One of the most talked-about aspects of Rock Star is the use of an unusually high-quality house band, called "House Band", whose members often outshine the contestants and could probably outplay the members of Supernova on a nightly basis.
I sat and watched Dancing With the Stars a fair bit early this year. I wasn't watching the dancing, although at times it was interesting. I was watching the house band. I was constantly impressed with the quality of their renditions of recent popular tracks, played live with a "real" band.
Many of these tracks were originally electronic bassed, probably 99% written and recorded in the computer, and yet this band based them out on real guitars and bass and drums. I LOVE watching stuff like that, no matter how crud the song. Sometimes the singer didn't suit but I tuned them out and listen to just the guitar riff or the drummer...
The same goes for Australia Idol, however to a lesser degree. The idea is the same, the poor house band has to work out how to play a shortened, often completely reworked version of eight or so popular songs in a week. However in Idol the focus is constantly on the singer, the mix is often so that the singer is up front, and if the singer is rubbish, you can't ignore it.
At least with Dancing they would at times focus on the band, the song was usually complete and usually a close rendition which was, as I said, always fun to watch when the song really shouldn't normally be played on real instruments.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think the cover band as a concept for pubs is the lowest you can go as a musician but unfortunately it pays really well. The public (it seems) would rather hear the songs they know played averagely than songs they don't know played well.
But I do have a healthy respect for the cover. Particularly a well played cover organised in a short amount of time, or snuck into another song. Jimi Hendrix played "Sgt. Peppers" as an opener to the gig he played the day after the album came out. That's cool.
Some bunch of yobs playing the latest Korn track at the local pokie pub is just lame. Even if they do it note for note perfect. People paying good money to see it is worse.
As a band, it's fun to play a cover, and often useful for learning new tricks. Throwing in a cover into your set every now and then is fun but it shouldn't be overdone. People will forgive only so much.
To be honest, I've always wanted to start a cover band that only played songs people didn't know. Like The Sharp b-sides or the non-single Regurgitator tracks.
The idea of a cover band that did purely metal versions of dance tracks kind of turns me on too, but it's a joke that can only last so long.
No matter the price of the song or album you purchase, the "Authorised Purchase" hits the card as $3.38, which just happens to be $1.69 times 2.
When I first saw it I thought I'd been charged twice for the same song, but I waited and when finally put through beyond the "Authorised" stage the number was correct.
Last night I bought a full album (EP really, $10). Same deal. $3.38 hits the card.
I'm told much of the cost of online music sales in Australia is credit card fees. You can't actually make money from a single 99 cent sale in Australia because the credit card fees would actually wipe out your profit, which is why we have $1.69 on iTunes. It's also why ISPs such as Telstra (who sell music via BigPond) will give their members a discount because they just add the total to their monthly bill, saving the company any credit card sale cost.
I wonder if the $3.38 pre-purchase authorisation is some way to get around that?
At some point recently I decided the quality sold is "good enough" for a single track but I'm still hanging out for lossless sales. And I really really would rather buy the CD but much of the stuff I'm getting just isn't available outside of European imports or via time machine.
I like the iTunes preview option, however the fact it is only 30 seconds causes me no end of frustration. It's almost pointless because of it, beyond confirming you're getting the right version.
A few days ago Universal announced they are teaming up with a soon to be stinking rich website investor to allow anyone (in the US) to download (not stream, download) their entire (we'll see what "entire" means...) catalog for free. The service will be paid for by advertising. Users will have to visit the site monthly to renew their registration or their music will stop playing.
I presume annoying "targetted" adverts will have to be viewed at various points but ultimately it's a good idea. Anyone with a WMA enabled device (that's me) in the US (that isn't me) will be able to put them on their portable, you just can't burn the songs to CDs (easily...)
It's very very brave on Universal's part and should be commended. All the labels really need a "try before you buy" option. But they must combine it with a saleable product. There isn't a point providing a massive advert for a product (ie. allowing it's download) if you can't buy it.
As I said above, my biggest problem isn't desire for music, it's the format I can't get my hands on. There are 3 CDs I'd go right out and buy right now but they're not available in Australia. They're not even on iTunes actually. As a compromise I'd buy lossless versions online from iTunes for iTunes prices if they were available. But they're not.
My music buying tastes haven't really changed. I still want the CD. I had hoped that one day the big studios would put their back catalog online so I could start getting the obscure tracks easier than record-fairs and eBay but that doesn't seem likely anymore. When Universal says "their entire back catalog" you just know they're not going to dive into their old tapes and start converting.
My taste of the obscure continues. My desire for the shiny plastic and lossless quality is never ending.
The easier the music stores enable me to try the product the better.