Perceived value of 4-piece vs. 3-piece

[Consume]

Originally Posted by twostone

Well imagine a 4 piece that has guitar, KB player which also dubbed as rhythm guitar, bassist, and drummer then you lose the KB/rhythm who also shared lead vocal duties. Then continue on as 3 piece after revamping the song list. I've seen this happen to classic rock band after losing their KB/rhythm player.

IMO they just don't sound the same and don't have the impact they once had, it's if they lost half their sound.
I dug them way better as a 4 piece then a 3 piece not that they suck as 3 piece but the KB's really filled up a lot of space and same when the KB player dubbed on rhythm guitar.

One of the local bands that I love has a lead guitarist/KB player and the reason I love them is because of him; very few bands in my area have a keyboard player, and it really does make a major difference in a bands sound if the guy is good.

Some friends and I are putting together a trio. The bass player is also a keyboard player and uses Taurus pedals as well, so this should be interesting.
My first band was a 5 piece, and we lost the rhythm guitarist, and to be honest, I didn't miss him in the mix, the keyboard player just patched one of his synths through an Overdrive and into a Tube amp, and with a Rock Organ sound - we inherited John Lord. LOL (I wish I could find another band member like that. His favorite singer was Ian Gillan, and his favorite Keyboard players were John Lord and Tony Carey & David Stone from Rainbow. He literally sounded like Gillan and Lord had a kid LOL.)

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by SeniorBlues

The question seems to be framed in the context of reformatting a band when you reduce the lineup from three to four, but what if you increase the size from four to five? One hopes that people are listening with the ears, not their eyes, and if the music "works", it shouldn't matter how many are on stage. A singing drummer left a fairly successful quartet to work with me as a duo years ago. We did quite well. I've also played in a fairly low watt eight piece a couple years ago, so it's not about numbers, at least in my experience.

Does the band sound good or not?

I know you'll be shocked to hear this coming from me, but appearance DOES matter and is often reflected in the amount of money a band can charge---even though it isn't always in a direct manner. i.e., it isn't as simple as walking up to a clubowner and saying "we've added a fifth member so we need an extra hundred bucks a night".

But if adding that extra member means the band is better product overall (whether that be because it sounds better or looks better or--hopefully--BOTH) then there's no reason it shouldn't be reflected in the band's overall bottomline--whether that means more money per gig, or more gigs booked.

Sure---especially in this modern age of using tracks---there's no reason a 3-piece can't sound as good as a 5-piece but, all other things being equal, most general audience members are going to percieve the bigger band as better simply because it looks better to them.

I understand how the economic situation has pushed bands to work in smaller and smaller units in order to keep their per-member take as high as possible. But it's my view that this has only contributed to the downward-cycle the live music scene has endured. Many of the old-timers here lament how the gigs and the pay used to be so much better back in the day. And that's true. But has anyone bothered to remember that trios were virtually unheard back then? Nowadays, they seem to be the predominant band size. Not many more people up on stage than what your typical DJ brings to a gig, if you think about it.

Yeah, it's nice to get those comments about "I can't believe how much sound you guys put out!", but those are invariably the exception, not the rule. People DO listen with their eyes whether we, as musicians, like it or not.

Sure, adding a good 2nd keyboard player can probably make a band sound pretty close to as good as would adding a 4-piece horn section. But it won't have the same effect on the audience. Both because of the visual AND the fact that real horns, done well, will always sound better. Translating that to more money for the band? That mostly a matter of marketing.

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by tim_7string

I truly believe there is a bias towards the band with a person that just sings vs. a band made up of musicians.

There is. The question you need to ask is "why does this bias exist?"

It's simple: A band with a front person is better to look at and is more entertaining. Here's another news-flash. There's even a "bias" towards bands with GOOD front persons as opposed to bands with not-so-good ones.

It's not really a "bias" unless you think that the market preferring better bands with better presentations represents a "bias".

