PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic Performing for Nothing, your views?

90 db..... what part of Florida are you in? I'll be in central Fl later in July on a family vacation... if we are close by, I might stop in to a gig....

To the folks who play and make a living at it.

Yes, as Pat Marr said, the paradigm has changed. Apparently, if you're still playing and getting paid, you have adapted to it. The music business has changed. Vinyl records became cassettes and eventually CD's and then the digital download practically killed hard media sales totally. To think that would not reflect into the live music scene to one degree or another in one way or another would be foolish thinking.

Back in the day when I gigged for a living, there were plenty of places that let you play for free, and plenty of musicians willing to play those gigs. No different than now. But technology has changed and now the solo act can use any one of a dozen ways to enhance the music they play.

The amazing thing back then was this. That folks who did play for free or cheap never affected our band. Not once did we show up at a club and find we had been canceled in favor of a "free band" for that weekend. Not one single time. When a club started to use the free entertainment over the paid bands, it was an indication that the club was about to go out of business.

The gigs that paid good money were reserved to the best bands and the clubs and venues were packed. The club down the street that had the "free" entertainment was normally close to empty. People knew that when it came to weekend entertainment, the old motto that "you get what you pay for" applied and for a good time on a weekend night, that good time was found where the bands were getting top dollar and knew how to keep the good times rolling.

So no, we never really gave it a second thought that other folks and bands were willing to play for free. They weren't even close to the same professional level as us and they were not in the same venue circuit as we were....so they posed no threat to our livelihood.

If we had the time, we'd often go and see them and offer them some encouragement.

Got to get my $1.25 worth of comments in here.

EVERYBODY competes with each other in a capitalist society (CS). Those that gain the most GAME the CS's rules best to their own advantage - and use their influence to funnel the most money they can into their own pockets. They use their 'competitive' advantage to do so - which these days, is their sheer SIZE and CONTROL of the market.

Also, these days - companies are so BIG, economy of scale so large, and CONTROL of the market so strong - they can give A LOT of stuff away for free in order to DOMINATE and CONTROL the market. They do this buy BUYING rights to everything they can, and then GIVING as much as they have to away in order to win more $$$$$ from their competitors.

It goes on in EVERY field. It benefits each and every one of us every day - how often to you download software for free, or get a great 'closeout' item. The flip side is it hurts the individual that can't afford to compete in an environment like this (in fact, only the largest capitalized companies and monopolies can), and as a result - the individual is forced by this system to also give his product away for very low cost - as their are many low-financed small individuals competing with each other for some leverage from that big MONOPOLIZED company (even if there are 5 or 10 companies that control music distribution now - compare that with the number of music creators).

Again - my $1.25 view of the world. Take it for what it's worth.

Bob, your duo sounds great!

Where are you located in Florida? We come down to Florida every once in a while and maybe we can connect the next time we come down.

“This thread does make me realize why live cover music is almost dead.
Who wants to hear that?!”


Bob, I'm guessing that you don't go out to bars or clubs much. Your opinion puts you in a very small minority. Unless you're in a large city with an active original music scene, 99% of the music played is covers. Hardly 'dead'.

People want to hear songs they know, and while you may look down your nose at that, it's a fact.


“I don’t begrudge working musicians playing the garbage required to get gigs...


We only cover songs that we like, and enjoy playing. We wouldn't play 'garbage'. Of course, our song list is nowhere near as comprehensive as Notes', who covers every song ever written!


As for the old argument of original vs. covers, having done both, I can tell you that it's a lot easier to do original music than doing a cover well. With a cover, you are always compared to the original.


“Who wants to hear that?! I don't unless it's done with a full blown band.”


We would love to put a full-blown band together, but it's just not economically feasible. As a duo, we make much more than any single band member in our area, without all the drama involved. It also helps being married – nobody ever misses rehearsals.

Herb,

We're in Ocala, about 80 miles north of Orlando. We haven't firmed up July yet, but our confirmed schedule is here:

http://www.90dbband.com/Page6.html


Places book on short notice around here, but hopefully we'll be doing City Fire in the Villages all summer.



Regards,

Bob

Thanks Mario. We're making a newer demo - that was just "rolling tape" during a rehearsal.

Would love to hook up next time you're in Floriduhh. Let us know.


Regards,

Bob

Bob,

I knew it was impossible for me to honestly express an opinion without it coming across as harsh. That's not your fault or mine. I don't proclaim to speak for anyone other than myself.

