singemonkey wrote
Point number two is the really hard part.
But isn't this what you guys do at TJ's? Sit there in front of everyone and perform?
Sort of. But it's usually 3 or 4 songs then next please. That's doable. It's whole shows of a decent length that I am thinking about and am increasingly impressed by. I think that's difficult. I've been asked to go back to TJs in 2 weeks and do a longer set than I usually do. So now you have to think about the structure and the sequence and how you're going to tie the whole thing together - I don't think it has to be a whole, but it does have to flow and have a shape.
It's the difference between some star having a solo acoustic interlude in their set and doing a whole show all by themselves.
It seems to me that being able to do this, and for a decent period of time is not easy. 3 songs at TJs - easy. 90 minutes..... that's a different proposition.
I've got this notion that before I do the set of songs I'm working on with a band, I must make sure they can all work in solo performance. If they can, they're strong. If they can't, there's no point wasting time with the band.
I saw a thing on the BBC the one time with a bunch of songwriters who had to perform solo with just a guitar. I remember there was someone from the Hollies, some young dude, and freakin' Neil Finn. The others sounded like your mates playing their songs at the campfire. Neil Finn sounded like crowded house. It made zero difference that there was no band. The songs were so incredible and his performance so strong, that if you'd heard it you'd be like, I didn't realise this song was just a guitar and voice... thinking it was the same thing you'd always heard.
That's a strong tune.
That was the secret of their success. I saw them when they toured here in the early 90s. They were much more stripped down on the records, but it didn't make a lot of difference because the real magic was built into the songs - and their performance was very assured. They had a lot of "production" on their records (usually courtesy of Mitchell Froom) but that was really just a sprinkling of fairy dust on material that was intrinsically strong. Songs like "Weather With You" and "Better Be Home Soon" and "Into Temptation" and even "Chocolate Cake".
Likewise Bruce Springsteen doing Born in the USA. In fact, the E-street band had always prevented me fully getting into springsteen. It had that eighties polish to it that made it sound very commercially focused. Hearing him on his own, I got it. This isn't one of the songs that gets pulled out by the backpacking hippy on your hotel rooftop in Marrakesh. This is real talent. You can tell the difference so quickly.
Ja. Interesting things happen when you strip songs down to their essentials. SOme songs just reveal that there was nothing there in the first place. Other songs reveal or confirm their splendour, maybe even allow themselves to be seen in a different way or for what they truly are. "Born In The USA" is NOT the jingoistic anthem that it's so often taken for. (Don't people pay attention to the words?)
PS: If you haven't heard it, get hold of Springsteen's
Nebraska album. It's Springsteen distilled down to his essence, mostly just him and a guitar, and mostly recorded on a little 8-track home studio thingy. Great record.
