Do you react to your audience or do you cause a reaction with your audience?

[Telecruiser]

I believe that in business (and music for money is a business) that the truly successful ones do not react to the market, they are the ones that cause a reaction in the market. With that I give you my description of the question.

 

 

Reacting to the audience -

 

There are performers that play, take requests and generally play along with what they feel the crowd wants to hear. They do songs pretty much like the original recordings and try to please everyone in the audience with a good musical experience.

 

Causing a reaction with your audience -

 

Then, there are those that get up there and do their thing the way they want to do it and generally get the audience into their act and what they are doing. They take cover songs and "make them their own" by doing them totally different than the originals. They interject well written and arranged originals. They usually don't take requests as they have their show planned and worked out ahead of time. This is more risky but more rewarding (I feel) for the performer.

 

Which are you? Do you take risks or do you prefer to play it a little safer?

[EightString]

Why not both?

[Howie22]

I pretty much disagree with you. I think the guy who plans out every move is taking way less of a risk and hiding in his own little "I'm an artist" shell.

 

The guy who is up there taking requests is the one taking the risk. Who knows what's going to come up or where the show will lead. Different show every night.

[daddymack]

i'm with Eightstring...both...overplanning a show takes the spontaneity out of it, and reduces teh fun factor, IMHO...although I always have a set list, straying from it is not verboten, and the occassional interesting request is acceptable (Not Mustang Sally, Brick House, Brown-eyed Girl, Louie Louie, Wild thing... ). I honestly rarely cover a song as if I were the jukebox...as a performer/entertainer I see little point in doing that, personally.

[richardmac]

I like to have a game plan going into any gig, so I'll have set lists. But I like to be able to change songs on the fly. I have a philosophy about requests, though... I won't play a request if it's not a song I don't normally play, meaning I don't use a fake book or try to wing it through anything. I don't play it unless I feel like I can do it well. A lot of times I will know a different song by the same artist and often that is good enough. I do Brown Eyed Girl, though! Mostly because I've never played it before so I'm not sick to death of it. But I refuse to play Mustang Sally, because I freaking HATE that song. It's a mediocre song to begin with and it has literally been played to death. I'd rather sing the theme to Sesame Street than do Mustang Freaking Sally. But people do it all the time and think nothing of it. To each his/her own.

[Telecruiser]

 

Why not both?

 

 

I don't think you can do both. I believe it is an attitude about how you conduct your business. If someone wants to go and sing songs, take requests and generally feel they are fullfilling their obligations to the venue they were hired then that is fine. Good for them and much success.

 

BUT -

 

If a performer feels they have something different to offer, are creative in constructing their "product" and feel they have something that will get people out of their chairs or at least having them intently listening then that is fine too. It is a different attitude.

 

They are two different ways of conducting your business.

 

When you go to a concert, whether it be in a large venue or in-home affair you will just about always see the artist sticking to a well planned format rarely taking requests. They will play it their way. These are the people that will get at an in-home concert a minimum (based on people who have conducted these) of $1000 or more with 50-100 people attending for an hour and a halfs work. The artists purpose is to cause a reaction with their audience. Risky? Yes? Rewarding? If that's what you want then "yes". I have on a couple of occasions watched a performer do this at a club/restaurant though I doubt they are paid a $1000. They were wonderful and refreshing. They didn't take requests, played 3 hours and got rousing applause for their efforts. To me, two totally different approaches.

[Howie22]

 

When you go to a concert, whether it be in a large venue or in-home affair you will just about always see the artist sticking to a well planned format rarely taking requests. They will play it their way. These are the people that will get at an in-home concert a minimum (based on people who have conducted these) of $1000 or more with 50-100 people attending for an hour and a halfs work. The artists purpose is to cause a reaction with their audience. Risky? Yes? Rewarding? If that's what you want then "yes". I have on a couple of occasions watched a performer do this at a club/restaurant though I doubt they are paid a $1000. They were wonderful and refreshing. They didn't take requests, played 3 hours and got rousing applause for their efforts. To me, two totally different approaches.

 

 

House concert is a pretty poor analogy to a guy in the corner of a bar. At any "concert," people are paying money to come see that particular artist's show. At that point, I think they are expected to do what you are talking about. That's just fine.

 

However, if you are trying to make a living playing in bars, you'd better be pretty adaptable to entertain whoever walks in that door.

[Telecruiser]

 

House concert is a pretty poor analogy to a guy in the corner of a bar. At any "concert," people are paying money to come see that particular artist's show. At that point, I think they are expected to do what you are talking about. That's just fine. However, if you are trying to make a living playing in bars, you'd better be pretty adaptable to entertain whoever walks in that door.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with a guy or gal sticking to a format they are comfortable with and that fits with a particular venue.

 

Once again, two different attitudes, two different approaches.

 

I knew of one guy many years ago in San Diego, who played two nights a week (guitar, piano) doing covers (Fogelberg, Taylor, Eagles etc.) in a nice bar situation and made $50K a year in the mid 70's. He was very good. It was a show, he could deliver. He played 3 hours total a night. The place was packed. He did it for a for a few years. Nice gig!

