The economics of backing tracks

[pogo97]

^^^

fully agree : watching TV when you could be doing anything else is a waste of life

[kurdy]

 

And besides for being a sales medium disguised as an entertainment medium, TV is a drug. Drug I say? Your brain on TV emits very similar beta and theta waves as they do in a drug induced state Quit TV "cold turkey" and most will have pronounced withdrawal symptoms Harder and harder doses are required for the same high - from "Father Knows Best" to "Desperate Housewives" in a couple of decades Most TV abusers cannot tell the difference between the drug induced state and reality. Ask any actor/actress who consistantly plays an evil person on TV. If they are seen in public, going to the grocery store or whatever they are met with jeers and insults from the drug users, as if they really were the evil people they portray on TV Just say "NO" to TV.

 

 

I woud've thought the bigger hazard would be the internet...I do put the TV on, but there is nothing on TV that I would go out of my way to watch, and I could really do without it. However, the internet would be tougher to go without. I can easily spend hours hanging out here, or on several other discssion forums, Facebook, sometimes YouTube, and not really doing anything productive or making the most of my very limited free time. I think part of what makes it so addictive is that the reward is so uncertain. You can go through the same routine every day, and find something different each time. It also caters more to one's own individual tastes, whereas TV aims for the widest, most general audience possible. Most of the time, nothing interesting or exciting happens at all on-line...but there's always the chance, if you hang around long enough, you'll come across something cool. I've never participated in gambling, but I would imagine it works in somewhat the same way psychologically.

 

That said, I see how that could be true. My day job is working at a public library that besides books, has a pretty large selection of movies and DVDs. A lot of patrons take full advantage of our services for various reasons (some are out of work, or can't afford cable). They literally seem obsessed, getting 15 to 20 at a time...swooping in to grab them, even before we have a chance to put them back on the shelves. People gotta have their fix.

[John Bartus]

Yet another rant alert...

 

:soapbox:

 

There are a lot of contributing factors to the "decline" of live bands or live music as an evening's pastime. While TV may be a factor, it's the type of programming that might be more influential.

 

Back in the 1950s and 1960s (and arguably into the 1970s), TV actually helped promote live music, especially rock and roll. Just look at all the people who got their inspiration for their life's work because of seeing Elvis or the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show. Growing up, we boomers would watch the occasional program when one of our favorite musicians or bands would be performing. The 70s brought us programs like The Midnight Special and Don Kirchner's Rock Concert, and these programs would whet our appetites for even more music.

 

As mentioned in a previous post, however, TV audio in those days sucked. If you wanted to hear anything that sounded halfway decent, you'd go out to hear a live act, or you'd fire up the component system and place one of those large black vinyl discs on this contraption called a turntable. (Eight-tracks and cassettes sucked for so many reasons.) I've mentioned this a few times in other posts, but back in those days, many of us would bring a bottle of wine and our favorite albums and get together for a listening party.

 

The 1980s was where it all started to unravel, as it were. MTV, and the necessity of having a video to promote your single, inextricably fused video onto the music. It wasn't the same as watching a live performance on TV -- it was now all about lip-synching and choreography and dramatic interpretations instead of actual performance. Don't get me wrong -- I enjoyed a lot of music videos and many were very well done. But contrast a typical MTV staple with a song that never had a music video, say "Homeward Bound" by Simon and Garfunkel. When Paul's lyrics mention sitting in a railway station, and each town looking the same with movies and factories and cigarettes and magazines, each one of us creates our own mental imagery to go along with the words... unlike the mental imagery of Tom Petty singing to Alice in Wonderland each time we hear "Don't Come Around Here No More."

 

Even live performances have gone to video. Instead of the audience focusing its attention to the interaction of the musicians on stage, most tours have multi-camera setups and video crews that project the appropriate images on the big screens we all watch now instead of the actual performers.

 

Combine all of this with the fact that music has become much more of a commodity -- in the background everywhere, but not a featured part of our lives -- and you potentially end up with (from a musician's point of view) truly disturbing things. Something that annoys the crap out of me is the behavior of people at live concerts. Why in the hell would someone spend $75-250 (or more) for a concert ticket only to talk or text throughout the entire show? Oh, but I forgot: it's only a TV show, albeit with really big screens, an enormous sound system... and live musical accompaniment.

