Perceived value of 4-piece vs. 3-piece

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by tlbonehead

in your opinion, once again.

 

Seriously? As a musician you can't imagine how much more you could do on stage with a bigger band? How much better the presentation could be with more vocalists? Or a horn section? Or a keyboard player or two? You don't understand the musical possibilities that open up once more members are added to the band? Thinking such is just "opinion"??? Really???

Heck, we should just all be solo acts then I guess. Why are you bothering with a trio? Less is more, right?

[tlbonehead]

 

Originally Posted by guido61

Seriously? As a musician you can't imagine how much more you could do on stage with a bigger band? How much better the presentation could be with more vocalists? Or a horn section? Or a keyboard player or two? You don't understand the musical possibilities that open up once more members are added to the band? Thinking such is just "opinion"??? Really???

Heck, we should just all be solo acts then I guess. Why are you bothering with a trio? Less is more, right?

 

I do solo shows as well. (my photo is from a recent solo show at a local historic theatre) In the band bass player plays keys on some songs. Myself and drummer both blow harp occasionally. We all sing lead and harmonies. Also do a few acoustic songs per night, as well as me using hybrids to switch between acoustic and electric sounds, or both. We have a couple songs in our lists that the bass player plays mandolin on as well. I also play a song or two on resonator most nights. Depends on the type/style of band. It just isn't something you can make a certain blanket statement about.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by tlbonehead

I do solo shows as well. (my photo is from a recent solo show at a local historic theatre) In the band bass player plays keys on some songs. Myself and drummer both blow harp occasionally. We all sing lead and harmonies. Depends on the type/style of band. It just isn't something you can make a certain blanket statement about.

 

Actually, there ARE certain blanket statements you can make. Why do you sometimes do a solo act and sometimes a 3 piece? Because the 3 piece opens up more and bigger musical opportunties, correct? You can simply do MORE with a 3 piece than you can as a solo act and the audience responds accordingly. Which is why the act gets paid more.

If those blanket statements aren't nearly universally true, then why would you bother being a 3 piece? If you could get paid the same as a solo act as the whole band gets, and if the musical possibilities were just as various, then why would you ever find the need to play in a band?

[tlbonehead]

 

Originally Posted by guido61

Actually, there ARE certain blanket statements you can make. Why do you sometimes do a solo act and sometimes a 3 piece? Because the 3 piece opens up more and bigger musical opportunties, correct? You can simply do MORE with a 3 piece than you can as a solo act and the audience responds accordingly. Which is why the act gets paid more.

If those blanket statements aren't nearly universally true, then why would you bother being a 3 piece? If you could get paid the same as a solo act as the whole band gets, and if the musical possibilities were just as various, then why would you ever find the need to play in a band?

 

I make more money personally in the band than the solo gigs, which are usually $150-175. I like them both for obvious reasons. Some songs just work a lot better as solo pieces and some work better in the trio. Plus it is easier to add new material in the solo end, obviously. Also easier to throw the originals out there doing solo. I only have to write them (and remember them) and not teach them to the others. I really like the freedom of being able to do both.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by tlbonehead

I make more money personally in the band than the solo gigs, which are usually $150-175.

 

And if we compare that to your earlier statement about what you get paid is based on what you put on stage rather than head count, then it follows that your trio must be capable of putting more onstage than your solo act is if it gets paid more than three times as much, right?

Similarly, I make more money personally in my band as six-piece than I did when we were a five-piece. Why? Because having more members gives us more ability to be a better, more versatile and subsequently more valuable band.

 

Plus it is easier to add new material in the solo end, obviously. Also easier to throw the originals out there doing solo. I only have to write them (and remember them) and not teach them to the others. I really like the freedom of being able to do both.

 

That's all well and good I suppose, but the topic of the thread is the PERCEIVED VALUE of larger bands, not about what degree of personal enjoyment one might get from playing in different acts of different sizes.

[tlbonehead]

 

Originally Posted by guido61

And if we compare that to your earlier statement about what you get paid is based on what you put on stage rather than head count, then it follows that your trio must be capable of putting more onstage than your solo act is if it gets paid more than three times as much, right?

Similarly, I make more money personally in my band as six-piece than I did when we were a five-piece. Why? Because having more members gives us more ability to be a better, more versatile and subsequently more valuable band.

That's all well and good I suppose, but the topic of the thread is the PERCEIVED VALUE of larger bands, not about what degree of personal enjoyment one might get from playing in different acts of different sizes.

 

Well, my trio makes more than my previous 4 piece band did. But big deal. And you opened the door to "personal enjoyment" by asking why I would bother doing a full band instead of just doing all solo shows. None of this really makes much sense. Are Neil Young, Elton John, Joe Bonamassa, etc "wasting" their band by having them just sitting around while they do solo numbers during their shows?

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by tlbonehead

Well, my trio makes more than my previous 4 piece band did.

 

And who's fault was that? If you can't get at LEAST as valuable a band out of a 4 piece than a 3 piece, then you must have had some serious personnel or musicanship issues I would think.

