Hey older "non-full-time" drummers...

[Vito Corleone]

Yah, once I have my 10,000 hours in I'll probably hate playing with others for fun too .

 

Exactly. I got most of my "rehearsal" in during the 10 years I was playing 6 nights a week 25-30 years ago. Personally, I don't feel I need much rehearsal to be gig ready. The other people in my band? It varies from person to person. That's how life works. So if I want to keep the band up to a certain level, I'll call rehearsals if we haven't gigged in awhile. At this point, we can keep things pretty solid as long as we're gigging 2-3 times a month. Less than that and we usually try to get some rehearsal time in so the gig goes as well as we'd like it to.

 

Every situation is going to have a different set of requirements. That's just life. If you find yourself looking only for those "perfect" fits, not being willing to compromise and looking for reasons to diss other situations so you can feel better about your own? Happiness is probably going to be difficult to achieve.

 

Just sayin' guys.

[fusionfunk]

 

Your points about where the challenges lie - as well as a musician's need to have put in the personal practice time necessary to ensure their homework is done - are spot on. Clearly, a musician who has covered those bases well will be as prepared as they can be and will be able to go far on their individual effort alone. However, playing in a band is a team effort. There are intangibles that can only be honed by playing together. Professional sports teams are made up of athletes who are at their peak in terms of individual fitness and preparedness - yet they still need team practices to hone their execution. The same concept applies to music. This is why music groups of all makes and sizes rehearse.

 

Individual preparation is certainly critical - but it simply can't outright replace time spent playing together on a regular basis. Bands need to play together regularly if their going to perform at their very best.

 

Very well put. I've always lived by the old motto "don't practice until you get it right, practice until you can't get it wrong". I appreciate band-mates that share that philosophy.

 

A wise old family friend, who happened to be a world renowned Jazz violinist, used to say, " if I don't practice for a day, I notice it. If I don't practice for 2 days, my wife notices it. If I don't practice for 3 days, the whole world notices it". Words to live by.

[Vito Corleone]

I'm of a mind that if a band can't rehearse or gig three times a month they're not going to be tight. Personally I'd rather play in the basement than play $50/man bar gigs - but those can be fun once in a great while too . Decent afternoon or early evening $50/man jazz (or other) gigs are OK too. Getting home at 3am kinda sucks unless it's big $$$.

Disagree strongly.

 

In my case I do like to learn new songs, not play the same ones for years (I transcribed 12 this week - ouch) . And I'm sure it's different for those of you that are trying to make money - maybe if I do end up in a show band that has plenty of good paying gigs I'll feel differently . For now I enjoy playing with others whether in a rehearsal space or at a gig. I have amps at four different rehearsal spaces at the moment so it's a WHOLE lot less of a PITA to play there than to gig - just have to hump my arse, bass, and laptop. I have an iPad for gigs but it's a whole lot easier to jot down endings and such on the laptop.

 

So please, please don't let the band BS and all the rigamarole blind you all to the bigger picture. Cats like Sven (Sean), Pat Coast, Sonny (My father in law) and others that have committed to this life ALL have something to teach us. I've made the CHOICE to make myself "available" in this musical context: who else to look to but those PROS that know their stuff AND support themselves doing it. Plus play with feeling, passion and heart. That's where it's at. I just wish more players would step up individually, up their game and stop leaning on the damn BAND to validate them and their musical mission. That's NOT where it's at, most times.

 

 

I don't think it's a "agree" or "disagree" type situation. The truth is that there probably as many different reasons to be in the music game as there are people who are in it. Some guys are in it for the money; some don't care if they make any money or not. Some are in it for individual artistic expression; some just want to get their rocks off entertaining folks. Some enjoy the process of improvisation; some enjoy playing to a tight script. I could go on and on. It's all good.

 

The major reason bands fail is different people have different goals and expectations from what they want out of it. That's to be expected. The bands that work are the ones where everyone is getting what they want out of it. As long as that keeps happening, it's going to work.

