[NewMusic] Don't reply to Quechup invites

[Matt Davignon]

You could call it "The Kids Who've Lived on the Block for a While."

On 9/10/07, Travis Johns <electric.tokyo at gmail.com> wrote:
> ahso - corrected, I stand.
>
> Though then the question would be whether or not its about the music,
> or the development of the persona of this proposed virtual band -  i
> figure with the anonymous unpredictability of membership creating an
> interesting heaping of multi-colored, pan-genre product, where else
> can you go? if this band is to have hundreds of members assuming the
> roles of say, four distinct band members, would you then have to
> develop one as the loner, the other as the rebel without a cause, the
> one who gets all the ladies, etc? would these characters have names?
> and if so, would the implied personalities/characters in turn effect
> the musical output of the band? for instance, if these characters were
> created in the image of deedee and marky, should we still expect a
> spoken word performance? would marketing grim, metal and corpse paint
> yield brit-pop? or would we go just a little more Residents-core and
> simply have the members refer to themselves as designates numbered 1-4
> and create a spin as to why no interviews are granted and no images of
> the band exists in spite of the hype?
>
> regardless, y'all have to admit, this is a much more interesting
> conversation than complaining about another useless social networking
> spasm - thankya Gino!
>
> On 9/10/07, grobair at emusician.com <grobair at emusician.com> wrote:
> > 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?>>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bay Area New Music Discussion Group
> > NewMusic at music.mills.edu
> > http://music.mills.edu/mailman/listinfo/newmusic
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Bay Area New Music Discussion Group
> NewMusic at music.mills.edu
> http://music.mills.edu/mailman/listinfo/newmusic
>