 

I've noticed this at my gigs throughout the years as well. In the 70s and 80s, audiences were a bit more respectful of what was happening on stage. People would be more attentive, or at least try to keep the conversation volume low. Not so much these days. But why should I care? Music is just supposed to be in the background anyway, right? Countless are the gigs where the rapport between audience and performer was ruined by inconsiderate obnoxious jackasses hell-bent on sharing their pronouncements with the entire room.

 

And it's not just at my level. I saw Jethro Tull five years ago in the Barbara Mann Performing Arts Hall it Ft. Myers -- a really nice 1,500-seat venue that provided a real intimate experience. Instead of the respect that the five incredible musicians on the stage deserved and most certainly had earned, the performance was interrupted on several occasions by inconsiderate obnoxious jackasses yelling out "requests" like "Aqualung!" or "Thick As A Brick!" It got so bad at one point that Ian Anderson, while trying to introduce a song, threatened to leave the stage if the jackasses didn't shut up.

 

Bringing this back to the OT, the 1980s also saw the introduction of decent-sounding sampled drum machines and MIDI. And as those were the sounds that were on a lot of the records from that era, they made their way into live acts as well. It became more economical for the club owner to hire a sequenced duo instead of a 5 to 8-piece band with a live drummer and horns. The smaller rooms and declining alcohol sales revenues played a large part in that as well.

 

As far as the future, I don't have a freakin' clue. Are shows like American Idol and The Voice going to be good for live music, or will they just keep on promoting the I-only-want-to-be-a-star mentality? With all the cuts in education budgets, how will school music programs survive? Will becoming proficient on a musical instrument one day be looked at as an unnecessary and anachronistic skill relegated to the dustbin of history? Or will these new Dark Ages spark a new Renaissance, a rebirth of the arts?

 

As for me, I'm going to just keep on playing. You'll pry my guitar from my cold dead hands...

[John Bartus]

I also wanted to say that the quality of the posts in this forum has been exceptional. Everyone has made some great points without descending into the seemingly inevitable backing-tracks-suck arguments. Very cool!

[BlueStrat]

 

The main reason is TV.

 

 

Disagree. If the legal BAC limit was still.15 like it was in the 70s, bars would be packed. When I go out on the weekends, downtown is crawling with people. They are in restaurants, wine bars, movie theaters, etc. They just aren't out in bars getting hammered like they used to because it's just too risky. TV might be a something to do for more people who decide to stay home, but DUI laws are why they aren't flocking to bars like they used to. .08 isn't very drunk for alot of people, but it's too low a limit to risk for a lot of folks. In my area, they have emphasis patrols, stop checks, and cops on foot patrolling the bars and watching who gets in their cars when they leave.

[Notes_Norton]

That's a good point. It's getting more and more expensive to go out and drink. Contributing factor definitely.

 

And dangerous - as those who drive get checked.

 

Back in the 70s I drove a cab between bands (you could show up, rent a cab, and keep all the money after you pay "the nut" - on a nightly basis). I drove many a drunk home at night because he/she was too drunk to drive home safely. I would also leave them with a note to give to the day cab driver so they knew where they left their car (a day driver suggested this).

 

On the other hand, I know a lot of people that won't go anywhere when "their show" is on TV. March Madness clears the bars as does Super Bowl Sunday.

 

It's much tougher to make a living playing music today than it was when I was young. I feel sorry for the youngsters.

 

Backing tracks are simply a way to survive in this down-sized entertainment world.

 

There are times when I'd rather be in a bigger band again, less stuff to carry (more hands for the PA), fewer parts to learn (I have to learn drums/bass/comp parts to make my tracks), more voices on stage, and more musical ideas from other musicians (my backing tracks are all me - no surprises). But I've been in this track-duo since the 80s, and the advantages for me quite outweigh the disadvantages - more money, no personnel problems, no artistic arguments, and so on.

 

So unless things change, I'm in the track-duo for a long time.

