Jump to content

Wall Street Journal article on cover bands


paste

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Yes, interesting that that is in the WSJ, but it's nothing we haven't discussed here a million times. But, rather surprisingly, the article gets it pretty much right. Maybe even more so than they understand.

 

For me, the issue has always seems rather simple: live rock music in bars worked well when you had young musicians playing young music to a young audience. Bar audiences have remained young. The music and the musicians....not so much.

 

Music in bars still appeals to young people when it's presented in a format that they can connect with. Increasingly, that isn't involving live musicians. Older musicians can still do OK when they can find older crowds to play to, but that becomes harder and harder to do with every passing year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

For me, the issue has always seems rather simple: live rock music in bars worked well when you had young musicians playing young music to a young audience. Bar audiences have remained young. The music and the musicians....not so much.

 

 

I don't know, I think with that younger crowd it has more to do with this quote from the article. . .

 

"People are watching their own drunken friends, which is maybe more entertaining"

 

 

It's the reality show generation. Everyone wants to be the star, which is why karaoke and trivia do so well. People are involved and "part of the entertainment."

 

 

I saw an "adult trivia" show at a wing joint a few months ago. Basically regular trivia, but every other word out of the host's mouth was profanity, and every third question was about sex. Some of the questions were very lewd, as was the host. I found it be very "lowest common denominator" entertainment and did not enjoy it, but the place was absolutely packed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

I don't know, I think with that younger crowd it has more to do with this quote from the article. . .

 

"People are watching their own drunken friends, which is maybe more entertaining"

 

 

It's the reality show generation. Everyone wants to be the star, which is why karaoke and trivia do so well. People are involved and "part of the entertainment."

 

 

That's all very true, but I ask which is the chicken and which is the egg here?

 

I content that, at least PART of the problem is the aging of the music and the musicians. When that sign outside the bar that says "live music" triggers thoughts of a guy who looks like your dad singing 30-50 year old classic rock songs---then suddenly watching your own drunk friends make fools of themselves becomes that much more appealing.

 

The line in the article that stuck out to me was this one: The problem is a paucity of lucrative bar-band gigs (thanks to DJs, trivia nights, karaoke, and changing tastes) combined with a glut of middle-aged musicians who just can't quit the scene.

 

When I was doing this back when the live rock music scene was at it's peak, I don't recall competing for gigs with 40-50 year old musicians willing to play for half of what I would play for "just for fun". Those guys either all retired or found other gigs.

 

Admittedly, it's been a host of issues that have all combined over the last couple of decades that have dragged down the live music scene so much. There's certainly no one cause here. We've all listed all the various reasons many many times.

 

But I think it says a lot that this article focuses so much on aging rockers. Steve Brown isn't making as much money as he used to in the bar scene? OK. But why is that still his scene in the first place? He reigned when he was playing for audiences the same age as him. Now he's trying to play for people half his age and can't figure out what the problem is? Do the math.

 

Granted...that isn't all of the problem, but it's certainly part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I now do sound at a couple venues in town. The one manager asks when my band is going to play there. I always tell her that we are too old and too expensive. They get bands there all the time, and again it's kids playing for kids. We don't belong there, we know our place, and it's not playing for some 18 - 25 hear olds. There's mainly original bands these days for kids. They are writing their own music and in our town there's a pretty decent scene. One buddy said "when a band comes to town, I want to see what THEY can do. If they do covers, I might as well stay home. Here's a couple original bands:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And another. These guys are all about originals. I'm in a town of 10,000 so for this good of a turnout, I think it's a pretty good little scene we have going on. But again, it's kids playing for kids. Not old farts playing covers for kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I recently enrolled my six-year old daughter into her first "theater" production. She enjoyed the two weeks of rehearsal followed by the two performances, but when it was over she announced:

 

"Oh good. I don't have to practice those songs anymore. I can go back to practicing MY songs...."

