What would or wouldn't you do for money?

[Vito Corleone]

I asked this question in another thread, but I think it's a good enough topic that it deserves it's own. So I'll ask it again:

 

Check out the video of this Northern California band. (Go to about the 2:30 mark and see them playing live rather than just the still shots.)

 

By just listening to them, they seem like pretty standard fare: they play the classic rock standards that most classic rock bands play. I'm guessing a LOT of bands on this forum play the same songlist (or very similar) and play it about as well. I'm also guessing that a lot of bands that do are playing in the $350-600 range.

 

I know from looking at this band's schedule that they are getting at least $1200 a gig for most of them. I've played many of those same venues and that's what we got just to play for the first time with no following.

 

So the question is: if someone came up and told you that your band could play the exact same songlist you're playing right now, but they'd pay you $1200 a night to wear these clothes and add the two dancing girls to your lineup---would you do it?

 

If you wouldn't, why not?

 

And if you would...why aren't you looking to find some similar gimmicky way to sell the songs you're playing now?

 

[video=youtube;xP1WpdJX5VU]

[trevcda]

I'll go first! I'm a big ol' whore whose done worse for a lot more money! I've done Blues Brothers shows, country shows, currently doing a Buffet style show along with the usual variety for wedding/corporate work. I've worn the suits with the Ray Bans, the aloha shorts with the leis, the bolo ties with boots. Sometimes it's hired gun for a show at a fair a couple states away, sometimes it's tongue-in-cheek cheese to the core. I've purchased boxes of stuff from Oriental Trading company, hired island dancers and set up confetti cannons, all to give the purchaser the kind of show they're looking for. The only thing we, as a band, and I, personally, try to remain unwaivering on, is the quality of the music. Spot on harmonies and well rehearsed parts are the prioirty, well before any of the rest of that stuff comes into play. AlthoughI did draw the line at some sparkly blue vest that someone made that made us look like a barber shop quartet playing rock. Those were just sick and wrong. I wore spandex and giant hair in the eighties, for the love of gawd! Anyone that would think I'd be beneath this is nuts! For the right price of course....

[tlbonehead]

I would do it as a freebie for a charity cause I believed in. Otherwise no.

[kmart]

 

 

 

Figure $100 per girl and $200 per guy maybe, after costs?

 

Yeah, I'd do it. Thatsbetter than we're regularly clearing now.

 

As for what 'gimmicks' I'm using to sell current bands...we're not aiming at gimmicks, but we are willing to wear what some would consider costumes...we have a pseudo dress code for stage already, a couple hot chicks dancing wouldn't faze me in the least...

 

Hell, I played a freaking Jack Johnson song for money before; clearly I have no limits.

[Alan Roberts]

As long as it was fun, I liked most of the material and it paid good - yeah, sign me up!

[Leftcoast123]

Assuming production supplied and it's 6 (four players and two dancers) each getting an equal cut at 200 bones a night.....who wouldn't want that for a cover band? That's a decent wage for production supplied. Not corporate dough but it will get a lot of pros out of the house for the wage. Nothing wrong with the "uniforms" IMO, atleast it isn't gold blazers! Now that'd be a deal breaker....but maybe not...

[tlbonehead]

Assuming production supplied and it's 6 (four players and two dancers) each getting an equal cut at 200 bones a night.....who wouldn't want that for a cover band? That's a decent wage for production supplied. Not corporate dough but it will get a lot of pros out of the house for the wage. Nothing wrong with the "uniforms" IMO, atleast it isn't gold blazers! Now that'd be a deal breaker....but maybe not...

I know, but if you make $175-300 for your normal gig, why would you want to do this if it is only $200/per?

[Snowcow]

 

If you wouldn't, why not?

 

 

Money doesn't motivate me.

[Vito Corleone]

I know, but if you make $175-300 for your normal gig, why would you want to do this if it is only $200/per?

 

that wasn't the question. Obviously nobody is going to do something other than they are doing now for LESS money.

 

Maybe I should have put it another way rather than use specific dollar amounts:

 

You're guaranteed to increase your current per-man pay 2-3X by going this route. Would you do it?