 

None of this really makes much sense. Are Neil Young, Elton John, Joe Bonamassa, etc "wasting" their band by having them just sitting around while they do solo numbers during their shows?

 

Huh? Well THAT comment certainly made no sense. Who has ever said there's no value to doing solo numbers during a show? Or that bands are "wasted" during such numbers? That's just silly.

But, to get it back to the OP and make as simple as possible--is there a PERCEIVED VALUE to bigger bands? Obviously. You put a 8 piece band up on one stage and and 3 piece band up on another and 99 people out of 100 will assume the 8 piece is going to be 'better' before they even play a note. That's just how the human brain is wired.

Beyond that, is there a REAL VALUE to bigger bands? There certainly can be and should be. Give me more musicians to work with and I'll come up with more interesting arragements, more versatile song choices, more dynamic stage performances. And are there people willing to pay for that? Yes, there are. If you personally don't want to do that or your personal taste is that smaller bands are better, that's fine. That isn't reflective of the broader marketplace however.

[tlbonehead]

 

Originally Posted by guido61

And who's fault was that? If you can't get at LEAST as valuable a band out of a 4 piece than a 3 piece, then you must have had some serious personnel or musicanship issues I would think.

Huh? Well THAT comment certainly made no sense. Who has ever said there's no value to doing solo numbers during a show? Or that bands are "wasted" during such numbers? That's just silly.

But, to get it back to the OP and make as simple as possible--is there a PERCEIVED VALUE to bigger bands? Obviously. You put a 8 piece band up on one stage and and 3 piece band up on another and 99 people out of 100 will assume the 8 piece is going to be 'better' before they even play a note. That's just how the human brain is wired.

Beyond that, is there a REAL VALUE to bigger bands? There certainly can be and should be. Give me more musicians to work with and I'll come up with more interesting arragements, more versatile song choices, more dynamic stage performances. And are there people willing to pay for that? Yes, there are. If you personally don't want to do that or your personal taste is that smaller bands are better, that's fine. That isn't reflective of the broader marketplace however.

 

mainly it is different than your beliefs, which is what you always take issue with, of course.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by tlbonehead

mainly it is different than your beliefs, which is what you always take issue with, of course.

 

You're arguing with yourself. You just got done telling me that your trio makes more than 3 times as much as your solo act, after telling me that bands in your area get paid for what they put on stage rather than head count but you can't extrapolate that into understanding that it must be because your band puts a more than three-times-as-much better product onstage? Even though that's your own statement? That's not MY beliefs, that's YOURS!

Personally, I think you spend a lot of time here trying to validate your own position. Maybe you're trying to convince yourself? I dunno. I'm not a psychologist. You play in a trio so you're gonna argue that trios are the {censored}. Fine, I get that. You can do as much with your trio musically and theatrically as much bigger bands can do and therefore you get paid the same? Cool. Good for you. This discussion has gone beyond silly. I'm out.

[tlbonehead]

 

Originally Posted by guido61

You're arguing with yourself. You just got done telling me that your trio makes more than 3 times as much as your solo act, after telling me that bands in your area get paid for what they put on stage rather than head count but you can't extrapolate that into understanding that it must be because your band puts a more than three-times-as-much better product onstage? Even though that's your own statement? That's not MY beliefs, that's YOURS!

Personally, I think you spend a lot of time here trying to validate your own position. Maybe you're trying to convince yourself? I dunno. I'm not a psychologist. You play in a trio so you're gonna argue that trios are the {censored}. Fine, I get that. You can do as much with your trio musically and theatrically as much bigger bands can do and therefore you get paid the same? Cool. Good for you. This discussion has gone beyond silly. I'm out.

 

that's just silly. A solo act is not a band. I assume if you were a promoter you would pay more for Skynyrd than for ZZ Top, probably 50% more? Good luck.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by tlbonehead

that's just silly. A solo act is not a band. I assume if you were a promoter you would pay more for Skynyrd than for ZZ Top, probably 50% more? Good luck.

 

We're not talking about hiring bands with tons of hits and proven track records here. Get real. We're talking first about PERCEIVED VALUE---presumably of mostly unknown quantities, hence the use of the word "perceived"---and then further about whether that can translate into a real value.

I know...you're probably on the verge of writing a post right now telling me about all the musically-aware people you know in your area who PREFER trios to larger bands and who will generally perceive smaller bands to be better, but I can pretty much say with certainty that's not the case for most people. Most people SEE bigger and think better. Whether it's bands or burgers or boobies.

Beyond that, there's the REAL value. Seriously? You don't ever think about all the ways your band might be musically better if you had a keyboard player? Or a horn section? Or more vocalists? Yeah, I get you might not want to bother to do that because of having to deal with personalities and logistics and whatever, but seriously, you can't just understand how that immediately opens up more musical possibilites? And you don't think you could relate those possiblities to an audience? Sure, there's always room for intimate moments during a show or the "One Man And His Piano" tours that are very cool, but why do you think Elton John likes to play with a symphony orchestra sometimes? Or Prince tours with such a big band so often? The reason those "intimate moments" work so well is because there is a full band playing for the rest of the night in order to make those moments extra special. Again, it's just opens up more musical possiblities.