Believe it or not, there are musicians who are making a decent living playing originals and a handful of covers on the festival circuit. I'm not one of them and I've never tried to be. I have gotten to play with a few of them after the official show was over. I've even been "drafted" to play with a handful of them onstage when the "geetar player" was absent.

They'll never be rich or famous on a national or international level.

Those are the kinds of musicians I want to hear.

But if I go to a club or restaurant, I'd rather they just play "elevator music" at a very low volume than have anyone playing with backing tracks.

But that's just me.

interesting and insightful perspectives all around!

When it comes to the expression of personal preference, there are no wrong answers. What I find most interesting isn't the preference itself, but the reasoning behind the preference.

What makes this discussion more interesting than similar discussions on other forums is that everybody here is smart enough and articulate enough to state their points of view VERY well.

Interestingly, I have yet to hear one point of view that I disagree with, based on the persons reasoning behind it. That isn't to say that I SHARE every point of view... my thinking lines up with certain people's pretty much every time... but every person who has participated in this discussion has done an excellent job of communicating whatever he/she had to say.

I respect the ability to communicate clearly every bit as much as I respect the ability to play an instrument well.

I've seen people perform with backing tracks, and I couldn't wait till they stopped... it was awful.

But I've also seen people perform with trax and they blew me away, they dominated the stage.

Same goes for full bands, solo acts, people playing covers, people playing original music... even DJs... there are interesting examples and boring examples of each.

my preference, since that's what we're mostly dealing in, is to be entertained , and that involves more than proficiency with an instrument or quality of background music. It involves stage presence, audience savvy, personality, wit, and the ability to "ramp it up" so the presentation stays interesting the whole time

Bob,

Please understand that I am not trying to be a wise guy here in any way shape or form, believe me I can one when I really want to be (tongue planted firmly in cheek) but . . . if you are so stead fast against backing tracks, and again I respect your right to be so, how and "why" do you use BIAB?

Thanks,

For practicing only.

Gotcha thanks.

Later,

I have come across this disucussion in multiple music forums frequent. This discussion here took a strange twist so I ignored it for a while, but I am glad to see it calming down.

Here is a different spin which I don't think I have seen in previous inputs. It comes from here: http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=140701

"...I remember reading an interview Paco de Lucia complaining about the fact that in USA music is regarded as entertainment first and foremost. He regarded himself as an artist and his work and performances as art.

I guess this is the main issue: music is mostly regarded as a constant stream of entertainment. As long as music is not regarded as art any more, it´s not precious any more."


I think it is a good point. Some times it is hard to hear the "art" amongst all the noise. Despite the fact that there are apparently too many musicians walking the streets, we still seem to be a little short on artists.

and what is art to you may be noise to me (and vice versa!)

great article!

Excellent point Dan. The kind of live music I enjoy is where the audience is expected to come in, sit down, shut up and listen.

In this scenario the musicians are treated with respect instead of being treated like glorified mp3 players doling out background music.

I hadn't thought about it in terms of art vs entertainment, but it does present an interesting angle.

the recurring discussion here has always divided at that line.. (art? or entertainment?)

the arguments set forth by the people in the discussion clearly show which side each of us weighs in on. And both points are valid. Not everybody wants to be an artist, and not everybody wants to be an entertainer. They are different paths that lead to different outcomes.

People who want to make money nearly always weigh in on the side of entertainment... mostly because the term "starving artist" has so often proven to be accurate.

In contrast, we are accustomed to seeing well-to-do entertainers on TV and in movies.

I'd say that those who see themselves as pursuing the art would be more likely to play for free, while those who are pursuing music as an entertainment business would not. Both of those conclusions make sense in the context of the person's goal.

Well, cover songs are not garbage. To many, many people, a song represents a time in their life, a memory of a person or event, and hearing the song brings that memory back. That's why oldies radio stations are so popular and that's why the majority of musicians and bands in clubs are "cover bands".

If you are among the rare group of musicians who are able to play mostly your own original material, consider yourself fortunate. You have obviously been at it for a long time in order to be able to get away with playing originals and not getting thrown out of the clubs. You have a loyal following who shows up at the gigs, and you present the original material in a way that even the new folks to your shows get into the music and the lyrics.

In the bands I've been in, we mostly played covers. Some originals sprinkled in but mostly cover tunes. I've even had club owners specifically tell us not to play more than one or two (at the most) original songs in a set because the people don't dance to what they don't know.