Compare it to automobiles on a dealership lot. The flashier cars with more bells and whistles sell for a lot more than the ones without, even though the ones without very often have the same engines and transmissions and run just as well. Sometimes the less-flashy cars even run better. But the selling price of an automobile isn't determined by which one is the most reliable or gets the best gas mileage. Most everyone wants a car that runs well. A base-line reliablity factor is expected whether you're buying a Ford Focus or a Cadillac. But simply because Focus runs just as well isn't going to allow you to put a $30K price tag on the car.

[tim_7string]

Originally Posted by MusicalSchizo

I've often thought it'd be nice to get skinny to give that a shot with my trio - add a bassist to make it four and maybe play a little guitar here and there but mostly just sing and front the band. I'm getting to the age where it's going to be too late to do that very soon.

I think about this kind of thing a lot, then reality sets in. In my area, it's extremely difficult to find the right personalities to be in my band. Three former members viewed the band as little more than a situation where they could make some extra money, but not putting in too much effort. The two that are with me now match up well with me, but it will be quite a challenge to find that fourth guy, in regards to personality.

The added benefit of shedding some poundage is being healthier, so it's kind of a win win. And actually, the reduction/disappearance of the FUPA from losing weight will make my dick look bigger, too, so it's just a win all around.

One step too far?
Brian V.

Haha! Well, every little bit helps in that department, right?

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by MusicalSchizo

And actually, the reduction/disappearance of the FUPA from losing weight will make my dick look bigger, too, so it's just a win all around.

 

Appearances DO matter...

[tim_7string]

Originally Posted by guido61

I know you'll be shocked to hear this coming from me, but appearance DOES matter and is often reflected in the amount of money a band can charge---even though it isn't always in a direct manner. i.e., it isn't as simple as walking up to a clubowner and saying "we've added a fifth member so we need an extra hundred bucks a night".

The band I often refer to knows this well. They have Budweiser True Music banners and posters. They have expensive LED lights ($200 a pop). They have a large light truss. They have HUGE subwoofers. They *used* to have 2x15+horn Peavey PA tops, but now they have upgraded to Yamaha DSR115 powered mains, which has definitely improved their sound. And they use a fog machine every few songs, so the light beams look cool going through them. The guitarists have half stacks and the bassist has a huge bass stack. They play to the crowd and do fun songs and have a fun attitude onstage.

They lost their lead singer a few months back and the drummer is basically in the middle of the stage now, singing most of the songs. It looks a bit odd, but it works, since he was an outspoken cutup onstage when the singer was still in the band. The other members are stepping it up now too, moving around a lot more, wearing masks, doing goofy things, walking into the crowd and dancing on the floor thanks to their wireless units. So far, it seems to be working to keep people interested in the band. Before, they pretty much relied on their frontman to be the show. Now they are all a part of that.

But if adding that extra member means the band is better product overall (whether that be because it sounds better or looks better or--hopefully--BOTH) then there's no reason it shouldn't be reflected in the band's overall bottomline--whether that means more money per gig, or more gigs booked.

Obviously you have discovered this to be true as your money and prestige improved substantially when you added your first female singer and even more so when you added the second. It makes sense.

Sure---especially in this modern age of using tracks---there's no reason a 3-piece can't sound as good as a 5-piece but, all other things being equal, most general audience members are going to percieve the bigger band as better simply because it looks better to them.

Indeed.

I understand how the economic situation has pushed bands to work in smaller and smaller units in order to keep their per-member take as high as possible. But it's my view that this has only contributed to the downward-cycle the live music scene has endured. Many of the old-timers here lament how the gigs and the pay used to be so much better back in the day. And that's true. But has anyone bothered to remember that trios were virtually unheard back then? Nowadays, they seem to be the predominant band size. Not many more people up on stage than what your typical DJ brings to a gig, if you think about it.