 

But the idea that some group of cats or another has the "right" path and answers and the rest who enjoy what they are doing for different reasons somehow need to "step it up" is patently absurd. There's good lessons to be learned from everyone. From those who succeed in different manners to those who outright fail. Take what you can from all available sources and apply it to what you do to the degree it's applicable. The only "bigger picture" is what that picture is to you. It's an individual thing. There's no "bigger picture" that applies to "you all".

 

EXCEPT: to be happy doing what you're doing. If you've just spent the last few hours playing music: whether that was in a band or by yourself; on stage or at home; rehearsing or sittin' in; getting paid or doing it for free; doing it for a living or just for the pleasure---and you finish with a big smile on your face and that inner feeling of satisfaction that ONLY comes from making music (and really good sex....), then Mission Accomplished. You've been "validated". Nobody else's opinion on what you do and how you do it really matters, does it?

[wades_keys]

Well, all I was doing was disagreeing with this statement:

 

I'm of a mind that if a band can't rehearse or gig three times a month they're not going to be tight

That's kind of a one-size-fits all statement, no? That kind of statement reflects a "no compromise" mentality wrt practice, and it's typically the type of thing I hear to justify rehearsals even when there are no gigs on the books.

 

My whole point was and is this: why do so many bands REFUSE to allow down time re: rehearsals when the gigs are lean? The end result inevitably is a revolving door which has a FAR MORE detrimental effect on the "tightness" of the band.

 

So ask yourselves: is the band being "tight" the sole goal here, or is it something else? Because the logic in many cases just doesn't compute. If you want a tight band, you wouldn't be replacing members everytime someone suggests to back off on the rehearsals a little. That's all I'm saying.

 

And tell me I'm the only one who has encountered the "militant" rehearsal attitude? The "no compromise" we "must rehearse at all costs"; ostensibly for "band tightness" but these same bands typically have constant new members "getting up to speed". It just doesn't wash. Y'all know who you are, and I'm certainly not implying any of you guys run your bands that way. Just giving you something to think about, so that you DON"T run your band (into the ground) that way. Carry on.

 

And Guido/David: I'm not calling anyone out here, or putting myself above anyone else. But why NOT work harder at music outside of the confines of the band/genre? Too many cats get stuck in a rut, playing the same style, same songs, with the same group. They can't won't or don't improvise. They can't won't or don't play other styles. They can't won't or don't seek out improvisational situations. They can't won't or don't get out of comfort zones. That just seems awfully boring, stale and static to me. Is there no more to learn? Have we all "arrived"? Is there no more joy in learning, improving? How can that happen when doing the same stuff with the same people, in a comfort zone?

[Vito Corleone]

Well, all I was doing was disagreeing with this statement:

 

 

That's kind of a one-size-fits all statement, no? That kind of statement reflects a "no compromise" mentality wrt practice, and it's typically the type of thing I hear to justify rehearsals even when there are no gigs on the books.

 

My whole point was and is this: why do so many bands REFUSE to allow down time re: rehearsals when the gigs are lean? The end result inevitably is a revolving door which has a FAR MORE detrimental effect on the "tightness" of the band.

 

Again...depends on your goals here. I agree with RoadRanger that if a band isn't going to be playing (either rehearsal or gig) 3 times a month or so, they aren't going to be tight. But I'm also fine with allowing down time to be down time. If we've got an extended down time coming on, I personally don't see the point of rehearsing once a week just to "stay tight". But I WILL call a rehearsal or two right before the next gig so we can tighten up. Just walking in cold after taking 2 or 3 months off probably isn't going to go well. Certainly isn't going to go as well as having a bit of group rehearsal beforehand.

 

But any band that wants to keep rehearsing regularly between gigs? That's fine if that's what they wanna do. Maybe they just like playing together, or maybe they just want an excuse to get out of the house or down a couple of six-packs. That's all cool too. Not my thing, personally, but whatever.

 

So ask yourselves: is the band being "tight" the sole goal here, or is it something else? Because the logic in many cases just doesn't compute. If you want a tight band, you wouldn't be replacing members everytime someone suggests to back off on the rehearsals a little. That's all I'm saying.

