The end of file sharing

[richardmac]

If they go down, and no-one is promoting music on a national level then radio stations will be forced to play local music. Hell, they might even bring back real DJ's instead of having pre-recorded crap piped in via clear channel... People hear local bands on the radio, and go to shows.

 

 

It's an interesting idea, I'll give it that. Or, as Robert B. Parker would write, "pretty to think so." But it wouldn't work that way. Here's my theory. In the absence of the big music labels, some other businesses with money would step into their place. Disney, for one. Disney can already make teenage music pop stars by firing off a few memos. Like Hillary Duff. Who, by the way, is all grown up now and is freaking hot. But that aside, there will always be a market for that demographic and someone will always fill it.

 

The other factor is that the vast majority of local bands do indeed suck. People wouldn't start buying them if they were the only alternative - they'd just stop buying. With some rare exceptions. However... under such a system, if a band WAS really, really good, they'd kick everyone's ass and succeed. Interesting.

[Instrospection]

 

Right....Because live music is such a land of opportunity these days. When I left denver, I knew clubs that could put together a solid bill, with 5 bands, and pay out to the bands $300. For all five bands (I doubt every band got paid). Oh, yeah. That's on a Friday night. Look we all care about the music otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation, but I find the notion that you should do it for free because "you love the music" is utter bull{censored}.

 

 

Good words....someone needed to tell the straight truth. Most bands are lucky to even get paid from a cut of the door, let alone $50 bucks (what it tended to be even ten years ago). Cover charge in the 80's was 5 bucks a person, largely, and it's still 5 bucks, mostly. With all the inflation of everything, no wonder live music is suffering.....alot of the good bands that were trying to make a go of it on tour couldn't pay expenses.

 

 

labels are to blame for greed, manipulating the market, and deciding that it was easier to manufacture a hit, than to find one.

 

 

They certainly had a hand in their demise, by telling people what they'd like, as opposed to letting people choose. Though there were majors like Dreamworks, who signed Elliott Smith, Blinker The Star, Nelly Furtado, Henry Rollins. Rollins was on another label, Sanctuary, after one album, "Get Some Go Again". Elliott sold somewhat despite excellent albums and great critical acclaim, but never really caught on with a major audience. Nelly Furtado, after the "Folklore" album didn't sell as well as it should have, got told to change her image and sound for the most recent album. Blinker The Star were on a smaller Canadian label for their followup to "August Everywhere". Plus, Dreamworks made those releases affordable--often $8-$13 dollars.

 

 

downloaders deserve blame because well, in fact, that they are getting for free what they would otherwise pay for.

 

 

Very true.

 

 

Ticketmaster deserves the blame for bending everyone over on ticket sales, and thinking that they can get another $5 on that ticket every year

 

 

Also true.....service charges are ridiculous. For every performer trying to keep costs low, Ticketmaster cranks up the price, really, because they've got a monopoly. Pearl Jam tried to circumvent them around the "VS" era, and lost, people weren't finding tickets, had nowhere to buy them, etc.

 

 

club owners deserve blame for not rewarding good bands (good for them, being bands that draw) with decent gigs. Not to mention overcharging for drinks. I mean $3.50 for a PBR, really? On top of my $8 cover to see a local bill.

 

 

Yup. Club owners have done some really despisable things to get bands to play and then not pay them.

 

 

The public deserves the blame for going along with whatever trend was happening.

 

 

For sure. I keep on hearing that people want to hear something different, but you'd be hard pressed to tell that was the case from what's popular on the radio and MTV.

 

 

Someone deserves the blame for letting anyone who plays guitar, sings, drums, feel as if they're entitled at a chance to be a "real musician." But hey they love music and they're willing to play for free.

 

 

This I can't really blame the bands for, we have to blame the equipment companies for making it so cheap....in conjunction with hard drive space becoming nearly worthless. At the turn of the century, around 1999, I paid over 2 grand for a Roland VS840EX digital 8 track, that used 250 MB Zip disks. You could really only get a song or two (usually a song) on a disk in the top sound quality....and disks were about $35 bucks apiece. So if you wanted to do an album that was 10 songs, it still cost about $350 bucks. Now hard drive space is plentiful, so you get more quantity at less quality. Most bands can't self edit very well. But I do remember that though it was more affordable than going into a big studio, it's still more much more expensive and filtered out quality more than making something on Audacity or Fruity Loops or whatever.