Yeah, it's nice to get those comments about "I can't believe how much sound you guys put out!", but those are invariably the exception, not the rule. People DO listen with their eyes whether we, as musicians, like it or not.

I have different goals with my band than some bands do. Some bands view success as being booked every single weekend. Some view success as being able to charge more money every year. Some view success as having bigger crowds every time they play. Some bands are willing to have everyone invest in the equipment equally and reap the benefits of doing so. Some will sacrifice their egos to make the band better (hiring a manager, keeping the vocalist/bass player on bass and hiring a female lead singer to take over instead). Some will relegate their playing to one thing or another (lead guitarist becomes bass player or becomes rhythm guitarist, rhythm guitarist adds keyboards or switches completely to keyboards). Some of these would not apply to our group, while others could work. It depends on the resources available.

Sure, adding a good 2nd keyboard player can probably make a band sound pretty close to as good as would adding a 4-piece horn section. But it won't have the same effect on the audience. Both because of the visual AND the fact that real horns, done well, will always sound better. Translating that to more money for the band? That mostly a matter of marketing.

The guy that manages the music store I work at plays in a larger band with a horn section every New Year's Eve. Because it's expensive to have so many people in the group, he keeps the gigs to very special events only, like NYE and charges accordingly. It's a win-win: they all get paid well and he gets to have fun playing in a bigger band for the night. I may end up doing something similar in the future.

Originally Posted by guido61

There is. The question you need to ask is "why does this bias exist?"

It's simple: A band with a front person is better to look at and is more entertaining. Here's another news-flash. There's even a "bias" towards bands with GOOD front persons as opposed to bands with not-so-good ones.

Yeah, I already know this. It's why most bands that are on record labels are fronted by a singer that just sings and the singer is usually quite attractive. There is a reason CREED was huge (frontman) and Alter Bridge wasn't so huge (singer/guitarist). Metallica is one of those rare exceptions, as was Nirvana, as was Creedence Clearwater Revival. But most bands in history, the most popular and longer-lasting were all fronted by singers that roamed the stage and reacted to the crowd. The Stones. The Who. Led Zep. Sabbath. Aerosmith. Journey. AC/DC. Judas Priest. Shinedown. The list goes on and on.

It's not really a "bias" unless you think that the market preferring better bands with better presentations represents a "bias".

There are *plenty* of bands that don't have frontmen or frontwomen that still have a great presentation. I simply think it's kind of a no-brainer for most clubs to hire a band with a frontperson and automatically think they are 'more professional' than bands led by singers that play guitar or bass (or keys). It's probably why KISS added a whole lot of other stuff to their stage show (makeup, costumes, pyro, breathing fire, spitting blood, big KISS sign in lights, fireworks, etc.). Paul Stanley *does* sometimes just sing, especially on songs like "100,000 years," but obviously he is playing guitar about 90-95% of the time.

Compare it to automobiles on a dealership lot. The flashier cars with more bells and whistles sell for a lot more than the ones without, even though the ones without very often have the same engines and transmissions and run just as well. Sometimes the less-flashy cars even run better. But the selling price of an automobile isn't determined by which one is the most reliable or gets the best gas mileage. Most everyone wants a car that runs well. A base-line reliablity factor is expected whether you're buying a Ford Focus or a Cadillac. But simply because Focus runs just as well isn't going to allow you to put a $30K price tag on the car.

Having just bought a newer car, I would agree to a point. I chose a minivan that has proven to have years of high reliability on the road. It had a lot of the other bells and whistles, but I didn't really care about that stuff. However, they were all inextricably linked to each other, so I took the DVD player, the 6-disc CD changer, the moon roof, etc. But yeah, most people will buy vehicles based on appearance.