 

And tell me I'm the only one who has encountered the "militant" rehearsal attitude?

 

I dunno. Obviously you're getting into some individual issues here. I've never encountered that attitude. Then again, I never played in bands that weren't gigging at least somewhat regularly, so it's never really had a chance to catch up. "Militant" attitudes from people I work with/for can be OK as long as they back it up with results. Some guy that demanded a lot of rehearsal but offered few gigs wouldn't be somebody I'd sign on with in the first place.

 

 

And Guido/David: I'm not calling anyone out here, or putting myself above anyone else. But why NOT work harder at music outside of the confines of the band/genre? Too many cats get stuck in a rut, playing the same style, same songs, with the same group. They can't won't or don't improvise. They can't won't or don't play other styles. They can't won't or don't seek out improvisational situations. They can't won't or don't get out of comfort zones. That just seems awfully boring, stale and static to me. Is there no more to learn? Have we all "arrived"? Is there no more joy in learning, improving? How can that happen when doing the same stuff with the same people, in a comfort zone?

 

Again, there's a zillion ways to skin the cat. I know guys who never want to learn anything because they just want to sit in and jam. I know other guys who have been playing the exact same set list for decades. Sometimes it's about money; sometimes it's about other things. Some situations are ones I might enjoy; others are not. We're all different with different things that float our boats. One man's "rut" is another man's "nailing it". To each his own. Who are you to decide as to whether someone has "arrived" or not? How can you presume to know their intended destination?

 

But, for the sake of argument, let me turn back around on you: WHY work harder at music outside of the "confines" of the band/genre? What's your endgame? I certainly don't begrudge anyone who wants to do that, (and I enjoy playing 'outside' music in my free time---such as I have much free time these days....) but one of the purposes of a band/gig is it defines a musical goal. There's something to practice TOWARDS. The guy who just sits at home working on his scales and arpeggios is doing so for WHAT? For a gig that may or may not materialize someday? So he can boast online about how well he nailed some complicated piece of music? So he can go out and see live bands and feel confident that he's a much better player than those guys stuck in their "rut" of playing the same songs every night?

 

I'm not calling you out either---just playing Devil's Advocate here mostly---but you see how easily that same argument can be turned back around on you.

 

No offense, but your position sounds to me to be mostly an exercise in self-justification. I'd suggest to chill and not worry so much about what others are doing and what their motivations might be for it. Seek out what feels right for you and find other guys who have similar goals. Or not, and go solo if working and playing well with others is an issue.

[wades_keys]

But, for the sake of argument, let me turn back around on you: WHY work harder at music outside of the "confines" of the band/genre? What's your endgame?

My goal is to be a better, more rounded musician.

 

I certainly don't begrudge anyone who wants to do that, (and I enjoy playing 'outside' music in my free time---such as I have much free time these days....) but one of the purposes of a band/gig is it defines a musical goal.

A goal that only exists for those that already have musical skills. See my point above. Maybe I'd like to be able to hang with the jazz guys, or the blues guys....Kinda hard to do that when playing top 40 covers is the exclusive endpoint for my musical endeavors, no? Also, it seems that the more I think I've "arrived" or gotten past a certain musical weak spot, I find other little nagging things that need perfecting: it just never ends really unless you, I, WE give up and stop challenging ourselves musically. At that point, there's no room for improvement: I, you, WE have essentially said: "This is good enough". Is it good enough? Who do I, you, WE play for? "Good enough" for "the crowd"? "Good enough" for "the gig"? Those are valid endpoints. They are also boring and stagnant endpoints. Why settle for "good enough"?

 

There's something to practice TOWARDS. The guy who just sits at home working on his scales and arpeggios is doing so for WHAT? For a gig that may or may not materialize someday? So he can boast online about how well he nailed some complicated piece of music? So he can go out and see live bands and feel confident that he's a much better player than those guys stuck in their "rut" of playing the same songs every night?