 

At the turn of the century, DIY home recordings had a increased production sound from 4 track cassettes (hiss, dropouts, etc). And I generally think that there was better ideas and home productions happening then (ie: Jason Falkner, who can compete with any big budget studio and actually got signed to Elektra largely on his home 4 track demos). Really, I think that alot of people at that time were like, "man, this is a GODSEND". I remember having to fight with tape hiss to get even 10 tracks out of a four track, and those dropouts would be super annoying. So to me, it was a real relief, a really major big thing going from cheaper cassette based recordings to (what was at the time) fairly expensive technology, as the lowest end digital 8 track recorders were usually a couple grand at least.

 

It was really cool for about 2 or 3 years until digital technology started losing it's worth because the gear manufacturers had a new DAW every year, and 2 or 3 years into the digital recording revolution, the new digital gear started to obsolete even the older digital gear.....even just the previous year's gear. I probably couldn't even give my VS840EX away now.....in comparison, in the 80's and 90's, Fostex and Tascam 4 and 8 tracks held their value pretty well in comparison to what you paid for them.

 

 

Recording equipment manufacturers deserve the blame for telling everyone that they don't need to pay a studio, they can record a platinum album like Chris Lord Alge after spending $600 at guitar center and reading an article on the internet.

 

 

They definetely are partly to blame--I saw numerous ads in home recording mags where it was basically, "plug in guitar, make record, add water= get chicks and money and fame". I should dig out a couple of them....I know that there was one place that basically had that as their sales pitch.

 

 

and we the artist, writers, and musicians, deserve the blame for not doing more, and for allowing something we love to become devalued to the point where it's only worth .99, and to listen to everyone say that that price is too high.

 

 

I think that alot of people have got lazy with digital technology. They could be making better records, spending more time, doing more takes, layering things and really crafting albums, but moreso now than ever, I hear really underdeveloped things. Most bands were never prepared to be producers or engineers......they never really wanted to, it was just cheaper and quicker than going into a studio. I've always loved producing and recording and mixing.....because if you do it right, it's like forming a whole new song, adding ideas and different tones and textures and whatnot. I just don't get the sense that alot of bands enjoy doing that......there's more to moving faders and turning an EQ knob.

[richardmac]

Blame and blame and blame. Who do we blame for the blame?

 

You know, if you say a word like blame out loud 30 times in a row, it starts to sound wrong and lose meaning. There's a name for that, but I can't remember what it is.

 

I'm not saying you guys are wrong. I think you're right on a lot of that stuff. Here's one that I personally love... Ticketmaster actually charges you a fee to print your own tickets, on top of the ticket price. You take away the cost of printing and mailing a ticket from them, and they... charge you for it. Someone deserves a kick in the nuts for that one.

 

All this talk is interesting and amusing, and that's why I'm here. But I still believe that the best thing for a songwriter to do is to write better songs. Technology makes that a different challenge now, because it's easier but makes you lazy, so you've got to take that into consideration. My next CD is going to be mostly acoustic guitar based folk/rock because I really want to get back to that "real" sort of music. Songwriting. I can't use technology as an excuse. But it's good to be aware of how easy it makes things, to guard against it. Like using real bass instead of keyboard bass. Stuff like that.

[soundwave106]

Off-topic, saw this on the up-scroll. I wanna know who the marketing genius was that turned PBR into a trendy drink over the last few years. Apparently that is one of *the* beers to consume these days, which is just bizarre to me. I've always put the ol' PBR in the same mental cooler rack as Busch and Hamms

A) Blame Blue Velvet, for a start.
B) Anti-consumerism is the new consumerism among some.

Personally, I'm a "beer snob", and wouldn't touch PBR with a 10 foot pole.

