Trey Anastasio on "The Scene"

[Super Freak]

I don't get why peeps get offended by the term Jamband. I know it's an overused term but is it really that annoying? I just assume when someone calls a band a Jamband it means they tend improvise solos etc instead of a pre-rehearsed 20 or 30 second guitar solo and that the music is dancable(got groove or funk or whatever). I don't assume the bands musical influences.

[briguy]

I disagree paisley. I would love to see JSB rocking out to 800 people at Seventy-Seven instead of 150 at Pepper Jack's. It'll never happen with the current approach, I hope I'm wrong.

"it keeps people who just want to be in a cool 'scene' away thinking we're all listening to worn out 60s music"

No it doesn't! It keeps music fans away. People who like funk, jazz, rock and such. People who don't like the Dead and Phish. And our scene is full of people who want nothing other then to be cool.

Canadian jambands have been playing to the same crowds and same bars for the last 15 years.. I'm sure they would like more if they could get it. In my opinion keeping the scene small and underground doesn't do much for the bands. This attitude drives me nuts! I still love ya though paisley.

[briguy]

I don't think peeps get offended at the jamband term, I certainly don't. It does bother me how people use it to describe just about any music they listen to. This is where the problem starts. I think it misrepresents our community as a whole and does damage to the progress and evolution of the 'scene'..

"they tend improvise solos etc instead of a pre-rehearsed 20 or 30 second guitar solo and that the music is dancable" Yes, this what people think. Not all jambands have guitar solos. People think spacey guitar driven music, not true. It's hurting our 'scene'.

[PalacePrincess]

quote:

---

I don't get why peeps get offended by the term Jamband. I know it's an overused term but is it really that annoying?

---

yeah, it's just a word isn't it, seems silly to be bothered by it. hmmmmm, maybe the person who said this can explain the phenonenom to you:

"If I ever say these things again, I'll eat my own face."

[DevO]

I think I'm with Trey on this one. Seems to me the word 'jamband' doesn't really stand up on its own. Its an anti-genre. I'm not offended by the term by any means but it sure doesn't do much good! I try to use other words (anything but) when trying to convince people to come with me to see a show. Unless they're 'in the know', like you guys, in which case I don't mind using it cause it serves its purpose. Jam on!

[Sunshine]

We are all here for one reason....WE LOVE MUSIC.

[Velvet]

When I go to 'jamband' sites I generally find info on bands I like. That's convenient.

[jiboom]

This genre/label thing seems to keep coming up. I'm trying to get it straight. This is what I've come up with so far: jamband is a label some bands/musicians dislike; it closes off sections of their possible audience who may not give them a chance because of stereotypes associated with certian bands who fall into this grey area.

IMO- people who believe in stereotypes are close-minded.

"And as soon as you have a scene, you put boundaries on what your path is going to be."

I think that the jam "genre", or lack thereof, is

unique because of its lack of boundaries. A jam band is not easily categorized. The scene is a whole other story.... or is it? Can you seperate people who love music from music itself? I've read this question here before, and I know the answer. I'd rather not. I like the jam, and the people. Trey wasn't thinking when he said this, I'm sure.

[kurly]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Velvet:

When I go to 'jamband' sites I generally find info on bands I like. That's convenient.

---

beauty!

not admitting - or refusing to admit that there is somewhat of a scene that surrounds certain bands that I dig seems stupid. But maybe Im stupid.

[Super Freak]

Find someone else to focus on. It's hardly a phenomenon. Please let it go.

[Im going home Donny]

just giver

[kung]

I'd have to say that I'm with MarcO, KevO and Esau on their assesment of this notion. First off 'jamband' does describe alot of

quote:

---

noodly over-ambitious navel-gazing jams and bad songwriting. There's a shocking amount of mediocre music being folded into that term and there seems to be an audience for it.

---

Also if you're trying to get people from outside the fold to come out and see shows usually this term is going to work against you. I also agree with Velvet however that when I visit jamband sites I usually find information about bands I'm interested in. No matter how flawed it's a term that works. If we didn't use the term to describe certain bands we might get people out to a show but as soon as the band kicked into their first ten minute jam they might be a little irked. It is odd though, and Dan Kurtz made this point in his interview with MK, that a band like the Broken Social Scene (or as Velvet has mentioned in the past the Tragically Hip) or New Deal 'jam' but aren't necessarily a jamband. I think this point hinges on the fact that the term is usually tossed around as a pejorative, that's to say that it's usually used outside the 'scene' as a way of putting down a band. This is not likely to change. The prevelant attitude being that if you can't do it in 3 minutes you probably can't do it at all. It's presumed that if you jam you are skating over the fact that you can't write decent songs. As case in point I listened to the Toronto Phil and Friends show from this summer this morning and had to concede to myself that their originals are embarassingly bad and could only be described as 'jamband' type songs- in this case meaning not very good southern fried boogie lite.