For me, it's to build better dexterity and get around the symptoms of RA that I have. It's to set the bar much higher than required for the gig, so that the toughest lick on my rock/country or blues gig is obtainable to me with ease. To build finger strength, confidence, dexterity and fretboard knowledge. Many reasons, none of which are the ones you put forth. Why else "waste time" transcribing "Whiter Shade of Pale" from the sheet music to a bass arrangement? Why else "waste time" learning TV themes on bass guitar? Do you honestly think I roll into GC and bust out my adaption of "Chromatic Fantasy" or "Whiter Shade of Pale"? I don't. In fact, I've never played any of those things in a public context, anywhere, nor do I plan to. The fact is: music is my mentor, guide, comforter. If I were stuck on a desert island, a stringed instrument would get me through. No need for "the gig" or musical goals that revolve around a band concept. A band is just one of MANY possible means to express oneself musically; one which I treasure and am blessed by, sure: but not necessary and I will always play music regardless of whether I am in a band or not.

 

My real endpoint goal? I want to be accepted by PROS. I want to be in all ways a PRO at this. I want to join a PRO outfit. I want to do this fulltime. So I surround myself with those that do, learn from them, get humbled by them, network with them, get my name out there. Why not? There are a zillion average cover band bass guitarists out there. How can I stand out from them and snag a spot in a pro touring band by being yet another of those? That would be delusional.....Take care

 

Oh: and I'm not worried about what anyone else does. What gave you the impression I am? I'm no Zig Ziglar LOL but c'mon man, can't people try and inspire others anymore? It just seems like across the board when people try to cajole, prod, inspire or whatever then the response is "don't worry about me" or some other hard-hearted or hard-headed type of response. That's a reflection on stubbornness and being set in our ways, it seems like. So I fail at motivation: I guess I can deal with that!

[SpaceNorman]

For me - the guiding tenet boils down to the following:

 

A band needs to play together regularly in order to be at their best!

 

The first key work in this is "play". It's not strictly rehearsals or strictly gigs.

 

The second key word is "together". Personal practice and preparation by the individual band members certainly goes a long way in terms of helping that individual member be the best musician they can be. Obviously the more practiced (i.e., finely honed chops) and the more agile (that combination of understanding of theory, ear skills, breadth and depth of knowledge of various genres, etc.) an individual player is - the more efficient they'll be when it comes to learning and maintaining a repertoire. Yet, regardless of how well developed individual player(s) are - playing in a band is not an individual sport. It still needs to play together to function as one.

 

The third key word is "regularly". There's a lot of wiggle room in how that gets defined. Lots of things (complexity of material, abilities of the players involved, demands of the gigs being played/objectives of the band, etc.) influence what "regular" means to each band. Certainly, it can't be constantly ... nor is it likely to be on an interval defined in months and months.

 

The final key word/phrase there is "at their best". Sure, lots of bands get by without playing together except at the occasional gig. With the right bunch of players, there are more than a few bands that get by very well without playing together except at the occasional gig. However, there isn't a band out there that doesn't get better (tighter, crisper, more authority, more crowd focus .. and/or most any other facet you care to judge) when they go from rarely playing together - to playing together regularly.

 

If you're in one of those bands that "goes fallow" for long periods between gigs ... that's great. Lots of us do that. One of my projects' "annual gig" is coming up over Memorial Day weekend. This band exists solely to play this gig. We do two rehearsals in the two weeks leading up to the gig ... and then go knock out 3 hour long sets. We get by ... but there isn't a one of us on stage that doesn't recognize that our performance is "the best we can muster with what we're willing to put into it" ... but would never argue that it's "the best performance we're capable of".

[Vito Corleone]

 

My goal is to be a better, more rounded musician.

 

But again....for what purpose? Everyone's mileage may vary but, in my view anyway, a "better, more rounded musician" is meaningless without something to apply those skill TO.

 

It's like the guys who attend college endlessly. Sure, learning can be fun and taking classes is a better way to spend your free time than a lot of other things I can think of and I admire anyone who has a higher degree of education but, for the most part, people attend college to learn a particular skill---to get a particular degree that will assist them in getting a particular job in a particular field. Because getting that Masters will mean a promotion that will get you more money. But anyone working on their Doctorate simply because they want to be more educated and who would then look down upon the people who dropped out of college in order to go make money in the real world....sorry, but that guy would kind of a dickweed, doncha think?