Appearance is important. Gene Simmons of KISS says it himself. He knows people aren't coming to concerts to hear his voice because it's so wonderful or watch him play the hell out of his bass guitar. It's all just a component of the greater presentation.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by tim_7string

There are *plenty* of bands that don't have frontmen or frontwomen that still have a great presentation. I simply think it's kind of a no-brainer for most clubs to hire a band with a frontperson and automatically think they are 'more professional' than bands led by singers that play guitar or bass (or keys0

 

It might be they think they are more "professional", but I think it's more simple than that. I think it is simply the fact that a lead singer/front person is simply more entertaining and interesting to look at than a singer behind an instrument. Of course, there are always exceptions we can point to. And I can think of a couple of GREAT instrument-playing/front men. These are almost always guys that have such a defined look and personality/presence that it simply just barrels through regardless. They have that "it" factor. Something I personally wouldn't have even if I was a better singer than they are. OTHO, I've gone out and "fronted" bands on occassional songs in the past, know how to work an audience and am pretty confident that I'd be a decent front person if I needed to do that. But I DON'T have that "it" factor needed to front a band from behind an instrument. So I would venture that the instrument-playing lead singer actually needs to be even MORE dynamic than the non-instrument playing one.

[tlbonehead]

 

Originally Posted by guido61

It might be they think they are more "professional", but I think it's more simple than that. I think it is simply the fact that a lead singer/front person is simply more entertaining and interesting to look at than a singer behind an instrument. Of course, there are always exceptions we can point to. And I can think of a couple of GREAT instrument-playing/front men. These are almost always guys that have such a defined look and personality/presence that it simply just barrels through regardless. They have that "it" factor. Something I personally wouldn't have even if I was a better singer than they are. OTHO, I've gone out and "fronted" bands on occassional songs in the past, know how to work an audience and am pretty confident that I'd be a decent front person if I needed to do that. But I DON'T have that "it" factor needed to front a band from behind an instrument. So I would venture that the instrument-playing lead singer actually needs to be even MORE dynamic than the non-instrument playing one.

 

I wouldn't call it an exception when you can probably name more successful performers or acts that don't have a dedicated singer-only front person than ones who do.

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by SpaceNorman

Personally - I love working with larger groups. While I have heard trios that have impressed me - and fully appreciate the benefits of a trio when it's time to split the take at the end of a typical bar gig - I simply haven't heard a trio that could command my attention for a whole night. Granted trios have impressed me for a song or two - there's just not enough musical variety there to NOT start sounding samey-same after a set or so.

I like the musical variety of a larger band. One of my current projects started out as a 6 piece (bass, drums, guitar, keys, sax and a female vocalist). The project has swelled to 9 pieces - having added a second guitar, a trombone player and a trumpet/flugel horn player. The two guitar thing started when the original guitar player ran into stretch of limited availability as a result illness in the family. We brought in a good friend to cover during that period. Back during that time - we played a gig where both were present. The two guitar players got along so well that night - we've been working that way ever since.

The band's objective is to work the higher dollar private event / wedding / corporate gigs. We recognized that the vast majority of the bands working those types of gigs in our area are all larger formats - and typically include a horn section. So ... with that in mind we're developing a horn section. We've taken a room that we're playing frequently - and have decided we'll play this room with the big group - and view it as an investment in "product development".

Getting used to playing with so many on stage has required that each of us adjust a little bit. The first couple of gigs were a little "cluttered" ... but it has quickly started to come around. With so many voices available to help out on the vocals - and a real horn section - songs that used to be sort meh are quickly turning into events in their own right. With four gigs under our belt with the big band - we're starting to hit our stride in terms of each of us finding our niche in the big group's sound.

It feels like it's starting to pay off (albeit it not monetarily....yet!). We played with the big group last night - and absolutely rocked the place. We've been seeing a steadily increase in crowd size each time we've played there - with last night's crowd being the best yet (the bar added 2nd bartender and two waitri for last night). It was standing room only for much of the night. While we had dancers all night long - what surprised us was the response we got from the non-dancers. It almost had a concert feel with the room bursting into applause and cheering after almost every solo and at the end of every song. While I don't know the local music scene all that well (I live in another town 50+ minutes away) - the drummer (bandleader) does know the scene - and explained that our crowd last night included a number of local musician and agent types. Last night's crowd certainly made us feel like we're turning a few heads and starting to get noticed.