[tlbonehead]

Nope. Money doesn't motivate me.

money motivates me, but.....

[tlbonehead]

that wasn't the question. Obviously nobody is going to do something other than they are doing now for LESS money. Maybe I should have put it another way rather than use specific dollar amounts: You're guaranteed to increase your current per-man pay 2-3X by going this route. Would you do it?

well that is certainly a better way to put it. But in my case the answer stays the same. But I certainly have no prob with those who would, or do similar gimmickry.

[Leftcoast123]

It's a general question and relates to economics (in my opinion) of what gets players out of the house. 400 bones for a weekend, personal gear load in and out only, is decent wage for a weekend for a cover band. For those that play "dive bars" and the like this is maybe double what they'd make in a weekend which would include mixing from stage more than likely. Would I want an equal share to "dancers" that are eye candy only? Probably not but that wasnt' the OP. The other main question was would you as a player be "okay" with some booty shaking it on the stage as part of a show. As Grant will attest, most that play the party band (and that's a whole 'nuther thread) format are used to chicks shaking it either on subs or on stage at some point during a gig. My current band promotes that FWIW.

[mstreck]

 

 

 

Would the name of my band need to be "Shapell Homes", 'cause I'm not really diggin' that...

[mstreck]

To seriously address the OP... damn skippy, I would!

[Chicken Monkey]

My situation right now is:

 

Extremely stable middle-class career (non musical) and creatively fulfilling music project (songs I've written and songs I really enjoy performing. I haven't sought out a booking in months and our calendar is as full as I want it to be. We are just graduating from the $75-$100/man shows into festival/private party work, but we'll definitely get stuck with some play-for-the-door gigs when the winter comes. That said, I'm having a lot more fun than I'd have backing up go go dancers and playing butt rock. If I could make a comparable living to what I'm making now, I suppose I'd rather be making music rather than working. But unless it's paying my bills, I don't think I'd enjoy an arrangement like that.

[Vito Corleone]

 

It's a general question and relates to economics (in my opinion) of what gets players out of the house.

 

 

It's also a general question that relates to thinking outside the box on how to market your band in ways that could be profitable. Now, I'm not suggesting anybody do exactly what these guys are doing. And, the truth is there is more into it than just as I simply put it: they put a lot into marketing the band, have spent a lot of money on gear, and all the other time/money outlays that go with being a band that makes more than the typical bar wage. Yeah, if all you wanna do is show up, plug in, play for 4 hours and go home and keep rehearsal to a minimum, then that's the world you're in. And you're getting paid accordingly.

 

But my question here is: sure, these guys are on the verge of whoring themselves out. I understand there are guys who just simply don't wanna go there. But at the same time, I don't see where they've compromised their MUSICAL integrity at all. They play and sing well, are probably doing pretty much the exact same songlist they'd be doing otherwise, and their musical performance isn't suffering at all in spite of everything else they are throwing on top of it.

 

And I've looked at their gig schedule. They're playing quite a bit and aren't doing any {censored} gigs. It's all the top clubs in the area, some private events, and outdoor public events like the one above. So it seems to me there are ways to up the quantity/quality of work you're doing without compromising you're musical integrity as long as you're willing to be creative and think outside the box.

 

And we can argue about whether these guys are sacrificing their personal integrity or not, but even if you (generic you) believe they are, that doesn't mean that's the ONLY way to it either. Obviously they enjoy it and have fun doing it. I doubt they see it as a sacrifice at all. The key would be to find something that works for you that you don't see as a sacrifice.

[Chicken Monkey]

I misunderstood the question. We are working on tarting up within our genre (American roots music). We're doing schitcky covers of pop songs, dressing in black suits with bouttenierres, developing dance routines, have vintage-looking microphones, etc. My bass player keeps his bow in a faux-cowhide holster, my guitar strap is built out of an old bandolier belt, my sound hole cover has the band logo "branded" into it, etc. it's a little difficult to get all shuck and jivey in a supposedly "honest" genre, but we're pushing it.

[wheresgrant3]

 

Should I sit this discussion out because the scenario represents a downgrade from my current situation or can I counter with the option of building a business/following as my band has done and making significantly more than $1200 without having to hire dancers?

