[NewMusic] Don't reply to Quechup invites

[grobair at emusician.com]

Some of you have missed my point. The fantasy was not to create a franchise
ensemble (we all know that's been done to death), but to simply subvert the
competitive aspects in the music industry (at the lower levels), while
creating unpredictable product on a mass scale so that, hopefully, there
will be times when a listener hears something they didn't expect to hear.
And perhaps that would be a good thing and turn some unsuspecting listener
on to some new kinds of music. I know, It's too much to ask.

By using "The Beatles" as an example, I didn't intend to mean it would be a
Beatles cover band. Rather, it could be any name (perhaps Queschup), but
there would be millions of Quechup bands, each with anonymous members in it
that have the same "names" when playing in the band. But one band might be
skronky, another chillout electronica, another post-glitch goth/metal, etc.

Not that I wouldn't want to see an animatronic Damon at Chuck E. Cheese's.
That would fine by me, for many different reasons.

DJ Davignon sed:
<< [NewMusic] Don't reply to Quechup invites
Next message: [NewMusic] Don't reply to Quechup invites
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
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?>>