[doezer]

Did I really say that? Although it does seem like something I would say... But regarding the OP, I'd rather hear a good singer/guitarist without a backing track. What I have seen that's worked is drum machines dedicated not to drums, but hand percussion, like a shaker or maracas or whatever. It's a lot less intrusive than drums, and the variety of percussion options gives you a lot of options as well. And, it's almost impossible for it to overshadow the performer.

 

 

Absolutely... I am convinced there is a good market out there for backing tracks to well known tunes pf all genres reworked with just percussion and bass.

for acoustic guitarists and duos to play over... really suits the sound more and would still get the people up and dancing

 

personally i dont have time or money to get that going myself..

so until that option comes i just use backing tracks with drums and bass... you can really edit them to get that acoustic sound going too you know..

take out all the instruments or 90% of them anyway.., just leave drum and bass and then add your own basic acoustic guitar rhythm track on it..

then play another rhythm line or lead lines live. sounds very acoustic and it does work.

when you do it right it doesnt feel like cheating... your still doing most of the work live, and defnitely all the tricky work - just make sure to keep the guitar work on the BT very simple...

my 2 c

d

[Notes_Norton]

I think we lose the focus a little bit when we talk about what we would rather listen to.

 

We're in the biz and we listen with educated ears. My wife looks at an oil painting and knows what kind of brush the artist used, I could care less, I look at the painting and decide whether or not it 'speaks' to me on an emotional level.

 

I'd rather listen to a symphony orchestra playing some moody, Eastern European symphony than either a single guitarist or a duo with backing tracks. That doesn't mean I don't like singles or backing tracks. If the music is good, and it appeals to me emotionally, I like it and I'll listen to it.

 

On the other hand, what really counts is whether or not the audience likes it. We started doing backing tracks in the mid 1980s, long before anyone around here was aware of karaoke.

 

Keeping with the subject of the thread, we did it for economical reasons -- to pay the mortgage and have enough over for food, gas, and a yearly vacation.

 

When other musicians come to hear us, I do hope they like our singing/playing and my backing tracks, I have professional and personal pride in my work. On the other hand, if they are disgruntled because I'm using backing tracks, there is nothing I can do about it. I've been working steadily since the 1980s doing this, it's our primary source of income, so we must be doing something right.

 

You can play for yourself, you can play for other musicians, and you can play for the general public. If you are good enough, you will get the audience you asked for.

 

We play for the general public, we enjoy playing for the general public, and so far the general public has not let us down.

 

Now if we can only figure out how to get the majority of people away from their TV sets and back in the bars where they belong

[jayare]

Some great posts here!

 

Ive been solo for about 5 yrs,and like some of the others,I make all my backing tracks.Ive got a very limited vocal range,so I tailor the tracks for my range.I can play basic keyboard parts,and bass,so it all goes to an 8 track recorder.Takes a lot of time,but--keeps the chops up!I do a lot of Senior Centers.(the senior age group were going out dancing in the 60s and 70s..so theres the songlist)Ive been in everything from an 8 piece

horn band,a Polka band,to a 5 piece disco band,and a country band,and even now,occasionally I play in my own trio.

Also,I love doing fill-ins!It is unbelievable how easy it is to just stand on stage,and just play,without having to deal with anyone, decide which song to do,booking,etc,etc

Any way------its all changed---along with DUIs...ya got theCable bill--Cell phone bill which combined can easily take away a couple hundred bucks a month out of your "play" money.Oh yeah...also the price for a gallon of gas!It takes almost $40 to fill up my 1999 Saturn!

Bottom Line---I still enjoy playing music,and whatever Ive got to do to keep playing (and getting paid for it!)

But as Darwin said----"It is not the strongest of the species that survive,nor the most intelligent,but the one most responsive to change"

[Vito Corleone]

 

. While TV may be a factor, it's the type of programming that might be more influential. Back in the 1950s and 1960s (and arguably into the 1970s), TV actually helped promote live music, especially rock and roll.