[hamilton]

Originally posted by kung:

As case in point I listened to the Toronto Phil and Friends show from this summer this morning and had to concede to myself that their originals are embarassingly bad and could only be described as 'jamband' type songs- in this case meaning not very good southern fried boogie lite.

This was the most colossally boring show that I attended in years. Too bad, really - I have the greatest respect for all of these players, I just wish they would move on and do something with their talent instead of wallowing about.

Anyway, more to the point: I agree with MarcO, KevO and EsauO. And with kungO. But also with VelvetO. While I like a lot of "jambands", I hate using the word, because it really does bring up a lot of negative connotations for me. Such as:

quote:

...noodly over-ambitious navel-gazing jams and bad songwriting. There's a shocking amount of mediocre music being folded into that term and there seems to be an audience for it.

"Jamband" is about as useful a term as "rock music". So many variations abound that it has become useless without another adjective to describe which particular sub-genre is being referred to. '60s rock? Electronic rock? Hard rock? Soft rock? Adult-oriented rock (just what the fuck does that really mean, anyway?)? Krautrock? Pop rock? Shock rock? Cock rock? Jock rock? I could go on, but I won't...

Are the Allman Brothers Band a "jamband" or a "rock band"? Are they a "rock band that jams", or a "rock jamband"?

(I know that the real answer is, "They are a Southern blues-rock guitar-driven band who often insert extended improvisational solo sections into their songs," but that has too many words, and people like short answers so that they don't have to think too much.)

[Velvet]

The term 'jamband' describes the audience, not the music.

[hamilton]

Originally posted by Velvet:

The term 'jamband' describes the audience, not the music.

But... the audience is just as varied as the music, isn't it? A New Deal show is a good example - 1/3 "heads", 2/3 "club-types". (A generalization, I know, but still...) The (sometimes) healthy debate on here about which bands are good and which ones suck is clearly indicative of variation, as are the "5 Disc Rotation" threads, in which I see that the community has an extremely wide array of musical tastes. Which means we're all (mostly) music lovers, but that's not exclusive to "jamheads" either.

When I want to know about a band, I don't want to know about the audience anywhere near as much as I want to know about the... band. And since I find that many "jamband audiences" are comprised of people who like "noodly over-ambitious navel-gazing jams and bad songwriting" I'm not sure that the distinction between describing the audience and describing the band matters anyway. Not that liking crap disqualifies you from liking good music - I'm sure there are Britney Spears fans who also like the Beatles - but then the label "jamband" means even less, even if it does apply to the audience. I know "rock" fans who also like opera.

I may have just talked myself in circles. Let me know.

[Velvet]

If 1/3 of the audience at tnd are heads and 2/3 are ravers, then I expect about 1/3 of the audience would concede that tnd is a jamband and about 2/3 would say they're a techno band.

From a certain perspective the biggest similarity between a Phish show, a Ben Harper show, and a Drums & Tuba show is the audience.

I realise that's not what people are saying when they describe a band, but in essence that's what it ends up boiling down to.

Genre's are umbrella terms and they always come after the fact. That is, genre terminology is meant to be very broad, lest we have 1500 different sections in our record stores, and the labels are created after the music already exists, so really, the term is artistically irrelevant and is essentially a cataloging strategy, and should be viewed as such. The purpose of genre terminology is to give you some idea where to look should you want to find something in that field. Nothing more. But I guess I said that in my first post.

And yes, when you seek out jamband stuff, you generally find the common denominator is the fans, not the music.

[briguy]

I apologize if i seem anti jamband terminology. It's just that I've witnessed many people avoid shows because of it. And they're not closed minded people, they just don't like the Dead. And i truly believe that people that are not in the know usually associate the term with the Dead. i guess if people want to build the scene and remove the stereotypes we should choose our words better when describing a band to non-heady folks.