[Vito Corleone]

 

I misunderstood the question. We are working on tarting up within our genre (American roots music). We're doing schitcky covers of pop songs, dressing in black suits with bouttenierres, developing dance routines, have vintage-looking microphones, etc. My bass player keeps his bow in a faux-cowhide holster, my guitar strap is built out of an old bandolier belt, my sound hole cover has the band logo "branded" into it, etc. it's a little difficult to get all shuck and jivey in a supposedly "honest" genre, but we're pushing it.

 

 

Funny thing about supposedly "honest" genres: if you look at the history, you see a LOT of "shuck and jive". What's supposedly more honest than good old country music? Yet have you looked at the original stars of the genre? A lot of those guys were out-and-out clowns. Because that's what it took to get noticed many times. You had guys like Stringbean wearing his pants around his knees and Grandpa Jones pretending he was an old man when he really wasn't.

 

It took a lot to get noticed in the pre-TV era of live-only performances and stand out. And I think we're back to that again. If we ever left. Supersonic musical skills don't impress many people, and most of us don't have them anyway.

[Vito Corleone]

Should I sit this discussion out because the scenario represents a downgrade from my current situation or can I counter with the option of building a business/following as my band has done and making significantly more than $1200 without having to hire dancers?

 

I guess I should have been more clear at the beginning. I'm not talking specifically about adding dancers and not setting the limit at $1200 (it was just an example of being able to increase your income 2-3X.) And I thought this band a good example because their songlist is pretty generic and is one a lot of bands do.

 

What I'm talking about is the idea of keeping your band basically as it is musically, but being willing to add other stuff in order to carve a niche for yourself in the marketplace.

 

Sure, Grant. We all know you've carved a different path to even greater success. We also all know that A) it's taken you years to get there B) most people here aren't willing to work THAT hard!

 

Also, how many guys here are virtually completely unwilling to play anything but classic rock. Fine, but classic rock these days is a direct route to a lifetime of $400 a night gigs in really {censored}ty bars. Unless one is willing to look outside the typical marketing box...

[Chicken Monkey]

 

Funny thing about supposedly "honest" genres: if you look at the history, you see a LOT of "shuck and jive". What's supposedly more honest than good old country music? Yet have you looked at the original stars of the genre? A lot of those guys were out-and-out clowns. Because that's what it took to get noticed many times. You had guys like Stringbean wearing his pants around his knees and Grandpa Jones pretending he was an old man when he really wasn't. It took a lot to get noticed in the pre-TV era of live-only performances and stand out. And I think we're back to that again. If we ever left. Supersonic musical skills don't impress many people, and most of us don't have them anyway.

 

 

Don't tell me. Tell the G--d---- music scenesters around here. We got sniffed at by some such after playing (and maxing out the modest dance floor with) our version of "Dancing Queen", with Dylanesque harmonica covering the organ/synth line and Everly Brothers style harmony.

[wheresgrant3]

 

I guess I should have been more clear at the beginning. I'm not talking specifically about adding dancers and not setting the limit at $1200 (it was just an example of being able to increase your income 2-3X.) And I thought this band a good example because their songlist is pretty generic and is one a lot of bands do. What I'm talking about is the idea of keeping your band basically as it is musically, but being willing to add other stuff in order to carve a niche for yourself in the marketplace. Sure, Grant. We all know you've carved a different path to even greater success. We also all know that A) it's taken you years to get there B) most people here aren't willing to work THAT hard!

 

 

