[NewMusic] Don't reply to Quechup invites

[Matt Davignon]

I dunno - that kind of goes in the opposite direction of where I like
to see music go. If you have a group with multiple performing
incarnations of different personnel, especially on such  a scale, it
seems like one of two things will happen:

1) The band will become McDonalds-icized, in that each 'franchise'
will have a very specific style of music that they have to play, since
that's what's expected of the band. Band members may eventually get
apathetic that their personal creativity is being drowned within the
conglomerate. (I can only guess that's what happens with WAR and the
Blue Man Group.)

2) The band allows the members to keep their diversity, but eventually
the band name loses its cohesive meaning. Is it a band name? Is it a
genre? Why even name it?



> On 9/10/07, Travis Johns <electric.tokyo at gmail.com> was like:
> >... though to take the idea a
> > little farther, take a look at some of the traveling theatrics out
> > there, cirque de whatever, blue-man-thing, rent, etc etc - multiple
> > cities, multiple continents, multiple performers, same set, same
> > soundtrack, same kitsch - i guess the question is, how can we, as
> > idealistic, creative musical folks hop on this particular bandwagon
> > and do something cool with the idea without having it all crumble into
> > a bureaucratic nightmare of gargantuan proportions... or worse,
> > programming an army of animatronic damons and weasels to fill the
> > ranks of some sort of forward-thinking free-improv pizza chain...
> > sorry guys and no offense intended, the image was just too funny to
> > keep to myself... :)
> >
> > though then again, there's already been some examples of this in the
> > creative community - namely certain collaborations via the Placard
> > Festivals, Hub/League of Automatic Composer ideals, experiments
> > conducted via free103 - i think some of the kids out in Richmond, Va
> > tried a radio collab via myspace profile songs, testy bandwidth and a
> > mixer directing as many feeds as they could muster out onto the
> > webcast... i think another proposed idea was some 24 hour performance
> > ordeal where there was a collective set up to broadcast for an hour
> > from each time zone... not quite the same as Gino's original fantasy,
> > but you know apples and oranges and all - both round, both fruit,
> > though only one can yield one of the core ingredients for cycanide and
> > one cures scurvy a whole lot better... god, that was a horrible
> > metaphor.

> >
> > so, erm.... thoughts?
> >
> > t.
> >
Beforeward, Gino was all: :
> > >
> > >
> > > Another fantasy of mine ise a "band" made up of a huge pool of musicians - say, 200 people. And rather than release music under their own names, they would always use one band name when they recorded and released their music, as well as for live gigs. As an example, let's call this "band" something -- perhaps, "The Beatles" for discussion's sake.
> > >
> > > Maybe "The Beatles" would end up playing at 3 or 4 venues on the same night, and in several cities at once. And the band would flood the market with dozens of releases a month, with outrageously different music on each, which was in complete disregard to other "The Beatles" releases by the various mystery members (all of whom are free to join or leave the group at will, and are under no obligation to tell anyone their status). And the same four "band members" are always listed as the creators of the music on a "The Beatles" release.
> > >
> > > Perhaps such a mega-member band exists. Just don't say yes to Quechup.
> > >