 

Even when we're starting out playing music as kids, sure your piano teacher is going to make you run through the books and learn the rudiments but there's also always those pieces you are learning so you can perform at the recital at the end of the year. There HAS to be a goal and a purpose for all of it, otherwise the kids are going to start wondering why they are bothering with all of it in the first place.

 

And being a musician is a lot like the answer that Lincoln gave when asked "how long should a man's legs be?" "Long enough to reach the ground", he quipped. The truth is that any musician only needs as good as they need to be to achieve their personal goals. Maybe you want to learn guitar in order to convey the music you hear in your head. Maybe you want to learn the violin so you can play with the symphony orchestra. Maybe you want to be a good enough drummer so you can gig with a touring rock band 6 nights a week. If so, that's really all you need to achieve isn't it? Does it actually matter that Pat Metheny is technically a better guitarist than Neil Young? Or that Paul McCartney had more musical chops than John Lennon? Or that the old guys in the R&B cover band at the local casino are much players than the young kids playing punk originals at the corner dive? If all have reached, or are on the path towards, their end goal as a musician, then any skills they haven't learned are pretty much irrelevant, aren't they?

 

 

A goal that only exists for those that already have musical skills. See my point above. Maybe I'd like to be able to hang with the jazz guys, or the blues guys....Kinda hard to do that when playing top 40 covers is the exclusive endpoint for my musical endeavors, no?

 

Why would you be playing top 40 covers if your goal is to play jazz or blues? That's not a problem of not enough or too much rehearsal. That's a problem of not seeking out the right situation for your personal desires. Don't blame the fact that you don't think you can hang with the jazz guys on the fact that the guys in the top 40 band you're in want to have a band rehearsal once a week. Doesn't sound to me like they are "militant". Sounds to me like you're in the wrong band.

 

 

The fact is: music is my mentor, guide, comforter. If I were stuck on a desert island, a stringed instrument would get me through. No need for "the gig" or musical goals that revolve around a band concept. A band is just one of MANY possible means to express oneself musically; one which I treasure and am blessed by, sure: but not necessary and I will always play music regardless of whether I am in a band or not.

 

That's wonderful. But why the need to look down upon those who get off on being in a band as being "confined" or "restricted"? WadesKeys is suddenly the arbiter of musical nirvana?

 

My real endpoint goal? I want to be accepted by PROS. I want to be in all ways a PRO at this. I want to join a PRO outfit. I want to do this fulltime. So I surround myself with those that do, learn from them, get humbled by them, network with them, get my name out there. Why not? There are a zillion average cover band bass guitarists out there. How can I stand out from them and snag a spot in a pro touring band by being yet another of those? That would be delusional.....Take care

 

Because the #1 way to be a PRO and be accepted by PROS is to do it. No offense, and not trying to crush your dreams or anything, but the pros I know are all such because they've BEEN pros since Day 1. Those "cats" you mentioned earlier that you wish to learn from....what's the one thing they all have in common? They not only play full-time (or nearly so) but have been doing it since they were teenagers. What makes them pros is the experience and understanding of ALL aspects of what they do. It isn't about who's got the most finger dexterity. The guys who get the good gigs are the ones who have worked their way up from the ground up. I'm sure there are exceptions---and maybe you'll be one of them---but I can't think of any pro players who suddenly just popped out of the bedroom when they were 45 and started landing some great gigs because they figured out a way to surround themselves with "pros".

 

But hey---maybe you can marry your way into a decent gig with a guy who plays regularly. That's all cool. But even at that, don't kid yourself that it would ever have much at all to do with your desire to not waste your time playing with one of the 'zillion average' cover bands out there in the meantime.