[Instrospection]

Blame and blame and blame. Who do we blame for the blame? You know, if you say a word like blame out loud 30 times in a row, it starts to sound wrong and lose meaning. There's a name for that, but I can't remember what it is. I'm not saying you guys are wrong. I think you're right on a lot of that stuff. Here's one that I personally love... Ticketmaster actually charges you a fee to print your own tickets, on top of the ticket price. You take away the cost of printing and mailing a ticket from them, and they... charge you for it. Someone deserves a kick in the nuts for that one. All this talk is interesting and amusing, and that's why I'm here. But I still believe that the best thing for a songwriter to do is to write better songs. Technology makes that a different challenge now, because it's easier but makes you lazy, so you've got to take that into consideration. My next CD is going to be mostly acoustic guitar based folk/rock because I really want to get back to that "real" sort of music. Songwriting. I can't use technology as an excuse. But it's good to be aware of how easy it makes things, to guard against it. Like using real bass instead of keyboard bass. Stuff like that.

 

 

I think that the point was to point out that everyone's pretty much equally at blame, that there's certain aspects that get left out of the "majors= bad, bands= good" scenario.

 

I don't know if better songs are going to matter. Because when people can get them for free, it eventually takes all that money out of the label and band's budget. And another way to look at it is that when people can get a Ferrari (the good, major music), they're not likely to drive the Toyota Camry (the average unknown musician).

 

I think that musicians are going to have to go above and beyond for their own peace of mind. Knowing that they did the best that they could. Personal satisfaction, in other words. There was a label that released They Might Be Giants' stuff that was having troubles in the early 90's with the industry, and they said "at times it's more like a state of mind than a record label".

[BlueStrat]

 

And another way to look at it is that when people can get a Ferrari (the good, major music), they're not likely to drive the Toyota Camry (the average unknown musician).

Another way to look at it is when the public has to go visit a car lot that has over a million cars in it, and look at endless rows of flimsy and unattractive car makes they have never heard of to find a Ferrari, they are just as apt to say the hell with whole thing.

 

The reason mainstream music still sells is because it has the power of corporate distribution and promotion behind it. It may just be a figurative Camry, but it's a Camry that is accessible and conveniently delivered to the public in a way that insures they don't have to spend mind numbing hours wading through an acre of crap to find a diamond. And while a Camry might not be a Ferrari, it's still a Camry, which has proven to be a damn good car. The convenience in getting it makes having a Ferrari not worth the extra effort it takes to get one.

[tjsutton]

I still have to say let 'em go down. The majors anyway.

There are some places in this country that are saturated with piss poor music. I will gladly concede this. But if your in an area that is saturated, you need to look a little harder. If you are willing to drive 30 minutes outside the city, you can find decent venues that are willing to pay better. If the pay is that important to you.

Where I live, here in BFE kansas it's pretty typical for a band to make about $400 a night. That being said, I also think that's part of the problem in the "local gig" equation.

Around here, there aren't many bars/clubs that even do live music anymore because of what alot of bands expect to get paid. While I don't expect anyone to work for free, there should be some responsibility taken on both sides.

If I'm a bar owner, I can't pay you $400, then run my customers away with a high cover charge, or bad music; end up with $150 at the door and only 30 people in my bar all night.

Our job as musicians consists of more than just showing up, plugging in, and playing. There is a business side to what we do. It's not glamorous, or even fun most times. It's networking, it's making flyers, and promoting your band and your upcoming show. If we don't entice people to show up, we can't expect the bar to be willing to pay well... Enter kareoke, DJ, etc...

[Instrospection]

I still have to say let 'em go down. The majors anyway. There are some places in this country that are saturated with piss poor music. I will gladly concede this. But if your in an area that is saturated, you need to look a little harder. If you are willing to drive 30 minutes outside the city, you can find decent venues that are willing to pay better. If the pay is that important to you. Where I live, here in BFE kansas it's pretty typical for a band to make about $400 a night. That being said, I also think that's part of the problem in the "local gig" equation. Around here, there aren't many bars/clubs that even do live music anymore because of what alot of bands expect to get paid. While I don't expect anyone to work for free, there should be some responsibility taken on both sides. If I'm a bar owner, I can't pay you $400, then run my customers away with a high cover charge, or bad music; end up with $150 at the door and only 30 people in my bar all night. Our job as musicians consists of more than just showing up, plugging in, and playing. There is a business side to what we do. It's not glamorous, or even fun most times. It's networking, it's making flyers, and promoting your band and your upcoming show. If we don't entice people to show up, we can't expect the bar to be willing to pay well... Enter kareoke, DJ, etc...