I gotta admit - it felt real good last night!

Glad to hear you're getting some good results with a bigger band. Might just be wishful thinking on my part, but I can envision a near future where bigger bands are preferred because they come across as more "live" and "real". As more and more acts use tracks and have fewer and fewer members as a result and more singers tied to instruments, it makes sense to me that many people will have a harder and harder time telling them apart from DJs. So why NOT just hire a DJ then. A big band with a ton of members on stage looks and feels more "special". (Not that having an 8 or 10 or 12 piece band prevents them from using tracks---many 'big' bands do---but we're talking perception here, not reality in many cases.)

I've often wondered what the cost/benefit of adding a horn section would be. I can't imagine that adding a 4-piece horn section would result in being able to ask for 4-full cuts more in pay, but maybe it would? But such issues are probably why bigger bands get more involved in variable pay-schedules for different members. But I can certainly imagine that bands with horn sections get a lot more money.

And yes--the band membership certainly determines the songlist and the "event" songs. When we added the 2nd female vocalist, former 'meh' songs, or songs we never really considered to be songs that would work that great suddenly are big 'event' pieces for us because of what we can do with them with 2 singers. I can think of all sorts of otherwise 'meh' songs that I'd love to turn into big show pieces if we had a horn section to feature.

Sounds like what you're doing must be a lot of fun. Good luck!

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by tlbonehead

I wouldn't call it an exception when you can probably name more successful performers or acts that don't have a dedicated singer-only front person than ones who do.

I doubt that's true. Especially when you consider all the singer-only acts who are considered "solo artists". Is someone like Aretha Franklin not counted because she didn't front an actual band? Or maybe no one let her in their band because she couldn't play guitar or drums?

Most good non-playing lead singer/front persons are SO much more entertaining and interesting than the playing-instrument variety that they don't NEED to be part of a band to find success. They can do it all on their own. How many guitarists or drummers can do that?

[tlbonehead]

Originally Posted by guido61

I doubt that's true. Especially when you consider all the singer-only acts who are considered "solo artists". Is someone like Aretha Franklin not counted because she didn't front an actual band? Or maybe no one let her in their band because she couldn't play guitar or drums?

Most good non-playing lead singer/front persons are SO much more entertaining and interesting than the playing-instrument variety that they don't NEED to be part of a band to find success. They can do it all on their own. How many guitarists or drummers can do that?

many, IMO.

[tlbonehead]

Originally Posted by guido61

I doubt that's true. Especially when you consider all the singer-only acts who are considered "solo artists". Is someone like Aretha Franklin not counted because she didn't front an actual band? Or maybe no one let her in their band because she couldn't play guitar or drums?

Most good non-playing lead singer/front persons are SO much more entertaining and interesting than the playing-instrument variety that they don't NEED to be part of a band to find success. They can do it all on their own. How many guitarists or drummers can do that?

To you maybe. Certainly not everyone. You think the instrument was a distraction to those who enjoyed SRV, Johnny Winter, BB King, Joni Mitchell, Jewel, Joan Baez, Joan Jett, Sheryl Crow, Liz Phair, Chrissie Hynde, Indigo Girls, Springsteen, Jeff Healey, etc, etc, etc? The poiunt is, for every singer-only you could name, I could name a main performer who actually sings and plays. That hardly makes it an "exception".

[tim_7string]

I agree with the idea that most people think a band with a singer that just sings or solo artist that only sings is more exciting than one that plays an instrument.

I've always preferred bands made up of musicians that sing. I just find them far more interesting. But then, I'm not most people.

