Is the band bad for music?

Like many young musicians, I formed my first band months before I owned an instrument. Actually, none of us in the band had instruments. Nonetheless, we knew exactly who was going to play what. It was just a matter of time until we could each save up enough money to buy our axes; then we were going to be famous. And, like any self respecting junior high band that doesn’t have instruments yet, we immediately started on the ever-so-important task of selecting a band name… and then a band logo… and the name of our first album… and the name of our second album… and the album art for those albums… and how we would pose in the band photos… and what we would wear in those photos. I think we had even named a few of the songs on the first album (mind you we still didn’t know how to play, much less write a song). Those were some great times. Rocking out in my parents basement. Pissing off the neighbors (who had a newborn at the time). So don’t get me wrong, the junior high rock band was a huge part of my musical experience, but…

I’ve been thinking lately that the idea of “my band” is not good for musicians. It’s not the band itself. Playing consistently with the same group of musicians can be really good for creating music. The problem is, it seems like a lot of musicians, especially early on, feel that they can only play with their band. The idea of playing with other musicians feels something akin to committing adultery. In music, this attitude is stifling. A huge part of the fun of music is creating something new and different. Playing with lots of different musicians expands your musical vocabulary. Playing different styles of music makes you reach outside your standard bag of licks and come up with something new.

So to recap, being exclusive in relationships = good. Being exclusive in music = bad.

Culture, Age and Art

If you’ve been in a checkout line at all this past week, you’ve undoubtedly seen a few magazine covers. And that means you already know that Bret Michaels (lead singer of Poison and author of timeless classics like “Every Rose Has It’s Thorn”) has been in the hospital this past week with a brain hemorrhage. If you saw that in the magazines while checking out (yes, yes, you weren’t really reading the headlines. You were only looking at the gum and just “happened” to notice them), then there’s a really strong chance that you saw a picture of Bret wearing the same bandana headband that he’s been sporting since 1983 (resisting urge to make “bandana induced hemorrhage” joke… wait I think I just did). This actually led to a really interesting discussion in our house this morning. Why is it that some music allows musicians to continue being credible for their entire life and other kinds of music (i.e. glam rock) does not. Why is it that groups like U2 can go on tour this year and sell out arenas, while groups like Poison are hitting the casino circuit (or the reality show circuit).

Ok, glam rock, or butt rock as my friend calls it, may be a bad example. Clearly Poison wasn’t doing much in the way of furthering the art of music, but what about someone like Jay-Z? Whether you like his music or not, the guys is clearly talented. That being said, do you think he’ll be able to pack out the concert halls when he turns 50? What about at 60? Or 70? And Jay-Z is only one example. I can think of a dozen others.

The problem that I think Jay-Z is up against is that he’s making real music in a genre that has as strong an emphasis on appearance as it does on music. Maybe even a stronger emphasis on appearance. This isn’t unique to just rap, this is true of most pop music. I’m not saying pop music is bad (lord knows I own a ton of it). The question is, how does someone like Jay-Z have a life long carrier in music? Is his only option to switch into the “music producer” role at some point? Will he need to reinvent himself? Or 20 years from now does he just join a reality show?