 

 

There was a time that i'd agree with you in that i'd say "let the majors rot" when I was misinformed.....but hear me out: when the majors go down, so does all the other infrastructure, because they pay the majority of the bills in the industry. If they're going under, they obviously can't pay people, which transfers to everyone else. Love it or leave it, the smaller parts of the industry (smaller distro, etc) usually gets paid last, in favour of the bigger creditors and bigger conglomerates, which depend on the smaller businesses like specialty record shops, etc. But if there's enough money to go around, people get paid. If not, someone doesn't get paid somewhere down the line (the majors have been late on payments sometimes even when they had the money, but that's another story).

 

We NEED the majors--as bad as they are sometimes--because they have always been the tumor on the major artery that if you cut out, you'll risk bleeding to death.

 

Consider this: tons of distro (staffed by music lovers) is going under:

 

Fusion 3 is going bankrupt

Pinnacle is going bankrupt

Neuton goes bankrupt

TimeWarp goes under

 

I mean, most of this is all in the last month. Amato and Cisco went out of business not too long ago. These are all specialty distros.....and the speculation is that alot of those indies will go under, because they're owed money that Pinnacle can't pay, and then they'll also have to endure trying to get their stock back and ship it back. A friend of mine lost 10,000 bucks when Cargo went under in Canada here over a decade ago. Even smaller businesses in the industry get squeezed when there's not the trickle down effect from the big industry......the whole point of the digital revolution in file sharing, was that it was supposed to benefit the little band, little guy, that they were supposed to be insulated from the majors, right?

 

Pinnacle and Fusion 3 have picked up alot of the smaller, mid level, specialty genre--and even some bigger mid level artists--and even they can't make a go of it.

[BlueStrat]

 

I still have to say let 'em go down. The majors anyway.

And replace them with what?

 

 

you need to look a little harder. If you are willing to drive 30 minutes outside the city, you can find decent venues that are willing to pay better. If the pay is that important to you.

You and I may be willing because music is what we do. But can we really expect the average person to drive a half hour to an hour to go hear band?

Why do we expect consumers (which is what bar patrons are) to have to dig to find anything good to spend their money on? Isn't part of business meeting the customer's wants and needs in a way that's convenient for them?

 

 

Around here, there aren't many bars/clubs that even do live music anymore because of what alot of bands expect to get paid.

I don't think expecting to be paid the same dollar amount I was paid in 1982 is asking too much.

 

 

While I don't expect anyone to work for free, there should be some responsibility taken on both sides.

Indeed. It would be nice if clubs would hold their end up the way they used to.

 

If I'm a bar owner, I can't pay you $400, then run my customers away with a high cover charge, or bad music; end up with $150 at the door and only 30 people in my bar all night.

If I'm a club owner and I'm relying on live music to provide me with a clientele I'm a moron who deserves to go broke. High cover charge? If I can't get 60 people through the door at 5 bucks a head (half the price of a movie ticket here) and sell at a minimum another 100 dollars in profit to those 60 people to cover my nut then I have no business opening the doors.

 

Musicians are musicians. They aren't marketers or ad men and should not be held responsible for bringing the crowd. Keeping it? yes. Making the cash register ring? Absolutely. But providing the club's clientele? No way.

 

I've played far too many clubs where we got blamed for the bad night-meanwhile the drinks are weak, the service is lousy and the entire club, especially the restrooms, is a filth hole. The snow isn't plowed in the parking lot or there are fights outside the door. They won't hire a bouncer to keep order or the ones they do hire bully customers who aren't doing anything.

 

Too many bars think all they have to do is hire some bands, put a listing in the weekend section of the local paper that no one under 40 reads anymore, open the doors and they've done their part. And there by God better be a crowd or you won't be playing there again.

 

 

 

Our job as musicians consists of more than just showing up, plugging in, and playing. There is a business side to what we do. It's not glamorous, or even fun most times. It's networking, it's making flyers, and promoting your band and your upcoming show. If we don't entice people to show up, we can't expect the bar to be willing to pay well... Enter kareoke, DJ, etc...

