yup, I did think - after I'd posted - that it was probably a daft thing to say - given that your audience is probably looking for as much a Sisters-replica sound as is plausible.
It isn't daft at all. I'm not so vainglorious that I can't hear my voice is significantly different to the Paramount Leader's, but as you correctly say, people want to hear as close an approximation as we can manage. And that's pretty damn close.
Are you planning on focussing your song choices on the early-era (my personal choice) - or even just songs that the current "real band" (such as) touring model don't perform?
We've considered this at length, exactly what era we like to cover. We came out of it realising that of the original three in the band, we each preferred certain periods of Sisters history. If the three of us in the band couldn't agree on an era, there's no way our fans would. So, we pick and choose from across the ages.
One thing we do focus on are the tracks that - as you ask - the Sisters might not include in the current perfomance. We always try and surprise people.
Has performing Sisters songs given you renewed respect for the band? I have no musical ability at all, and I think it's all well and good for us all to critique the performances of band's we see, but it must put things in a whole new light when you have to actually try and replicate that sound yourself (and have others comment likewise).
Undoubtedly. I would defend certain long-term fans who may have no musical ability themselves, but are intimately aware of how their songs 'should' sound - just because you can't play guitar doesn't stop you from detecting when someone drops a note, or plays half a tone lower than you're used to.
As the performers, well, I can only speak for myself. One thing I've struggled with is AE's song-writing technique. The lyrics themselves are only remotely linked to the actual melody of the song; lines will often begin off the beat, or behind or ahead of the song's focus. Trying to detect cues is near-impossible. But worth the effort.
I've noticed that the band as a whole get a certain sense of satisfaction when executing a song. It's made for some surprises, as we've come to enjoy performing songs - and thus decided to add them to our live arsenal - that the fans might be surprised to hear, as mentioned above. Closing the set on 'Alice' was and is a no-brainer, but I went from supsicion over performing an obscure B-side like 'Lights', to relishing what has returned to being a fantastically atmospheric song.
That attitude will continue to shape our live setlists.
Also, one thing that crossed my mind was whether you would perform anything "in the style of"? I'm thinking about that band from back when: I think they were called No Way Sis - a tribute band of the worst actual band in history...Oasis (or were Happy Mondays the worst band ever - I get confused?), who did a song that wasn't by the band, but in the style of Oasis. Would you do a cover song - like i suggested in another part of the forum for example: Rhinestone Cowboy - a la Sisters? Just a thought.
The whole question of 'covers within covers' has definitely come up in discussion. The girls are famous for their covers of unexpected pop classics. We aren't exactly going to break out 'Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee' at our second gig (sorry pop pickers), but at the same time there are certain Sisters versions that are A) too popular and B) too satisfying to play not to add. We'll see who comes along to the party.
If you're asking if The Marching Men would cover songs by other bands entirely, the suggestion has been floated. We're of the opinion it's too early in the band's life to start mixing up our perfomance with songs utterly removed from the Sisters camp. But we'll never say never.
Except to Bond themes.
---------------------------
Thanks for what turned out to be an enjoyable mini-interview
Bearskin, hope questions were answered sufficiently!