 

 

I suppose an argument can be made that it doesn't necessarily promote 'live' music, but TV is more music-oriented now than it has been in decades: shows like American Idol, The Voice, Glee, Smash, etc are all great for promoting interest in music. Do they just promote a "I only want to be a star mentality"? Perhaps. But so did Ed Sullivan and Midnight Special. They didn't make me want to play in a band, they made me want to be a Rock Star--playing in a band was just the necessary medium to try and achieve that. Especially for a guy like me who might have a shot at it as long as I was 1-in-5: I might be capable of being George or Ringo. I wasn't going to be Elvis.

 

Which brings us right back to the use of tracks---like others mentioned, I rather see a solo or duo act that can just entertain the hell out of the crowd with no backing tracks needed. But most of us aren't THAT talented. We need "the band".

 

Yeah, technology changes things. I was living in Vegas in the early 90s when the Musicians Union went on strike to try to prevent the showrooms from dropping horn and string sections in favor of a keyboard-player-with-a-synth. They couldn't stop that.

 

I used to own a video-rental store. DVDs, Netflix and internet downloading killed that industry.

 

We can't stop technology and we can't bemoan how things "used to be". We can only change and adapt. Yeah, technology is going to bring forth a lot of lameness, because it makes things easier for the weak and lazy. And that only really ups the challenges for those who are truely talented. It's not the tracks that are lame, only the inability of people to be creative with them.

 

For live music to prosper, you've got to make live music something people will be willing to get out of their chairs and away from their home-theaters to go experience.

[BlueStrat]

 

You can play for yourself, you can play for other musicians, and you can play for the general public. If you are good enough, you will get the audience you asked for.

 

 

Or you can play for all three. It isn't either/or.

 

We've had this conversation before, so I won't beat it to death, but I'll say it again: I play for me first, period. If I don't like what I'm doing, I'm not doing it. I can't sell a song I hate or think is cheesy. Nor would I want to, since there are a bazillion good songs to chose from. But as you know, my philosophy differs from yours. I don't see my job as catering to the whims of whatever crowd comes in that night, any more than a restaurant can offer 200 items on the menu. I see my job as selling myself and what I do to the patrons and bringing them around to it. I can't count the times I've had people say "I never knew I liked this kind of stuff until now!" or some variation of that. My way isn't better, just different, but I just wanted to point out that generalizations like "you can either do this or that" aren't universal by any stretch and it isn't a multiple choice quiz with one correct answer.

[MrKnobs]

 

I think BS nails it that civilization will get dumber, lazier and more opinionated, less informed and basically devolve. Thought, overall I think we're already there. I don't think civilization was ever that bright to begin with. I'm only sometimes bright.

 

 

I agree with you both. "Idiocracy" isn't just a comedic movie, it's prophecy.

 

Terry D.

[daddymack]

I agree with you both. "Idiocracy" isn't just a comedic movie, it's prophecy. Terry D.

Actually, I think the movie 'Wall-E' demonstrated where the human race was heading better than 'Idiocracy'...still, neither is particularly appealing...

[Jersey Jack]

Idiocracy is truly prophetic--but I had to see it twice. The first time my reaction was "what is this {censored}"? It seemed like any other crappy comedy designed to appeal to immature minds. The second time I was stunned by its wisdom. Seriously.

 

Think about drummers--how few there are these days. Once the audience gets used to a robot beat (even if the sound comes from natural drum samples), there's no economic support for drummers.

 

So, they come first for the drummers--then they'll come for us.

 

Guido61 says : Yeah, technology changes things. I was living in Vegas in the early 90s when the Musicians Union went on strike to try to prevent the showrooms from dropping horn and string sections in favor of a keyboard-player-with-a-synth. They couldn't stop that.

 

They had this fight on Broadway, as well--as I recall the musician's union won, but I'm not very sure that I'm recalling correctly. It strikes me now as implausible that a union can hold out for long against the economics of modern music production.

[Vito Corleone]

 

They had this fight on Broadway, as well--as I recall the musician's union won, but I'm not very sure that I'm recalling correctly. It strikes me now as implausible that a union can hold out for long against the economics of modern music production.

 

 

Not only that, but against the SOUND of modern music production. Yeah, as long as Broadway is doing revivals of "Oklahoma!" I suppose a good argument can be made for needing "real" instrument sounds to be delivered properly. But as the music in the productions continues to be more electronic in nature, so do the instruments needed to perform it.