I like what you said KevO. I agree that if you're in the know it's okay. I definitely use it amongst friends at times. And it is convenient for finding music i like. I've caught myslef in the past describing a band as a jamband out of laziness though. I think that has something to do with it. I strongly believe for promotions sake that it helps in some situations if I leave the term out of it.

Great topic, valid points all around. Cheers

[snarfmaster C]

Maybe music stores should switch to a Dewey Decimal-like system. Then when someone asks you what kind of music a band plays you could say; you know, punk-rock-y, somewhere in the TD201 - 223 range.

[briguy]

Great avatar earthfreak

[TonyRage]

You've all givien me so much to work with here. I'll only make a few points.

If people are turned off by the term jamband and don't want to go see a band play, then they probably aren't the type of person I want to see at a show anyways. Same as someone who refuses to go see a punk bad beacuse they hate punk. I learned long ago that there are bands within every genre who both appeal to me and do not. I will try anything once. Some people will not. It would be great to make the scene bigger and play some bigger venues, but only if the fans there are actually into it, or else the show will not have the right vibe.

Second point....Kung is wrong in even bringing up a point about song writing in jam music. There is both good and bad song writing in every genre. I don't follow if he was saying jam bands can or can't write songs, but I think some can and some cannot. Furthermore, who the fuck cares if someone can write a song if they can play a great show. Song writing is a very western-centric approach to making music. Think of japanese, javanese or Indian music. Or just think about jazz. The head is the least important element in so much jazz. It is all about the blowing. Personally, I find some jambands write great songs (BNB, Phish to start with) and three minutes is fine for radio but limiting for everything else. Try and find a concerto or symphony or any chamber piece that clocks in at three minutes. Some bands don't even try (Particle, STS9) and some bands try but still rock because they can jam so well (Nero, the Slip)....Anyways, commercial success and airplay is not the marker of a great band, only a great money-maker. That is what "songwriting" is all about these days and that is bullshit. Most songs that are played on the radio have no originality or artisitc merit. They appeal to as many people as they can and are produced to sell.

Third point, of course Trey is on smack....you ask him that question 20 minutes later and who knows what he might say. He owes everything to the fact that there is a strong scene out there supporting him by dressing the same and competing to be as heady as possible.

[MarcO]

Tonyrage - I don’t think the usage of the term “punk” is as widely applied as “jamband”, so your analogy does not hold.

Kung does raise a good point, one that should be raised, and it's important - especially in light of your argument - to remember that the entire "jamband" paradigm is almost entirely of interest only to people in North America. So yeah, maybe Japanese or Indian musics place less emphasis on "song-writing" and more on composition and ability but pointing that out only distracts from the argument at hand. The jazz analogy is closer to the point. But there's where, if you're going to attempt to transcend the niggling little problem of poor or no material, your chops and approach had better be so original and mindblowing so as to transcend it. Otherwise, your "blowing" is just a wank-off. And God help us all when someone starts thinking their improv skills are so scary good as to get around all that lack of jazz training and education.

Yes, some songs are written expressly for radio-play. It’s been that way since the birth of radio, moreso since the 1970s when different radio formats solidified. Pointing that out means, what? That it dilutes the value of “songwriting” as an art form? What about songs that get radioplay that are good? What about a well-written pop song? ”That is what ‘songwriting’ is all about these days and that is bullshit.” That’s too broad a statement about the art of songwriting to hold any weight. I only wish I had the time and finances to keep up with the amount of great songwriters pumping out material day in, day out, perhaps hoping for a bit of radioplay but not putting the cart before the horse.

And your speculative comment about Trey is totally irrelevant.

[paisley]

I think MarcO's too old to go to shows

[secondtube]

quote:

---

Third point, of course Trey is on smack....you ask him that question 20 minutes later and who knows what he might say

---

See, this i agree with.

[MarcO]

How about this: instead of speculating about what Trey *might* have said 20 minutes later, for the purposes of this discussion, why not stick to what he *did* say?

[hamilton]

In response to tonyrage:

Point #1: Everything MarcO said.

Point #2: He owes everything to the fact that there is a strong scene out there supporting him by dressing the same and competing to be as heady as possible.

This is a pointless argument - it sounds far too much like the "Phish owes the phans something" drivel that I hear from some individuals. Why, exactly, is Trey indebted to the "scene"? He may be a lot less rich without it, but I thought that music was the point here, not money or fame.