I don't mind promoting my band. It's in my interest to do so. What I resent is being expected to provide a club's clientele and being blamed when it's light. Especially when the clubs don't buy radio time or panel ads in weeklies. They don't have events all week that draws people.

 

Back when I played full time there were 6 night gigs. My town had about 8 live music clubs and about 5 weekend taverns. The clubs competed fiercely for clientele. They had something going on every night-lingerie parties, Monday Madness, Tequila Tuesday, Ladies Night, Wilted Wednesdays, Two fer Thursdays etc etc. They advertised on radio and on television. They couldn't rely on bands to bring the crowd because most of the 6 night bands were road bands. And you know what? The clubs that promoted themselves were the highest paying clubs. Bands got paid between $1700 and $2200 a week + motel rooms + one meal a day, usually. Keep in mind that's 1980 dollars. When Im was 25 I was making 400-500 a week cash. Compare that to my friends who were framing houses for 5 bucks an hour or $200 a week.

 

I'm not saying it's realistic that bands should be making twice what a construction guy makes for a day's work these days. But I do think it's insane for bands to be even discussing taking 100% less in 2009 just to get a gig because the club owner is too lazy or too stupid to promote his own venue.

[doppelbanger]

i think its supply and demand..today EVERYONE is a musician. most of my friends are and even though most of them suck and i would never listen to their music they are still musicians. the bars/clubs know this and pay accordingly because someone will play for little. hell, i will for low pay for sure because its not my job and i do it for fun and if i make a little extra cash for beer or something then it worked out great.

[tjsutton]

If I'm a club owner and I'm relying on live music to provide me with a clientele I'm a moron who deserves to go broke. High cover charge? If I can't get 60 people through the door at 5 bucks a head (half the price of a movie ticket here) and sell at a minimum another 100 dollars in profit to those 60 people to cover my nut then I have no business opening the doors.

 

If this hypothetical bar can bring in it's own clientele so easily, why would it be in their business intrests to hire a band? It wouldn't/isn't. There has to be a trade off, that's all I'm saying. If I can remove the cover and get 60 heads through the door, and make money on the jukebox/drinks/pool without a band... Why bother?

[tjsutton]

I don't mind promoting my band. It's in my interest to do so. What I resent is being expected to provide a club's clientele and being blamed when it's light. Especially when the clubs don't buy radio time or panel ads in weeklies. They don't have events all week that draws people.

 

 

Does the gig exist to increase the bars clientele, or does the bar exist to provide musicians with crowds? To me it's much better playing to a crowd that came to see my band perform. Beats the hell out of playing when there's some promotion going that in turn brings crowds that could care less about live music...

[tjsutton]

Too many bars think all they have to do is hire some bands, put a listing in the weekend section of the local paper that no one under 40 reads anymore, open the doors and they've done their part. And there by God better be a crowd or you won't be playing there again.

 

 

Unfortunately, they're right. Musicians need paying venues more than venues need to pay musicians. As long as this is the case, we will continue the downward spiral.

[tjsutton]

Besides all of that, if the band is being paid by the door money, but feels they're above working to increase the door count; it seems pretty self defeating to me? How can you justify being paid any more than any other band, if you're both playing to the same crowd of "regulars" that'd be there with or without you?

[MightyGerbil]

The problem that I see with the current situation....take my opinion for what it is ...an opinion

The general public now knows what a cd costs....they also see the ease with which it can be duplicated...

Therfore they feel the price is exorbitant....they have no concept of the giant machine at work or the people involved in getting the music to the store.

Also....when your consumer can spend 15 plus dollars(an hour or more of their gross wages) on your cd or the same amount of money on 10 cds they burn at home.....which one are they going to choose??

Now add in the money,cars, drugs, planes, parties, mansions etc. they see their favorite artist with.....it comes with much less guilt than it would if it was your band living in a van and just scraping by that was on the news or the internet....perception is everything.....

$0.02 deposited:wave:

[BlueStrat]

How can you justify being paid any more than any other band, if you're both playing to the same crowd of "regulars" that'd be there with or without you?

By what the till rings out at the end of the night. A good band doing their job will keep a crowd and make the cash register ring. A not so good band will chase everyone away.

[tjsutton]

By what the till rings out at the end of the night. A good band doing their job will keep a crowd and make the cash register ring. A not so good band will chase everyone away.