 

I've said this before in other threads and other forums but I think one big problem is that what passes for the bulk of live music performance---especially on a small club level---is rooted in a 60-year old paradigm. Most of what most bands in a nightclub do to try and deliver their artistic vision and/or entertain the audience isn't that far removed from how Bill Haley & The Comets did it. We're paddling upstream trying to keep black-and-white TV alive in a 7.1 Surround/Hi-Def/3D world.

 

Yeah, there will always be a niche of fans who think B&W TV is really cool. Heck, a silent movie just won "Best Picture". But that niche gets smaller-and-smaller each passing year.

 

My GUESS is that the future of live-music performance will be more about bringing the performance to them, via the internet/smartphones/whatever, than it wil be about setting your band up somewhere and hoping people come out to see you do your thing. But who knows? All I can be pretty sure is that, if live music is to survive (and I believe it will) it will take a new generation of musicians who employ all the latest technology and do new, exciting and creative things with it. Stuff that old guys like us probably can't even wrap our brains around much.

 

I think it says a lot that a big chunk of the music world has spent the last 20 years waiting for the next Led Zeppelin. As long as the mindset is still rooted some 40 years in the past, it's hard to imagine how it ever moves forward.

[BlueStrat]

Still,there is a big difference between listening to one man's programming as opposed to a 6 piece horn section or a 12 piece string section of real humans actually playing instruments. It's the main reason that the 60 year old paradigm persists, IMO. It's almost amusing to me how so may purists will knock MP3s or digital recordings as being too sterile or fake sounding but not have any problem with digital substitutions for real instruments.

[Jersey Jack]

 

Guido61: We're paddling upstream trying to keep black-and-white TV alive in a 7.1 Surround/Hi-Def/3D world.

 

Interesting. Perhaps in this new world we could just stay home and get drunk and masturbate (practices that pre-date even Bill Haley) and let our avatars venture out onto the intertubz and take care of the music business for us? We just receive payments in our paypal accounts.

 

Seriously thought, your point is well-taken, though terrifying to folks who struggle to keep continuity with the past.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Still,there is a big difference between listening to one man's programming as opposed to a 6 piece horn section or a 12 piece string section of real humans actually playing instruments.

 

 

No doubt. And, even as a keyboard player, I'm a big proponent of wanting to hear live strings and horns as opposed to a synth. But the other side of that coin is the sounds that people are becoming more and more accustomed to hearing aren't even strings and horns -- either live OR synthesized -- anymore. You don't even hear much guitar in pop music these days and the percussion sounds seem to be getting further and further away from the sounds of "real" drums.

 

Which, if you think about it, of course makes sense. The harpsichord quickly became a niche instrument once the piano was invented. New generations are going to find their own sounds and new generations of players are going to naturally be attracted to doing 'new' things. (Not that there won't always be a dozen "retro" movements going on at any one time.) Technology has ALWAYS driven art forms forward. The artists never (or rarely) invent the technologies themselves, and at first are usually confounded by them and even often resistant to them. But it more often than not seems to be some sort of new technology that helps define the latest-and-greatest 'artist'. Jimi Hendrix was a phenomonally talented guitarist. But if he doesn't exist in the late 60s with the latest amplifier technology that he had to work with then? He might very well have just been another guitarist.

 

 

It's the main reason that the 60 year old paradigm persists, IMO.

 

 

Well, I think the main reason it still exists is that so many of us who have spent decades living in the old paradigm are still alive. I don't think it's much of a coincidence that the vast majority of people who show up in these threads all seem to be well over 40. But sometimes it feels like a "Do You Remember Vaudeville?" sketch from the old Sonny & Cher show.....

[Vito Corleone]

 

Interesting. Perhaps in this new world we could just stay home and get drunk and masturbate (practices that pre-date even Bill Haley) and let our avatars venture out onto the intertubz and take care of the music business for us? We just receive payments in our paypal accounts. Seriously thought, your point is well-taken, though terrifying to folks who struggle to keep continuity with the past.

