Having spent a fair bit of time around Beatle tribute bands I have noticed something that might shed some light on the whole affair. Before September 2012, I had never really witnessed many so-called tribute bands mainly because I prefer the originals the way they are. Moreover, Paul McCartney once said of why he didn't play much of The Beatles' music in Wings during the 1970s: "you can't reheat a souffle". What he means is of course, the vibe, the recording techniques and the mindset (to cite a few examples) was incredibly different back then. In other words, if one was to try to rehash such classic tracks then it would show the person to be hankering for the past and that doesn't always appear a desirable trait. Oh Yesterday ...
My personal avoidance of Tribute bands until the point I got involved in one changed once I became an 'insider'. There is a considerable challenge in certain aspects of filling someone's shoes, and such footwear can be an incredibly difficult task for many reasons. In the case of Beatles there's singing harmonies and lead, playing the riffs and chords, the rhythms, and memorizing great chunks of music. Then there's costumes and the rest of the gear. So everything has to look old and sound old. Okay, no problem for me with my classical background. But wait! There's another problem ...
Interpretation. Should you 'copy' the recording? Most of the time other tribute bands tend to do this. But is that correct? In their defence (and this means that you shut the rest of your brain down for a sustained period whilst you're in the band playing this stuff) they seem to be correct. As Sherlock Holmes would say, look at the evidence: the band recorded their songs that way and set it in stone, right? Wrong! If that was the case and their music is set in stone why then did Paul McCartney add an extra verse into Paperback Writer fairly recently? Why did John Lennon perform Money at a slow speed in the Toronto festival in 1969? Why did The Beatles release Let It Be Naked' in 2003 (under the supervision of Paul McCartney) where they stripped the big production down back to a bare minimum texture? The list is endless and most Beatle fanatics will understand what point I'm making here. Why do multiple versions exist of The Beatles playing the same song in every way imaginable; e.g., as a blues, slow, fast, as a ballad, with a latin-American feel, with a heavy rock beat, etc.?
Here's the answer and Tribute bands won't want to hear this. They have got it entirely wrong.
If you are hankering after the past, and trying to set it on stone it makes you both a conservative and a 'classisist'. In other words, classical (and I do not mean the generic term for a broad genre of music) implies a specific period where architecture, art, music, costume, drama (etc) were governed by rules adhering to good-taste, proportion, balance, a measured approach to creating art. Well, that's exactly what the Tribute bands think they must do in order to play their chosen musical style. Diametrically opposed to the 'classical' is romanticism: the notion of striving, never being satisfied, reaching out to beyond what should be possible. Sound like any band you know? Sergeant Pepper, Revolver, The 'White' Album (The Beatles self-titled release): these titles surely must be categorized as romantic music? Especially when accompanied by huge gesticulations reaching for the impossible end goal, but never being able to reach perfection? Consider Revolution number 9 or A Day In The Life , these are not the sounds of a band wanting to sit still and retain continuity with the past. The Beatles were unhappy with the past which is why they upped the ante of Rock 'N' Roll and Pop, but they were not entirely willing to abandon it altogether; for instance, when John Lennon sang about wanting a Revolution, he exclaimed "don't you know that you can count me out, in"; so even he wasn't sure about completely casting off unto the realms of modernism or post-modernism and being fully part of an upheaval of the past. But he obviously wasn't satisfied with the Status Quo.
So the aforementioned Tribute bands need to at least consider the possibility of undertaking a paradigm shift. That is, instead of hankering after the past (and therefore killing the music as a piece of art and turning it into a piece of memorabilia) they might approach the music as being a fresh and free platform for creating true and pure 'music' and not following a recipe for making a souffle that is bound to fail. At the very least they should retain the true historical context of the music but that perspective should be a ray of enlightenment and not a rope with which to hang themselves with.
In conclusion: you're damned if you do and damned if you don't: recreate but don't innovate and you're just an actor but the sentiment of what made it real and special is gone. Innovate, adjust and alter (according to taste and allowing for the given parameters set for you by the band you are paying tribute to) renders you miles away from the recording.
Which do you chose I wonder? Answers on postcard to a P.O. box for the classicists and email in your thoughts if you are an aspiring romantic.
c.2013 Dale Harris. All rights reserved
Interpretation. Should you 'copy' the recording? Most of the time other tribute bands tend to do this. But is that correct? In their defence (and this means that you shut the rest of your brain down for a sustained period whilst you're in the band playing this stuff) they seem to be correct. As Sherlock Holmes would say, look at the evidence: the band recorded their songs that way and set it in stone, right? Wrong! If that was the case and their music is set in stone why then did Paul McCartney add an extra verse into Paperback Writer fairly recently? Why did John Lennon perform Money at a slow speed in the Toronto festival in 1969? Why did The Beatles release Let It Be Naked' in 2003 (under the supervision of Paul McCartney) where they stripped the big production down back to a bare minimum texture? The list is endless and most Beatle fanatics will understand what point I'm making here. Why do multiple versions exist of The Beatles playing the same song in every way imaginable; e.g., as a blues, slow, fast, as a ballad, with a latin-American feel, with a heavy rock beat, etc.?
Here's the answer and Tribute bands won't want to hear this. They have got it entirely wrong.
If you are hankering after the past, and trying to set it on stone it makes you both a conservative and a 'classisist'. In other words, classical (and I do not mean the generic term for a broad genre of music) implies a specific period where architecture, art, music, costume, drama (etc) were governed by rules adhering to good-taste, proportion, balance, a measured approach to creating art. Well, that's exactly what the Tribute bands think they must do in order to play their chosen musical style. Diametrically opposed to the 'classical' is romanticism: the notion of striving, never being satisfied, reaching out to beyond what should be possible. Sound like any band you know? Sergeant Pepper, Revolver, The 'White' Album (The Beatles self-titled release): these titles surely must be categorized as romantic music? Especially when accompanied by huge gesticulations reaching for the impossible end goal, but never being able to reach perfection? Consider Revolution number 9 or A Day In The Life , these are not the sounds of a band wanting to sit still and retain continuity with the past. The Beatles were unhappy with the past which is why they upped the ante of Rock 'N' Roll and Pop, but they were not entirely willing to abandon it altogether; for instance, when John Lennon sang about wanting a Revolution, he exclaimed "don't you know that you can count me out, in"; so even he wasn't sure about completely casting off unto the realms of modernism or post-modernism and being fully part of an upheaval of the past. But he obviously wasn't satisfied with the Status Quo.
So the aforementioned Tribute bands need to at least consider the possibility of undertaking a paradigm shift. That is, instead of hankering after the past (and therefore killing the music as a piece of art and turning it into a piece of memorabilia) they might approach the music as being a fresh and free platform for creating true and pure 'music' and not following a recipe for making a souffle that is bound to fail. At the very least they should retain the true historical context of the music but that perspective should be a ray of enlightenment and not a rope with which to hang themselves with.
In conclusion: you're damned if you do and damned if you don't: recreate but don't innovate and you're just an actor but the sentiment of what made it real and special is gone. Innovate, adjust and alter (according to taste and allowing for the given parameters set for you by the band you are paying tribute to) renders you miles away from the recording.
Which do you chose I wonder? Answers on postcard to a P.O. box for the classicists and email in your thoughts if you are an aspiring romantic.
c.2013 Dale Harris. All rights reserved