 

 

[RoadRanger]

I think yous guys are mostly on the same page . Oh, and speaking of the Blues a pet peeve of mine are those who can't play a blues tune right - they all sound the same when they play them. These are the guys that argue that the blues is too simple for them <facepalm>. I had to point out to the classic rock band I just joined that "old time rock & roll" does NOT repeat the same 8 bar progression all the way through - and I just learned it a week ago. Similar thing with "folsom prison blues" most every time I jam it with somebody new - it's 11 bars not 12 <facepalm>. And is there anyone besides me and Johnny that can play "ring of fire" right (hint - most measures have 4 beats but some 2, 3 or 5) or even pronounce "fire" correctly with two syllables (that might be a Bahston thing )? . Dunno about these mythical "pros" but I hear these things when judging other's abilities .

[Vito Corleone]

 

I think yous guys are mostly on the same page . Oh, and speaking of the Blues a pet peeve of mine are those who can't play a blues tune right - they all sound the same when they play them. These are the guys that argue that the blues is too simple for them <facepalm>. I had to point out to the classic rock band I just joined that "old time rock & roll" does NOT repeat the same 8 bar progression all the way through - and I just learned it a week ago. Similar thing with "folsom prison blues" most every time I jam it with somebody new - it's 11 bars not 12 <facepalm>. And is there anyone besides me and Johnny that can play "ring of fire" right (hint - most measures have 4 beats but some 2, 3 or 5) or even pronounce "fire" correctly with two syllables (that might be a Bahston thing )? . Dunno about these mythical "pros" but I hear these things when judging other's abilities .

 

For me it's less about whether you play a phrase with 11 or 12 bars than it is what you do with them. By all means, if certain arrangement features are important to you, then make sure you nail those, but if I go and hear a band kill on that tune, I'm probably not going to be too concerned about whether it measures out exactly the same way Johnny did it 50 years ago.

 

But yes...to the degree such things are done simply out of laziness? Yeah, I hate that too. I really dislike it when players dismiss certain songs or genres as "too simple". The guys that do that almost always miss the little things that made that song special in the first place.

[SeniorBlues]

 

For me it's less about whether you play a phrase with 11 or 12 bars than it is what you do with them..

 

What does that mean??

 

Either you understand how the song is phrased or you don't. I don't have much experience playing country music, but whenever I tackle one, odds are there's going to be something added or taken away from the time that you don't expect, and either you pick up on it or you can't. There's a right way to play "Ring of Fire" and it isn't as easy as it sounds. I suppose you can reply on cues from other guys . . . until you're responsible for the next one.

 

[Vito Corleone]

What does that mean??

It means that I don't think it's particularly important if the singer on FPB starts each verse right where Johnny Cash came in or if he waits one more bar or lets it go around a couple more. The way Cash did it was cool, but that isn't going to be what makes or breaks any bands performance of the song for me.

Personally I find a lot of that drop/add a beat stuff in country music to sound dated anyway. It was cool in the 60s. Unless you're specifically a "retro" act, I'd rather hear more updated arrangements out of songs and I think doing so works best with most audiences.

But, as always, that's just an opinion. YMMV.

[wesg]

There is an act locally with a singer who sings FPB with an "updated arrangement". It would be great performance, only she's forgotten what the song's about...and sings it gleefully. Gleefully. That song is nothing if not gleeful. And THAT is what I think is important in that performance.

 

My cover band plays fast and loose with the arrangements. It's fun for us. Nobody is going to leave the bar because the guitar player did his own thing where the sax solo goes. All the crowd cares about is that we're fun and danceable.

 

I've also discovered that some of the songs we cover have different radio versions than the versions we based our arrangements on. "The Way" by Fastball comes to mind. Although, I'm talking strict arrangement now, and not something cool like what Johnny does on FPB.

 

I can't picture what's hard about Ring Of Fire, though. I guess I better go re-listen. I've performed it a couple of times (covering trumpets on keys in a sit-in situation) but I haven't really listened to that song closely since I got into my dad's vinyl collection about 30 years ago. That was a great album. I should learn more country.

[RoadRanger]

I can't picture what's hard about Ring Of Fire, though. I guess I better go re-listen. I've performed it a couple of times (covering trumpets on keys in a sit-in situation) but I haven't really listened to that song closely since I got into my dad's vinyl collection about 30 years ago. That was a great album. I should learn more country.