 

She likes to make up little songs and perform them around the house. I guess she's gonna be one of those stuck-up "I don't do covers!" original artists.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm one of the old guys. When I started and for a while after we cut our teeth on covers , mainly cause we liked them. and then as I got better at it worked more into writing and performing mine and the other writers in the bands songs.Did pretty well with some of it. These days young musicians really only want to play originals, in fact they look down on anyone playing covers like the cover musicians can't write. I still and prob will continue to do both for a few yrs. Like I tell all the kids that say with a pompous attitude "I only play original songs " . Anyone can write a song ............ Not everyone can write a GOOD song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Guess I'm part of the problem...What's interesting is that I don't see any hot young bands out there on the circuit. At least not the cover band circuit. Late 20's to 40's is what I see out there. It can't be because of the glut of middle-aged players are keeping them at home. If so, well then, kids, get a little backbone and learn how to compete. Then again I tend to play in the 'burbs. Not the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I do also notice that the younger folks tend to gravitate to Karaoke. Sitting at a table getting drunk, hooting madly, while your drunk friend butchers a Celine Dion song seems to be more up their alley. A symptom of the "Me Generation"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Some people prefer open mics or even silence to a loud band playing Bad Company tunes? Say it ain't so!

 

And the first comment I read: "How many times can you listen to the same old songs from the 70's and 80's, and being blasted at a bar by an ageing, mediocre cover band?" LOL.

 

There seem to be several references to the loudness factor. I'm not sure that is discussed here, as much as other issues. But what I glean from the article and comments is that it would be helpful to 1) turn down, 2) not age, 3) be a cut above in musicianship and showmanship, 4) don't play the same old Bad Company (Steve Miller Bob Seger Eagles etc) covers everyone else plays.

 

(edited) and I think the perfect example of all the above is the band pictured in my avatar- my grandmother and great grandfather. I think it's safe to say that not once did they ever blast people with volume, also by all accounts (my Mother's) they were excellent musicians- Great Grandpa Jones was the Paganini of the MO Bootheel- and relatively young.They also never played Bad Company tunes, although their listeners may have gotten tired of Turkey In the Straw or whatever the equivalent was back then of Can't Get Enough of Your Love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Does this mean our cover/dad band should pull out of our upcoming $1200 8-10:30pm weeknight gig? (P.A. and soundman will be provided.) you are having fun' date=' it is all good! [/quote'] Should you pull out of a gig? Never. But the more important question than "is the band having fun?" is probably: is the AUDIENCE having fun? And if they no longer are, will the aging cover band be self aware enough to even notice? My issue is when those $1200 gigs become $800 gigs become $500 gigs become $300 gigs and the crowd size shrinks accordingly. And while the band is saying "sure it ain't as good it used to be, but we're still having fun, so it's all good!", while the rest of the world looks around and wonders what happened to a once-thriving scene....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Nothing new, yes. That is how it goes around here. There are a handful of cover bands that have okay success. They are all 40+ years old and cater to various 40+ crowds: those that enjoy their 80s nostalgia days; those that live in bars 75% of the nights; the biker crowd. That's about it. The only place you will find a very mixed crowd of both young and old is if the cover band is something like an acoustic trio with great harmonies that play everything from Simon & Garfunkle to Vampire Weekend to The Lumineers.

 

I quit the scene 3-4 years ago because we were in our 30s-40s trying to draw a diverse crowd. It just didn't work out no matter what we covered. We were a "Dad Band".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Nothing new, yes. That is how it goes around here. There are a handful of cover bands that have okay success. They are all 40+ years old and cater to various 40+ crowds: those that enjoy their 80s nostalgia days; those that live in bars 75% of the nights; the biker crowd. That's about it. The only place you will find a very mixed crowd of both young and old is if the cover band is something like an acoustic trio with great harmonies that play everything from Simon & Garfunkle to Vampire Weekend to The Lumineers.

 

I quit the scene 3-4 years ago because we were in our 30s-40s trying to draw a diverse crowd. It just didn't work out no matter what we covered. We were a "Dad Band".

 

 

So again I ask the question...where are the 20-something cover bands? I'm not seeing them. I think I've got my finger pretty well on the market around here and very few cover bands have even one member in their 20's. Even so, we don't have trouble keeping the younger crowds engaged when they are out to have fun to live music:

 

 

If all of what everyone is saying, then this market is over-ripe for a band of 24-28 year olds to storm the scene.

 

I think the main thing is DJs. Where we've run into trouble is when a place has two sides, a band one end and a DJ on the other. The DJ pumps out loud grind music and the live band has a hard time competing with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Live rock bands have become an "old guy" thing for many reasons. I think the market IS ripe for younger bands to take the scene by storm--or at the very least, to create a new scene.

 

it's a chicken-or-the-egg thing, I suppose. Are all the dad bands the cause or the effect of a no-longer vibrant live music scene? Doesn't much matter at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...