsh]

The Beatles White Album has everything and the kitchen sink in it from gentle ballads through sheer pop, experiments in noise and weird structures to the beginnings of heavy rock. And it's America's favourite Beatles album!

Doesn't matter if the songs themselves are radically different - if they all have a similar "feel" to them - recorded on the same equipment over a small period of time and mastered / produced or whatever by the same person they will be coherent enough. I think getting an overall "sound" is important. London Calling is a sprawling album but every song be it rockabilly, reggae or rock n roll sounds like it came from those sessions. They stick together well because of the "vibe" and the production

Good luck.

[Lemonade]

Thanks for all the good advice folks. This is what makes Ab-Music great!!!

I guess I'll try and book some studio time when I get back from frickin' Switzerland, try to find some folks to add their talents, throw it all in together, mix it up a bit and see what comes out the other end. Who knows, maybe some day down the line you'll all be at my first gig saying "What the fuck is this guy doing?" o_O

Cheers again

B.E.

[TR!ΔNGL€ T€€TH]

The Beatles White Album has everything and the kitchen sink in it from gentle ballads through sheer pop, experiments in noise and weird structures to the beginnings of heavy rock. And it's America's favourite Beatles album!

Good point sir, but the Beatles never played anything from the White Album live... (I'm not talking about solo Beatles here)

[Hog]

Townhend

.

[Guest DustyDeviada]

Everyone knows that Americans are daft anyway.

Although in this case they may have a point, The White Album IS ace.

Except "Number 9", what a load of crap.

Abbey Road's better though!

[Paulscoconutass]

Variety's the spice of life. What's the point in having 40 songs if they all sound the same? My band deliberately try and keep our 'sound' wide by trying to write specific songs in different genres. We've got ska, jazz, funk, punk, rock and emo (kinda) in one set at the moment and nobody seems to mind, although even if they did, we wouldn't really give a shit because it's our music and we like playing it.

As lucifer said, the common denominator will be you and your band, that's all you need to keep the same.

[Marsh]

Good point sir, but the Beatles never played anything from the White Album live... (I'm not talking about solo Beatles here)

Yeah, totally. But it's different to recreate the sound or feel from any recording session in a live environment. how many bands have you seen that sound totally live live than on record? I think a variety of tempos and styles can work really well in a gig giving it variety and the chance to take a breather and take it all in.

[citizens_X]

I would just record the songs as You've intended them to sound and wouldn't worry too much about trying to get them to blend or sit well together.

[Graham Knight]

Some suggestions for Brother Elwood

I need some advice from bands/sound guys etc. or even gig-goers who know a bit about music. I have a conundrum.

...Recently it's occured to me to maybe bite the bullet and record them and pass a few copies out to see what people of think of them, and possibly put a band together to play a few of them if the feedback is good.

BUT

The problem is that they are all completely different styles. There's a couple of sort of slow, haunting acoustic numbers, a couple of heavy, rock/grungey kind of songs, a couple of stupidly cheerful folk numbers, and even one tribal sounding instrumental thing....... I've sort of tried making them all a bit more uniform to sit in together, but it just doesn't work - they lose their edge. Thus my question really is, does a band or artist need to have a "Sound"? If you go to see a rock band you hear rock, if you go to see a folk singer, you hear folk - I'm going from Nirvana to Cat Stevens in one move! So what do I do? Record them all, see which ones come out best and drop the others and go for a specific trademark sound? Or do I go from heavy palm muting in one song to major jazz chords in the next and just confuse everybody? I didn't intentionally go out to be eclectic or offbeat, the songs just generally reflect the mood I was in when I was writing them, and I have a huge array of influences that all seem to have got muddled in with each other.

Any advice?

Hi Elwood,

You have already had excellent advice from members in reply to your query but here is some more:

Be super-critical with yourself and pick the five best compositions. Forget the rest and work up that five along with some colleagues - no doubt their musical input will spark your creativity further.

Book a short amount of studio time and get the five recorded - you don't need much time as you will already be fully rehearsed.

Forget "giving them to friends".

Concentrate on getting your recordings up on YouTube as soon as possible together with some interesting and not too zany facts about the musicians.

Give copies to people who will play your music on the radio or people who may book you.

Make your friends pay for their copies and aim to recover your recording costs quickly. Offer them a "buy one - get one free deal" and that way your music will spread quicker. Tell them you will personally autograph them and they will soon be worth a fortune on e-bay.

I was trying to think of a possible name for the band and have read and re-read your original post. It is a short story and there is not much to go on.

Perhaps the Short Stories especially if you are tall.

The word eclectic glares out at me from your post but when I check there is already an Eclectic Voices group registered to say nothing of Eclectic Records who are also based in Scotland - so no Eclectic suggestions.

Gnomes Of Zurich also springs to mind but there is already a group using that name.

Your post mentions a connection with Switzerland and say your music is multi-faceted so how about Swiss Army Knive?

The three words are instantly recognised as running together and the name is associated with a product that combines many different things - like your music.

Short Stories, or Swiss Army Knife each has the advantage of being names that the public already know and are therefore easily remembered. Both names should easily inspire you to think creatively about posters.

Think about incorporating your chosen name into a title for your instrumental.

For example:

Short Stories Stomp

or

Sharp as a Swiss Army Knife.

Enough advice from me - hope this helps. Go for it!

PS "Different Cuts from Swiss Army Knife" wouldn't be a bad title either.