My favorite bands of all time are The Beatles, KISS, The Cars, Devo, Metallica, Nirvana, A Flock Of Seagulls, Rush, Guns N' Roses, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, The Who, and Foo Fighters. Most of those bands are fronted by a guitarist that sings, a bassist that sings or sometimes both. Some even do triple-duty on keyboards (AFOS, Rush, Devo).

When I was younger, I also associated bands with singing musicians as more alternative and daring (i.e. cooler), while bands with frontmen were more mainstream. I never wanted to be in a mainstream band, so my decisions regarding my band are going to be different than someone who would want to have a mainstream group. Of course I could add a fantastic lead singer, an incredible lead guitarist and put myself on rhythm guitar/keyboards/harmony vocals, IF I wanted to. But I *don't* want to. I'm having way too much fun with me up front singing and playing guitar and seeing how far I can take my band with me in that spot. Surprisingly, the response has been pretty positive and we are becoming pretty successful. That's far more rewarding to me than putting some ringers in would be. YMMV.

[TIMKEYS]

Originally Posted by guido61

Glad to hear you're getting some good results with a bigger band. Might just be wishful thinking on my part, but I can envision a near future where bigger bands are preferred because they come across as more "live" and "real". As more and more acts use tracks and have fewer and fewer members as a result and more singers tied to instruments, it makes sense to me that many people will have a harder and harder time telling them apart from DJs. So why NOT just hire a DJ then. A big band with a ton of members on stage looks and feels more "special". (Not that having an 8 or 10 or 12 piece band prevents them from using tracks---many 'big' bands do---but we're talking perception here, not reality in many cases.)

I've often wondered what the cost/benefit of adding a horn section would be. I can't imagine that adding a 4-piece horn section would result in being able to ask for 4-full cuts more in pay, but maybe it would? But such issues are probably why bigger bands get more involved in variable pay-schedules for different members. But I can certainly imagine that bands with horn sections get a lot more money.

And yes--the band membership certainly determines the songlist and the "event" songs. When we added the 2nd female vocalist, former 'meh' songs, or songs we never really considered to be songs that would work that great suddenly are big 'event' pieces for us because of what we can do with them with 2 singers. I can think of all sorts of otherwise 'meh' songs that I'd love to turn into big show pieces if we had a horn section to feature.

Sounds like what you're doing must be a lot of fun. Good luck!

I dont think you would get much milage out of a horn section. First off you run with two females up front. the majority of great horn band stuff was male singer dominated. I had a 7 piece with 2 horn players band back in the day with a stand alone male singer. It worked for that band. You guys are also at the top pay for the kind of gigs you do so I dont see it working unless you revamped the band.

[El-Lardo]

I play in a 6 piece and a 3 piece. It's easier playing in the 6 piece and sometimes more artistically satisfying. Most gigs I make at least a bill when playing with the 3 piece...that is rare with the 6 piece...more often it's between 50 and 80 bucks.

The 3 piece has a reputation for sounding like more people playing...no passangers on that bus. Everyone sings and we can all trade off on harmonies. Everyone books and everyone has a smartphone so we can say ye or ne to a gig really quick.

I love playing in that 6 piece...there are 4 soloists and two really good singers...

The 3 piece makes me heaps more money...and it's fun too.

My day job...which has nothing to do with music...makes much more money than the total of both bands. In my county, I don't think there is a single full time musician that makes substinence wages just playing gigs. All of them
either teach, have an understanding wife/husband or inherited a house from their folks.

Some of the local yokels tour with national acts...those guys can make a living...but they're not rich.

[El-Lardo]

I play in a 6 piece and a 3 piece. It's easier playing in the 6 piece and sometimes more artistically satisfying. Most gigs I make at least a bill when playing with the 3 piece...that is rare with the 6 piece...more often it's between 50 and 80 bucks.

The 3 piece has a reputation for sounding like more people playing...no passangers on that bus. Everyone sings and we can all trade off on harmonies. Everyone books and everyone has a smartphone so we can say ye or ne to a gig really quick.