 

 

Am I to understand that you believe by not running away the patrons, you shoudl be paid more. Even though you had little/nothing to do with those patrons being there in the first place? By this rationale a DJ should make a killing, and why would a bar owner even take the risk on a band that might turn folks away?

 

Honestly I'm only playing devils advocate here. :poke:Try looking at it from the bar owners perspective. I think maybe this is what's happening to live music. Musicians and bar owners are having this very conversation nationwide.

 

And while it certainly isn't what it once was... How many things out there are?

[tim_7string]

 

Am I to understand that you believe by not running away the patrons, you shoudl be paid more. Even though you had little/nothing to do with those patrons being there in the first place? By this rationale a DJ should make a killing, and why would a bar owner even take the risk on a band that might turn folks away?

 

 

If there are more people that consistently show up whenever our band plays there and it's pretty dead when other bands play there, I would say that's a pretty fair argument that yes, we should be paid more for making the bar more money. And I know this is true, because I have gone to that same club when other bands are playing and there are definitely not as full.

 

I have no answer as to why bars continue to hire bands that are not good. I have heard that one of the bands that was consistently bad was banned from playing there anymore, though, so I guess there is some quality control there.

[tjsutton]

Exactly. Our band has been told consistently that whenever we play at this one bar, it makes up for all the 'other' bands that don't drawn (they make a lot of money on drinks and blackjack with no cover charge)...yet we're getting paid the same as them. It isn't really fair when you think about it. If anything, we should make at bare minimum $100 a man (we make closer to $80). If another band can get drunk, play like {censored} and still clear the same money, what is the incentive to even improve if you know you'll just continue to be in rotation? Still, it's nice to hear that we are a quality product in comparison to some of the other acts that play there...

 

 

Is this due to you guys drawing your own crowd, or is this by virtue of not scaring anyone away? Does the bar do better witha band than without? Do you promote yourselves, or expect the bar owner to do it for you? I don't disagree with the premise of what Blue Strat is saying, but the reality out there isn't pretty. And it doesn't look like it's getting any better any time soon...

[tjsutton]

I absolutely agree, that if you're drawing bigger crowds you should be paid better. At the same time, if a bar has it's crowd with or without you, but you don't suck so bad as to scare them away, that, to me doesn't say much.

[tim_7string]

 

I absolutely agree, that if you're drawing bigger crowds you should be paid better. At the same time, if a bar has it's crowd with or without you, but you don't suck so bad as to scare them away, that, to me doesn't say much.

 

 

And I agree with that, if that were the case. But with us, it isn't. At this particular place anyway.

[soundwave106]

Am I to understand that you believe by not running away the patrons, you shoudl be paid more. Even though you had little/nothing to do with those patrons being there in the first place?

 

This is only true at the dive bar level with intro bands (and this type of place doesn't pay much). This is also somewhat true for "warmup" bands (eg a local band hired to warm up a national touring act).

 

Any band beyond this level should be payed at least a little bit of money for *attracting* paying customers.

 

Honestly I'm only playing devils advocate here. :poke:Try looking at it from the bar owners perspective. I think maybe this is what's happening to live music. Musicians and bar owners are having this very conversation nationwide.

 

Most live music bars I know tend to be pretty sedate when they don't have bands. Bands that draw nicely do get paid. DJs go and come in fads, and these days I don't think they are drawing like they did in the late 1990s / early 2000s.

 

Around here, pay is still at 1982 levels for cover bands (except wedding / corporate) -- and original bands are getting whacked severely.

 

From what I understand (based on talking to some bar owners as well as occasional stuff I read about the restaurant / bar trade) some of the problem is that the expenses for restaurants and bars have increased, quite astronomically in recent times. It never was an easy business to make it in; it's worse these days than before. There are some bars that don't give musicians respect, but many live music bars are run by people who enjoy music too, and try to help.

 

But most of the problem really is supply vs. demand vs. other entertainment options out there. For the supply factor, well, every idiot who knows a guitar and two bar chords thinks they can form a band. And they can. Just not one that will ever get *paid* much.