We've talked many times going the 'Gimmick' route. Remember we play in a regional club circuit that hosts arguably one of the most successful 'gimmick' bands in the country... The Nerds. 25 years, thousands of performances and they've been earning clsoe to a $mil per year for over a decade. It's a full time venture for them and has spurred the entire Northeast cover scene. We've always had that pressure to try and make our band indelible against the competition. And the way we chose to do that was through the music instead of dressing in costume or coming up with a theme. Believe me there are major advantages toward embracing a 'theme' if they are done right. True successors to The Nerds are good friends of mine The Amish Outlaws. They've been touring up and down the east coast from VA to Boston.... every weekend on the road. They have a road crew (which sets up hours before) an agent. They are grossing $3-5K for bar gigs... that's right bar gigs! There could be 6 or 600 in the room it doesn't matter, They show up in costume, in character, they work the room from top to bottom, front to back. The disadvantage I see with their model is they can never gig in the same location multiple weekends in a row. In other words, in order to keep the act fresh, the gimmick... well a gimmick, they have to tour constantly. The bass player lives just 40 minutes from me... they are lucky if they can gig local 4-5 times a year. Last weekend, they were in MD (4 hours away) this weekend in Boston, next weekend in MD and PA. Every show is a 2-4 hours away. If they gigged local every Friday night they would never have enough draw to justify their minimum guarantee. And since this is their livelihood and since they have a payroll that depends on this income, they must tour where the money is.

 

 

As you said... it took years for us to build NUTS...just the same as for them (it wasn't overnight success), and we worked hard... and if you don't put time and effort into anything it's not sustainable. Sure their gimmick may be fresh the first set or the first 2-3 times you see them? But can they entertain and sustain the 'illusion' of the gimmick enough to make some real money beyond the quick cash. How many fresh faces can you play to and what is the return? That's essentially my point. Everyone wants quick results or a magic button. How many bands have I witnessed with a half assed approach to a gimmick? Dozens.... how many of the same bands have lasted beyond 2-3 years. None... They start with a bang, hit all the major clubs/events/corp opportunities... and the gimmick tires and the bookings decline... or you have to travel. The bands that were fully committed put in the time and the effort to make the model work succeed. They are at the top of the food chain. And the upstarts... well they just become a bunch of imitators. Do you want to be an innovator or an imitator? Who is more sustainable in the long run?

 

We choose to differentiate ourselves in our music. They way we present material... short, machine gun approach to mixing songs and medley's together with an emphasis on keeping the energy on 10. In other words were known for beyond being a medley band... we;re also known for being a good band period. No one can match our show locally. So maybe that's our 'gimmick'. But we stopped wearing costumes and funny hats a long time ago. Nothing at all wrong with that... but after you grab the audiences attention you'd just better have a plan B ready to hold them. That's all I'm saying.

[tim_7string]

that wasn't the question. Obviously nobody is going to do something other than they are doing now for LESS money. Maybe I should have put it another way rather than use specific dollar amounts: You're guaranteed to increase your current per-man pay 2-3X by going this route. Would you do it?

 

Nope. Money isn't the main reason I do this. If it was, I'd find the musical job that paid me the maximum amount possible. If that meant I had to move, I would. If I had to lose 80 lbs and shave my head, I would. If I had to only play keyboards and sing harmony, I would.

 

But I'm motivated by several things, so doing something drastic just for the money? Not in my nature. Could have done it years ago if I felt like it (and still could).

[Vito Corleone]

 

But I'm motivated by several things, so doing something drastic just for the money? Not in my nature. Could have done it years ago if I felt like it (and still could).

 

 

But what's so 'drastic'? Remember, the proposition is that you get to keep playing the same songs you do now. So if you're doing it for the music---that's pretty much off the table. The songs remain the same.

[wheresgrant3]

 

Also, how many guys here are virtually completely unwilling to play anything but classic rock. Fine, but classic rock these days is a direct route to a lifetime of $400 a night gigs in really {censored}ty bars. Unless one is willing to look outside the typical marketing box...

 

 

 

A point I wanted to add... in the case of the band presented... sure could I see a band improving their business outlook by staying classic rock and spicing up the show. Maybe they could have the lead singer dress like Tarzan and have a couple Jane's on stage. I have no problems with schtick... and I LOVE classic rock... I grew up with it. But you are still going to have to embrace the pop classics of the era and beyond in order to grab the wider audiences attention. A bunch of middle aged guys on stage playing Foghat with some Go Go dancers on stage will appeal to those over 40. Under 40 it could be interpreted as a 'creepy' dad moment. It's a fine line. I'm not offended in the least in what this band is doing. Good for them. Again in Cali it may work for them. In NY aside from privates and some bike rallies I don't see it playing in the clubs at all. Bars might pick it up... but playing the bars isn't not moving the needle far on pay and exposure.