If the trumpet is right it queues in the skipped/extra beats - I "cheat" and read it .

 

BTW yesterday's "audition" was interesting - the guitarist, keyboard player, and pedal steel/dobro player were real pros and it was the first time I've played with a pedal steel player . OTOH the auditioning drummer had a tendency to add a beat in his fills and otherwise have tempo issues. I emailed them the usual "hey, it was great playing with yous guys" with an added "would you like me to hook you up with a drummer I know?" without stating the obvious LOL.

 

Kinda funny, the BL had commented to me last weekend that he didn't much care for the eKit his last drummer player - and this weekend was wondering why it was so loud in his living room (he's a former Karaoke singer ) . I personally thought the drummer's level was OK although I've jammed with "music college" drummers (on a small kit) who could really bring it down and still sound great.

[wades_keys]

But again....for what purpose? Everyone's mileage may vary but, in my view anyway, a "better, more rounded musician" is meaningless without something to apply those skill TO.

 

It's like the guys who attend college endlessly. Sure, learning can be fun and taking classes is a better way to spend your free time than a lot of other things I can think of and I admire anyone who has a higher degree of education but, for the most part, people attend college to learn a particular skill---to get a particular degree that will assist them in getting a particular job in a particular field.

By that logic, all academic instruction should cease immediately, to be replaced with vocational instruction. C'mon man. Can't you wrap your head around the concept that SOME OF US really enjoy the study of music?

 

Why would you be playing top 40 covers if your goal is to play jazz or blues?

It's a funny thing. Bands keep hiring me to do just that. And the gigs pay money. Really nothing more or less than that.

 

That's wonderful. But why the need to look down upon those who get off on being in a band as being "confined" or "restricted"? WadesKeys is suddenly the arbiter of musical nirvana?

No need to get snarky. I'm not looking down on anyone. Do what you want. I just wonder why more cats don't stretch out. Ya know why I do? Because when a dude like Sonny needs to put a hot band together, all you chicken s***ts (yeah I said it) are too hemmed up playing covers or whatever else you're doing; not willing or able. It's just hard to find those players that remember how it used to be; cats willing and able to step quickly and joyously into a pickup situation and still make it valid and possibly even memorable.

 

Because the #1 way to be a PRO and be accepted by PROS is to do it. No offense, and not trying to crush your dreams or anything, but the pros I know are all such because they've BEEN pros since Day 1.

Bull{censored}. They're pros the day they are hired by pros or become popular. I would add to that: if you have the respect of pros, and they are considering working with you or already are: then ya might be a pro too (or at least "pro quality")

 

Those "cats" you mentioned earlier that you wish to learn from....what's the one thing they all have in common? They not only play full-time (or nearly so) but have been doing it since they were teenagers.

Not all of em, man. Albert Collins drove a truck his whole life. John Lee Hooker worked at Ford Motor Co. My father in law worked at CTA while still finding time to join touring bands. C'mon man......

 

What makes them pros is the experience and understanding of ALL aspects of what they do. It isn't about who's got the most finger dexterity.

I NEVER even mentioned fingers. It's funny you say that, because I have and am evolving really towards a much simpler, more direct style with far more tasteful use of rests and that is really the anti-thesis of "dexterity". Big ears are what I'm after.

 

The guys who get the good gigs are the ones who have worked their way up from the ground up.

You telling me I haven't or I can't? Really? Then why the hell do I keep getting good reviews from some pretty heavy cats? Dude: I tell you what man. WHEN I snag my regional gig I'll drop ya a postcard, cool?

 

I'm sure there are exceptions---and maybe you'll be one of them---but I can't think of any pro players who suddenly just popped out of the bedroom when they were 45 and started landing some great gigs because they figured out a way to surround themselves with "pros".

Suddenly popped out of the bedroom? Man seriously? Alright whatever. And I ain't marrying my way into anything. Nobody stinks up Sonny's stage: not me, not anybody. If I gig with the man it will be earned, period and end of that story. No hard feelings man, but seriously?