[EightString]

 

I don't think you can do both. I believe it is an attitude about how you conduct your business. If someone wants to go and sing songs, take requests and generally feel they are fullfilling their obligations to the venue they were hired then that is fine. Good for them and much success. BUT - If a performer feels they have something different to offer, are creative in constructing their "product" and feel they have something that will get people out of their chairs or at least having them intently listening then that is fine too. It is a different attitude. They are two different ways of conducting your business. When you go to a concert, whether it be in a large venue or in-home affair you will just about always see the artist sticking to a well planned format rarely taking requests. They will play it their way. These are the people that will get at an in-home concert a minimum (based on people who have conducted these) of $1000 or more with 50-100 people attending for an hour and a halfs work. The artists purpose is to cause a reaction with their audience. Risky? Yes? Rewarding? If that's what you want then "yes". I have on a couple of occasions watched a performer do this at a club/restaurant though I doubt they are paid a $1000. They were wonderful and refreshing. They didn't take requests, played 3 hours and got rousing applause for their efforts. To me, two totally different approaches.

 

 

 

I don't subscribe to that rigid "either/or" approach. If I have the creativity and chops to please myself AND the audience in a variety of ways, I'm going to use them.

 

I have plenty of original songs and unique interpretations of covers throughout my sets. But then some cover songs, I actually ENJOY playing/singing the original artist's version, and enjoy giving the audience that more "authentic" experience.

 

For instance, I might play Olivia Newton-John's "Magic" as a hard rock song, Dio's "Rainbow in the Dark" as a acoustic ballad, and Wichita Lineman as a sparse guitar/drum/upright arrangement, all of these sounding VERY different than the originals.

 

But then I might turn around and play some Earth Wind and Fire or Thomas Dolby as close to the originals as possible because I actually LIKE those arrangement and they make ME want to get up and dance too.

 

I like to think my palette (and the audience's) is rich enough to enjoy originals, odd interpretations of covers, AND well-executed authentic arrangements of covers, all in one evening.

[EightString]

That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with ALL originals, ALL covers, or any combination thereof. If the musician is happy and the audience is happy, then it really doesn't matter, except to ASCAP.

[EightString]

i'm with Eightstring...both...overplanning a show takes the spontaneity out of it, and reduces teh fun factor, IMHO...although I always have a set list, straying from it is not verboten, and the occassional interesting request is acceptable ( Not Mustang Sally, Brick House, Brown-eyed Girl, Louie Louie, Wild thing... ). I honestly rarely cover a song as if I were the jukebox...as a performer/entertainer I see little point in doing that, personally.

 

Yeah, in fact, while I do put together set lists, sometimes the audience is responding to one or two particular genres more than others, so the setlist can sometimes go out the window by the second set. I've had crowds yelling out "MORE SINATRA!", or "PLAY SOME DIO!", sometimes in the same night, and because I can play and enjoy playing anything from classic jazz vocal stuff to metal, I don't mind shifting gears like that, because to me, it's all good.

 

Then sometimes, its a booty-shaking crowd, and I end up playing danceable stuff most of the night.

 

I have a gig coming up that's a showcase for some of my original jazz material, and I'll also do some recognizable classics while I'm at it. It's a very upscale venue, so I don't expect a bunch of catcalls for Judas Priest and Metallica, so the three sets of mostly jazz will probably remain intact.

 

I think one can be self-indulgent AND play to the audience, all at the same time.

[EightString]

I like to have a game plan going into any gig, so I'll have set lists. But I like to be able to change songs on the fly. I have a philosophy about requests, though... I won't play a request if it's not a song I don't normally play, meaning I don't use a fake book or try to wing it through anything. I don't play it unless I feel like I can do it well. A lot of times I will know a different song by the same artist and often that is good enough. I do Brown Eyed Girl, though! Mostly because I've never played it before so I'm not sick to death of it. But I refuse to play Mustang Sally, because I freaking HATE that song. It's a mediocre song to begin with and it has literally been played to death. I'd rather sing the theme to Sesame Street than do Mustang Freaking Sally. But people do it all the time and think nothing of it. To each his/her own.

 

I had the same attitude about songs like Mustang Sally... HATED HATED HATED it. Then I took a step back and said, "Okay, audiences, especially women, REALLY seem to like this song. What can I do to own this song and make it my bitch?"

 

So I started by approaching the vocal as if it WASN'T just some old bar band song. Like, what can I do to really PERFORM this song and enjoy it again? So I decided that instead of just going through the motions, I would start singing the song as if my life depended on putting some serious soul into the vocal, with some raspy stank and some real soul screams and yowls in the song. Like that kid from The Commitments, but on steroids.

 

It worked. I liked the song again because I took the effort to make my vocal on it as nasty and bluesy as I could. I also ratcheted up my guitar performance, so instead of the usually bar-band wimpy pentatonic going-through-the-motions crap, I started soloing and comping as if I cared.

 

Since then, I wish I had a dollar for every time someone said, "I hated that song until I heard you play it.", or some variation thereof.

 

I don't think it's about how good or bad I am as a musician, it was more about my mental attitude, to aggressively take a fairly pedestrian song that I didn't really like, and to see what I could REALLY do with that material.

 

 

Using this approach, I'm slowly working myself up to not hating The Rolling Stones.

[ninja shrimp]

what about shrill and unpleasant howls? do you do them?

[EightString]

what about shrill and unpleasant howls? do you do them?

 

By request only!

[daddymack]

By request only!

and only if the piece calls for it...however, years ago, my bandmates nicknamed me 'Houndini'...apparently they felt I was howling...