 

 

I think the key is not be so terrified by it and just accept it to a large degree. I'm 50 years old. I'm long past the age where I have any real desire (and probably even less ability) to reinvent the wheel. I'll be happy to just find a comfortable little niche for myself in the "old paradigm" until I ride out into the sunset. At which point I'll almost certainly be sitting on my porch with whoever-is-left of my old friends lamenting about how much everything was so much better "back in the day".

 

But as far as continuity with the past goes....the truth is very little of ANYTHING survives the generation that passes. Only a fraction of the music and performance styles exist from 100 years ago. And what does exist is in a very niched format. Sure--classical music still gets played and performed and used in movies and TV and even most young people are familiar with certain melodies. But does it have any real RELEVENCE in anyone's life? Beyond a very small group of folks...not much.

 

But those threads of continuity DO exist and will continue to. I'm sure melodies and rhythms of classic rock songs will continue to be utilized by musicians for a long long time. Great old recordings will find their way on movie soundtracks or sampled bits. Bits of Elvis will live on in every live singer from now on. There will be some continuity. Even if it's not 4 guys with guitars and drums on stage singing "Jailhouse Rock".

[MartinC]

I actually like this idea a lot. I got my monthy check from cd baby-a whopping 25.00. I'm HUGE in MEXICO-three downloads!!! If I had a thousand different cd's out, I'd be doing very well without ever leaving the house. Even my avatar could stay home and whack it.

I'm too old and jaded to be concerned by backing tracks or other elaborate forms of technology taking gigs from musicians. I just do what I do, and let the chips fall where they may. It's all good. There will always be people who want to see and hear people play instruments. Maybe not enough to get rich, but few musicians ever got rich anyway. I decided a long time ago that the business of music can be a great business if your not a musician, but I am so I'm not in that business anymore.

 

 

Interesting. Perhaps in this new world we could just stay home and get drunk and masturbate (practices that pre-date even Bill Haley) and let our avatars venture out onto the intertubz and take care of the music business for us? We just receive payments in our paypal accounts. Seriously thought, your point is well-taken, though terrifying to folks who struggle to keep continuity with the past.

 

[Piano Whore]

I actually like this idea a lot. I got my monthy check from cd baby-a whopping 25.00. .

 

and for that, congratulations are in order! Pretty sure that's better than most do...

[pogo97]

I'm playing now with a variety of folks who are ten to fifteen years older than I am (56) and they experienced the radical downsize as wind-based bands collapsed into electric guitar combos. Plus

[Nijyo]

 

The thing about M.A.D.D. that irks me is that according to my insurance company, driving when talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as driving intoxicated. So where are the Mad Mothers now? They are driving their cars with a phone stuck to their ear. That's sad.

 

 

That's because it's well known that MADD has been a neo-prohibitionist organization for some time now. The former founder agreeing with that assessment, to boot.

[Notes_Norton]

 

<...> Which brings us right back to the use of tracks---like others mentioned, I rather see a solo or duo act that can just entertain the hell out of the crowd with no backing tracks needed. But most of us aren't THAT talented. We need "the band". <...>

 

 

Aw, c'mon. There are a lot of very talented people playing with backing tracks - people capable of doing a single act. True there are those that don't have the talent as well -- but for those of us who can do singles with or without the tracks, it's a matter of choice.

 

Do I want to play guitar and sing doing rather low-level music or do I want a big backing track so I can sing high energy stuff, play blues leads on the guitar, honk & wail on the saxophone, and a number of different instruments on my wind synth? I've never tried a guitar/vocal gig, because I'm not interested in that kind of performing.

 

And I'm sure you would rather see an act without tracks, but you are listening with musician's ears.

 

I think a good musician needs to know when to listen with musician's ears and when to listen with the ears of a non-educated audience.

 

BlueStrat, I don't think many people can play for all three. Two out of three perhaps. Charlie Parker played for himself and other musicians and the general public shunned him. Same for John Coltrane, Joe Pass, Barney Kessell, Jimmy Smith, Michael Brecker, Sun Ra, Ornette Coleman, Charlie Bird, Emily Remler, Herb Ellis, Jim Hall, Stanley Jordan, Joe Lovano, McCoy Tyner, Thelonious Monk, and countless others. The person who plays for himself/herself, other musicians, and the general public are in the vast minority.