I love playing in that 6 piece...there are 4 soloists and two really good singers...

The 3 piece makes me heaps more money...and it's fun too.

My day job...which has nothing to do with music...makes heaps more money. In my county, I don't think there is a single musician that makes substinence wages.
Unless they tour with national level acts, which some do.

[wheresgrant3]

Originally Posted by guido61

I know you'll be shocked to hear this coming from me, but appearance DOES matter and is often reflected in the amount of money a band can charge---even though it isn't always in a direct manner. i.e., it isn't as simple as walking up to a clubowner and saying "we've added a fifth member so we need an extra hundred bucks a night".

But if adding that extra member means the band is better product overall (whether that be because it sounds better or looks better or--hopefully--BOTH) then there's no reason it shouldn't be reflected in the band's overall bottomline--whether that means more money per gig, or more gigs booked.

Sure---especially in this modern age of using tracks---there's no reason a 3-piece can't sound as good as a 5-piece but, all other things being equal, most general audience members are going to percieve the bigger band as better simply because it looks better to them.

I understand how the economic situation has pushed bands to work in smaller and smaller units in order to keep their per-member take as high as possible. But it's my view that this has only contributed to the downward-cycle the live music scene has endured. Many of the old-timers here lament how the gigs and the pay used to be so much better back in the day. And that's true. But has anyone bothered to remember that trios were virtually unheard back then? Nowadays, they seem to be the predominant band size. Not many more people up on stage than what your typical DJ brings to a gig, if you think about it.

Yeah, it's nice to get those comments about "I can't believe how much sound you guys put out!", but those are invariably the exception, not the rule. People DO listen with their eyes whether we, as musicians, like it or not.

Sure, adding a good 2nd keyboard player can probably make a band sound pretty close to as good as would adding a 4-piece horn section. But it won't have the same effect on the audience. Both because of the visual AND the fact that real horns, done well, will always sound better. Translating that to more money for the band? That mostly a matter of marketing.

I pretty much agree... to the extent it depends on who and where you are marketing to. I've always been a believer in 'strength' in numbers. Bigger and better. The more personalities on stage doing something, playing music, connecting with the audience the more likely the audience will stay to experience a good band. I wouldn't say it's a formula that works for everyone, however it's worked for us for years. We have 6 members on stage and 8 running the show. When we show up to a club it's like a small army. That's 8 guys for the audience to watch putting on the show... and 8 guys for the audience to connect with in between sets. The fact we are doing this AND not relying on backing tracks for primary instrumentation keeps the audience engaged the entire night.

How does this translate to 'pay'. The fact is we earn 2x-4x's the going rate for local bands. We've earned that based on draw, building a rep etc... but the size of the band and committment to producing a 'good product' is what's maintianed us at the ceiling of pay for many years now. There are several bands in my area that draw well and cover the same material, however they are still earning 1/2 of what we earn and they've been in business longer. In terms of local pay we are the 'exception'. Does the size of our band determine that... no. Does the size of our band contribute to the perception that we deliver a bigger and better show? Most definitely. Even in the age of a 3 and 4 piece bands using backing tracks we are still out drawing popular bands even in destination venues. A fact I hear all of the time is that people refer to us as a 'band'. It's funny as more of these 3 and 4 piece acts have begun using backing tracks I hear people refer to them less and less as a band. I'll hear them refer to their singer or front person only. Kelly from XXXX, Jack from XXXX is great. When clubowners talk about us it's usually about us as a cohesive unit. 'Nuts is a great band... etc.'.

Are we the best sounding band in the area... not by a long shot. Are we perceived as one of the best 'bands' in the area? Most definitely. There's a difference. We use that difference to our advantage. I'm not say a big band is the way to go... there can only be 1-2 exceptions per market and then there are alot of 'rules'. But I will say that a larger band is much easier to market than a smaller band. And as Guido said... people listen with their eyes as well as their ears.