 

Look: my friend Jeff "popped up out of the bedroom" just a few years back and toured and recorded a CD with Razzy Bailey: based solely on a "bedroom demo" he and a friend did. Funny thing is, the 2 of em headed down there and one of em got sent home: the one that had the weaker playing skills....I ain't making this up man. Another dude that I have in my contacts is in his 50's and picked up a regional gig touring behind a name artist. Based solely on a demo as I gather. I have a story here too from the dude that got the sub guitar gig for "Jersey Boys". He learned the whole set and went in and auditioned, and got the gig. So why can't I do that too? That's how the gig works and it's been working fairly well for me to this point.

[Vito Corleone]

 

What does that mean??

 

Either you understand how the song is phrased or you don't.

 

Here is more specifically what I mean.

 

Social Distortion's 1990 cover of Ring of Fire is nearly as iconic at this point as is Cash' original. They just play it in a straight 4/4 which suits their punk style much better.

 

And this 1980 live version by Blondie is also great. They do the odd timing during the intro and instrumental turn-arounds, but play a straight 4 during the verses which, again, suits the style of that band much more.

 

Personally, I'd rather hear a band take an old song like Ring of Fire and do their own thing with it in this sort of manner than worry about whether they get all the beats "correctly". And if I were managing a band wanting to do this song, I'd recommend that approach from both an artistic and commercial standpoint.

 

Changing the phrasing doesn't ruin the song. In fact, it can improve on the delivery of the song if it suits a particular band better. If you're a Classic Country band then sure---you probably want to play it just like Cash did. But if you're a band reaching outside your usual genre in order to add some flavor and diversity to your setlist, then I would suggest there are much more important things to worry about when figuring out your arrangement.

 

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

By that logic, all academic instruction should cease immediately, to be replaced with vocational instruction. C'mon man. Can't you wrap your head around the concept that SOME OF US really enjoy the study of music?

 

As I said, there's nothing wrong with education for education's sake. Where the mistake is made is when you start looking down your nose at those who just go out there and do it rather than studying it all day long. Study it all you want and enjoy doing so. More power to you for that. Just drop the I'm-somehow-a-superior-musician-because-of-it attitude.

 

 

 

 

No need to get snarky. I'm not looking down on anyone. Do what you want. I just wonder why more cats don't stretch out. Ya know why I do? Because when a dude like Sonny needs to put a hot band together, all you chicken s***ts (yeah I said it) are too hemmed up playing covers or whatever else you're doing; not willing or able. It's just hard to find those players that remember how it used to be; cats willing and able to step quickly and joyously into a pickup situation and still make it valid and possibly even memorable.

 

Your attitude in previous posts and in this very paragraph indicate otherwise. If you're not looking down on people, then consider changing your tone.

[Vito Corleone]

 

 

 

Not all of em, man. Albert Collins drove a truck his whole life. John Lee Hooker worked at Ford Motor Co. My father in law worked at CTA while still finding time to join touring bands. C'mon man......

.

 

We all need day jobs from time to time, especially when starting out. But Collins was in bands and gigging from the time he was a teenager and while he was driving truck. He was recording and releasing music while in his 20s and had his first full-length album released when he was 33.

 

Hooker had a similar story. Playing and gigging constantly while working for Ford or wherever, he was recording and releasing records as far back as 1948. And I doubt either guy had enough music education to be able to tell you what mode they were ever soloing in. They just wrote and played what they felt. But the idea that these guys were late-in-life bloomers who didn't seriously attempt to strike out on the music until they were much older is flat out wrong. Like many/most cats, these guys were pros through and through and performed constantly since they were teenagers but paid the bills with day jobs when they had to.

 

The truth is the guys who 'make it' are the ones who do it and HAVE been doing it, virtually non-stop, from childhood. Write/record/gig. Rinse and repeat. Work your way up the ladder. Make connections. Struggle. Fail. Succeed. I'm sure there are exceptions to be found somewhere---but Collins and Hooker ain't two of 'em.