 

If you can play for all three and make a living, consider yourself lucky and enjoy it!!!

 

I know plenty of people who play what they consider "art music" and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In the right environment, you can even make a living playing art music, and if you can, more power to you. On the other hand, in most places I've been in, the people playing pop music get 99% of the work.

 

I enjoy playing music, and very few songs are too cheesy for me. I've played classical (Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, etc.) and I've played "The Chicken Dance" -- so I've gone from the highs to the lows. While I enjoyed Dvorak and Tchaikovsky very much I didn't really like Mozart (boring) or the Chicken Dance (cheesy) that much. But still, I played them with my heart and to the best of my ability. I do draw the line in a few places, but they are rare. Again, that's me.

 

I actually like playing different kinds of music. Playing 3 chord blues brings out a very different part of my personality than playing a gentle bossa does, or a swing era ballad, or a hard rock song, or a country tune.

 

But I could be just weird. I like a heck of a lot more things than I dislike.

 

I'm 65 now, and when I started playing music for a living, the bands generally played 6 nights per week. The people who were older kept saying, "The 'big bands' are coming back. But they never did.

 

I'm not going to be the one saying, "The guitar bands with a saxophone are coming back" because it doesn't look like that will happen. Like the big bands, there may always be a niche for a variation of that, but right now, if you listen to pop radio, there are very few guitar songs. Of course you can turn on the Nashville station (I use Nashville because it really isn't Country anymore - but twang and roll).

 

I've been very fortunate to make my living doing music and nothing but music for most of my life. I did have two occasions when I quit music full-time and took day gigs, trying to be a productive member of society - or at least testing those waters - but it didn't work out.

 

I took to MIDI and backing tracks in the 80s. And I use it as a way to perform live in front of an audience, because that is what I really love to do. I get off on the audience getting off on my singing and playing. It's a high for me.

 

Will I take to the next wave?

 

I'm a survivor. When saxophones fell out of favor in the psychedelic era, I learned to play bass and gigged with that. When venues for 5 piece bands started to become few and far between, I went backing tracks.

 

What's next? Karaoke? DJing? I hope not, but if that's what it takes, that's what I'll do. I know a guy on the 'net who DJs and plays his wind synth along with the tracks. I've heard him play jazz and he is quite accomplished. However he likes what he is doing. More power for him.

 

I know another wind synth player on the 'net who is writing a concerto for 2 wind synths and orchestra. Great!

 

I play a wide variety of music, with sax, guitar, flute, wind synth, vocals and tracks in a duo with my wife, making a living playing to the baby-boomer crowd - the people who grew up with live music and not DJs. So far-so good. Who knows what the future holds. The only thing I'm relatively sure of, music will be included in my life.

 

Now if we can only figure out how to get the public off of the couch and band in the bars/clubs where they belong!!!

 

Insights and incites by Notes

[BlueStrat]

 

Two out of three perhaps. Charlie Parker played for himself and other musicians and the general public shunned him. Same for John Coltrane, Joe Pass, Barney Kessell, Jimmy Smith, Michael Brecker, Sun Ra, Ornette Coleman, Charlie Bird, Emily Remler, Herb Ellis, Jim Hall, Stanley Jordan, Joe Lovano, McCoy Tyner, Thelonious Monk, and countless others. The person who plays for himself/herself, other musicians, and the general public are in the vast minority.

 

 

Oh come on. Those are all jazz players, and even the most commercial jazz has always been a niche market and has not had popular appeal. Not the same thing at all. I don't think when Tom Petty or the Avett Brothers or in fact most artists write and perform songs to "give the audience what they want " as their main reason for writing it.

 

but right now, if you listen to pop radio, there are very few guitar songs.

 

 

Sure, but Pop is only one of of about three dozen genres, and if you scroll the genres, almost all of them are guitar driven. Alt rock, metal, neo-folk, alt country, country, Americana, etc etc etc. Maybe you view everything in terms of pop music. I don't, and in fact I despise almost all of it, hence the twain shall never meet.