[wades_keys]

My band is going for four piece money as a three piece. I'll let y'all know how it goes but my/our plan is to create a 4th member by having me play keys/bass on several tunes, as well as using non-quantized, Non-midi audio back tracks which were also played and recorded live by me.

Might work: might not but again: these ain't no canned, sampled, quantized cheese-ass backtracks like 99% of bands wind up going with.

Oh yeah: the keyboard will be highly visible on stage. No hidden cd player or "wheres the rest of the band" vibe. And tracks are all minimally layered to preserve credibility.

I created our first track this Tuesday, for "Knock on Wood" and well be rehearsing that tonight.

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by wades_keys

My band is going for four piece money as a three piece. I'll let y'all know how it goes but my/our plan is to create a 4th member by having me play keys/bass on several tunes, as well as using non-quantized, Non-midi audio back tracks which were also played and recorded live by me.

Might work: might not but again: these ain't no canned, sampled, quantized cheese-ass backtracks like 99% of bands wind up going with.

Oh yeah: the keyboard will be highly visible on stage. No hidden cd player or "wheres the rest of the band" vibe. And tracks are all minimally layered to preserve credibility.

I created our first track this Tuesday, for "Knock on Wood" and well be rehearsing that tonight.

I understand where you're trying to go with that, and I think the idea that if you're going to be a three piece that you should still try to sound as "big" as possible is the correct way to go. But it's not the same things as adding a 4th member. Will the band be good enough to get 4-piece money as a 3-piece? Hopefully. No reason why that can't happen. But again, it isn't really the same thing as what we're talking about here, which is the percieved and/or real value of having more members on stage.

Your 3-piece may end up sounding big and full, but nobody is going to confuse it with being a 4-piece or a 5-piece or more simply based on the way the group sounds. If that were the case, every duo running tracks could get 6-piece money as long as the tracks were good enough. You'll still be perceived as a 3-piece and be forced to market it as such.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by wheresgrant3

The more personalities on stage doing something, playing music, connecting with the audience the more likely the audience will stay to experience a good band.

 

I think this is just simple Retail 101. If you're trying to keep people's attention for an extended period of time, a 3 piece only has so many weapons in their arsenal. A bigger band simply gives people more things to look at, listen to, and stay engaged with over the course of an entire evening. If you're a cover band playing 3 or 4 sets, this becomes pretty essential at some point.

[tlbonehead]

fortuately around here they pay you by what you can do onstage as opposed to a head count. I can only recall one club that made any noise about it and she was in and out of business within about a year.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by tlbonehead

fortuately around here they pay you by what you can do onstage as opposed to a head count.

 

That's pretty much the case everywhere. The point is that it is easier to do "more" onstage with more members.

[tlbonehead]

 

Originally Posted by guido61

That's pretty much the case everywhere. The point is that it is easier to do "more" onstage with more members.

 

that would be your point of view I guess.

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by tlbonehead

that would be your point of view I guess.

No, it's simple logic. It's almost ALWAYS easier to complete a particular task with more people. MORE people can do MORE. Obviously. I've seen far more boring 3 pieces than I have boring 8 pieces. They simply can be more musically diverse, complex and entertaining. Both musically and visually. Really, that should go without saying.

Does that mean that some big bands don't suck and some 3 pieces aren't supremely awesome? Of course not. But all other things being equal, a larger band has a far, far greater shot at being more exciting, entertaining and interesting.

[tlbonehead]

Originally Posted by guido61

No, it's simple logic. It's almost ALWAYS easier to complete a particular task with more people. MORE people can do MORE. Obviously. I've seen far more boring 3 pieces than I have boring 8 pieces. They simply can be more musically diverse, complex and entertaining. Both musically and visually. Really, that should go without saying.

Does that mean that some big bands don't suck and some 3 pieces aren't supremely awesome? Of course not. But all other things being equal, a larger band has a far, far greater shot at being more exciting, entertaining and interesting.

in your opinion, once again.