It takes time to build that audience who comes to the shows loyally, and want to hear your songs as opposed to covers. Since we couldn't do many originals that actually was the inspiration for us to work up "alternative" versions of cover songs that became our "trademark style" as it turned out. We didn't play the covers in the same tired stale way and it became something that people really enjoyed..... it also became our stage show and our little 3 piece band was commanding the same money that 6 and 7 piece bands were getting as a result of how we did things. Other local bands started to try to copy us. That's when you know you have people's attention. Their attempts were not successful. There was but one band doing what we did.... and it was us.

I said I'm not going to say anything more about playing for free and I meant it, however the thread has drifted to art/backing tracks/cover songs and so on.

First of all, whatever a musician likes best is of no concern to me. Someone won't listen to a band with backing tracks, another wants original tunes, and so on. But we all listen to music with our musician's ears, and we make up a tiny segment of the population.

I suppose when nuclear scientists get together they talk about things I don't understand, even though I've had physics in college and am interested in the subject and do my best to try to understand the spin and flavors of sub-atomic particles.

When I go out to listen to live music, my favorite is a symphony orchestra playing a symphony from one of my favorite composers - in essence I'm going out to hear a cover band. So in the discussion previous to this, there are those who think the greatest music the world has ever known is not art. I disagree.

My second choice would be cool school jazz. Both of these arouse my interest as a musician, and neither one is mainstream.

I've played both symphonic and jazz, and if I could make a living playing cool school jazz, I'd probably go that way. But then again, I'd miss the blues, rock, salsa, and other forms I get to play.

I don't care if another musician doesn't want to hear backing tracks, I don't care if another musician cares if my music is art or not, I don't care if another musician thinks my cover songs are worthy or not, or if he/she thinks my re-interpretation of popular songs is art or not.

It's not that I don't respect what a musician says, and if a musician offers constructive criticism, I listen and evaluate it. But if they say, I don't like you because you use backing tracks or something as inane as that, their viewpoint is ignored.

A musician listens with musician's ears which should be more educated, refined, and discriminating that that of the general public. But since the musician is educated, he/she should also be able to appreciate the art that goes into simpler forms of music. When I hear a greatly crafted pop song, it also moves me. When I hear a great song, even if it isn't the style that I like to listen to, I can appreciate it on it's own merits.

If everyone's ears were educated, the general public would listen to nothing but symphonies, since they require the most training to understand.

Just because it's popular or because someone has done the song before, doesn't automatically make it kitsch.

If another musician doesn't like the fact that Leilani sings "At Last" better than Etta James because it's a cover song, I don't care. She usually gets wild response from the audience from that and many other songs as well.

I do care what the audience thinks, and for all my life, the public has approved of what I do. So did the educational system. When I was in school, I was first tenor sax in the all-state band every year, and section leader - a chair that goes to the first alto player by default. It's a little like a viola player being the concertmaster in a symphony orchestra.

You can play for yourself, you can play for other musicians, or you can play for the general public -- if you are good enough, you'll get the audience you asked for.

I always asked for the general public, and they have never let me down.

I think what we do is art, but I don't confuse it with a symphony from Dvorak or Shastakovitch. And remember, Beethoven was an entertainer too. I've heard some people doing originals that paled in comparison to your average Motown song as far as what I consider "art" to be. Playing originals doesn't automatically make you a great artist.

So if you don't like backing tracks or cover songs, your opinion is that of one musician, and does not represent the definitive word in good taste, just your opinion. It doesn't make tracks or covers good or bad, just not your thing.

I can think of a number of songs from the lowly genre of Rock that in my opinion cross over to great art, to name just a few (in no particular order), Bohemian Rhapsody, Hotel California, Tom Jones Version of I Who Have Nothing, Aretha's I Never Loved A Man The Way That I Loved You, Paul Simon's The Boxer, The Beatles' Abbey Road Medley, and the list goes on and on and on and on. And if a band covers them well, it's as artful as an orchestra playing a symphony.

I play some cover songs similar to the popular versions, I play others reinterpreted, and I also play kitch songs. I do them all artfully, and when I make my backing tracks, I use all the skills I learned about arranging in school, my experience playing sax, drums, guitar, bass, keys, wind synth, keyboard synth, and vocal on stage in excellent bands. I consider them artful feats of arranging and sequencing. My audience may not know why, but they like what they hear, and isn't that what music is all about? And you may call it entertaining, and yes entertaining is an important part of music, but I just call is music, and it's a very emotionally rewarding way to make a living.

Bob