 

For the demand factor, well, I've heard some of the pay at New Orleans bars (which were of course numerous) pre-Katrina. Much higher than here. But if all the old farts in your town are closing all the live music venue, as a musician you probably will end up not getting paid as much. (And your town's scene will start to suck, and the yuppies and conventions will move away, etc. But that's another story.)

[BlueStrat]

 

Am I to understand that you believe by not running away the patrons, you shoudl be paid more.

More that what you're advocating, yes.

 

Even though you had little/nothing to do with those patrons being there in the first place?

 

Since drawing a crowd and keeping a crowd are two different things, yes.

 

By this rationale a DJ should make a killing, and why would a bar owner even take the risk on a band that might turn folks away?

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm nor saying a bar shouldn't rely on bands to be part of the attraction. I'm saying that they shouldn't rely on individual bands to bring their own crowds.

 

Back when I was a full time road dog, there was just no way for road bands to bring their own crowd. That's a local band phenomenon.

What the bar owner had was a place where people would come week after week regardless of who was playing because they knew 1) the entertainment was going to be consistently good and 2) there was always going to be something going on. It was a destination club that people went to because they knew they were going to have a good time. So while individual bands didn't draw crowds much (unless they had been there multiple times-we played some out of state venues 10-12 times in three years) it was expected that the bands would be good because the club owner did his homework.

 

As far as keeping the crowd and selling booze and food, good bands kept them there spending money and bad bands sent them somewhere else to spend it. You seem to dismiss this as being unimportant and no big deal but it is in fact vital to a successful venue and frankly not that many bands can pull it off. Keeping your 10 or 20 friends there for 45 minutes isn't any accomplishment. Going into a full room full of strangers and keeping them there spending money for 2-4 hours will get you noticed.

 

What good is a band who brings 30 people but they don't spend much money once in the bar?

 

My bands always seem to do well because we appeal to a mixed drink crowd. We can have a crowd of 60 that will far outspend many a college crowd twice that size. I have friends in a jam band with a big following but half their fans nurse tap beer, orange juice or water all night long.

 

 

Honestly I'm only playing devils advocate here. :poke:

Understood.

 

 

Try looking at it from the bar owners perspective.

I do. I know a lot of them. Some of them are my friends. And those are the ones who have been in business for years by promoting their clubs themselves.

 

There are lots of clubs that fail every year. Many times it's because they rely on things outside themselves for their success. Not smart.

 

And as a band would you want to rely on a club owner to make you successful or would you invest in your own business? Why is it any different for a club owner?

 

Around here I can walk into a new club and talk to the management and predict within a few months how long it will be before they're gone. The few I was wrong about is because I underestimated the number of bands who will line up for the chance to play for nothing.

 

And while it certainly isn't what it once was... How many things out there are?

Exactly. In almost every trade in the western world except music, wages have gone up not down. And in every service industry the price of those services has risen not declined. Except for bands, that is. Adjusted for inflation, cover bands are making about 1/5th of what they did in 1980.

 

Why should I play for less because some dipwad club owner doesn't know how to run a business?

[tjsutton]

As far as keeping the crowd and selling booze and food, good bands kept them there spending money and bad bands sent them somewhere else to spend it. You seem to dismiss this as being unimportant but it is in fact vital to a successful venue.

 

 

I do agree with you there. I see now that what you and I are talking about are two different things. I'm talking about bars where there "might" be a band once a month, and to those people it's a pretty big deal. If I'm not mistaken you're talking about clubs whose whole existance is based on live music. If that is what you're saying, I agree whole-heartedly. I used to live/play in Seattle, and it was very, very different than the small town, middle america thing I'm doing now.

 

You must forgive me. Sometimes I forget what a real music scene is like... God I miss it...

[tim_7string]

I do agree with you there. I see now that what you and I are talking about are two different things. I'm talking about bars where there "might" be a band once a month, and to those people it's a pretty big deal. If I'm not mistaken you're talking about clubs whose whole existance is based on live music. If that is what you're saying, I agree whole-heartedly. I used to live/play in Seattle, and it was very, very different than the small town, middle america thing I'm doing now. You must forgive me. Sometimes I forget what a real music scene is like... God I miss it...

 

Yeah, it's all about context. The club I was talking about has live music every single Friday and Saturday. It's expected that there will be a band every week, but not necessarily be a good band.