I'm astounded, really, that you're debating me on this and I'm sorry you feel the need to be so adamant about the idea. Really, it's not a slam on your trio or your decision to be in a trio as opposed to a bigger band. I'm sure you have many reasons for doing so that are very valid. But honestly I have to say that if you don't think you could make your band musically better and more interesting by expanding to 4 or 5 or more people, and couldn't make more money by doing so, then I don't think you're really thinking that hard about it. Or are just making excuses to yourself.

[tim_7string]

In conclusion, I think most of us agree that there is definitely a stigma against a three-piece band as opposed to a four-piece group (or more), even if the band is technically a three-piece with a singer/frontman. It's pretty obvious when someone says things like "I had no idea it was a three-piece!" That implies that a three-piece, by its very nature, sucks and is inferior to a four-piece band. It's a real prejudice and I enjoy surprising people with my little trio. I get to have my cake (band makes a lot more money now) and eat it too (compliments 'despite' being 'only' a trio).

I have plans in the future to have a larger version of the band that would include keyboards and more harmony/lead vocals, but it would only be for special events. I'm going to keep the 'bar band' version of the group a trio in the foreseeable future. As much fun as I have with this group, it would be nice to actually hear the keyboard parts for songs by The Cars being played with us, as well as thick harmony vocals on those and other songs.

[SpaceNorman]

 

Originally Posted by tim_7string

In conclusion, I think most of us agree that there is definitely a stigma against a three-piece band as opposed to a four-piece group (or more), even if the band is technically a three-piece with a singer/frontman...

 

I certainly don't view it as a stigma. I'd view it more like the differences between Chevy Cruze and a Cadillac XTS. They're both fine vehicles ... capable of getting you from point A to point B. However, you can't say that the Cruze is a head to head competitor with the Cadillac XTS based solely on a comparison of their features. The only way the two can compete with one another is when you throw cost and what value each prospective customer places on the feature set that the Cadillac offers. It's not that there's a stigma attached to owning a Chevy Cruze - it's simply that customers who are in the market for a luxury car (and are willing to pay for it!) aren't going to be buying a Cruze when vehicles that are loaded with features like the Cadillac are available.

A trio that insists that they can compete on even footing with a much larger group simply isn't acknowledging their limits - just like a car salesman who tries to insist that a Chevy Cruze can compete head to head with a Cadillac in terms of features and performance.

[wades_keys]

 

Originally Posted by SpaceNorman

I certainly don't view it as a stigma. I'd view it more like the differences between Chevy Cruze and a Cadillac XTS. They're both fine vehicles ... capable of getting you from point A to point B. However, you can't say that the Cruze is a head to head competitor with the Cadillac XTS based solely on a comparison of their features. The only way the two can compete with one another is when you throw cost and what value each prospective customer places on the feature set that the Cadillac offers. It's not that there's a stigma attached to owning a Chevy Cruze - it's simply that customers who are in the market for a luxury car (and are willing to pay for it!) aren't going to be buying a Cruze when vehicles that are loaded with features like the Cadillac are available.

A trio that insists that they can compete on even footing with a much larger group simply isn't acknowledging their limits - just like a car salesman who tries to insist that a Chevy Cruze can compete head to head with a Cadillac in terms of features and performance.

 

This, with the caveat that trios shouldn't try to compete with bigger bands. Bump up the groove and dial in the bass. Maybe then you're trio will be more limber, sound more clean in the mix and ultimately stand on its own. But let me tell ya from experience all flaws are in display and the bass and drums had better be driving the bus or it's going to be pretty thin and weak.

[tim_7string]

 

Originally Posted by SpaceNorman

I certainly don't view it as a stigma. I'd view it more like the differences between Chevy Cruze and a Cadillac XTS. They're both fine vehicles ... capable of getting you from point A to point B. However, you can't say that the Cruze is a head to head competitor with the Cadillac XTS based solely on a comparison of their features. The only way the two can compete with one another is when you throw cost and what value each prospective customer places on the feature set that the Cadillac offers. It's not that there's a stigma attached to owning a Chevy Cruze - it's simply that customers who are in the market for a luxury car (and are willing to pay for it!) aren't going to be buying a Cruze when vehicles that are loaded with features like the Cadillac are available.

A trio that insists that they can compete on even footing with a much larger group simply isn't acknowledging their limits - just like a car salesman who tries to insist that a Chevy Cruze can compete head to head with a Cadillac in terms of features and performance.

 

Good simile. The way I see it, the bars in town will pay you a certain amount, and you take it or leave it based on that. Some bands that have a lot of equipment, a name built up for years and have quality musicianship can command higher prices at some of them but the bars that won't budge on price, well, those bands simply don't play those places.

I guess in our case, we are in the wrong market, to a point. If we had one or two more people (including a soundman), bigger production, that perceived value goes up. We are basically an economical band for economical times, maximizing the meager amount we get paid. I don't compare us to local bands like Identity 5 because they play in a whole different market and have much larger production. They also get paid about twice what most bands get paid.

What I do compare us to are the other bands that play the same places we play on a regular basis. Based on the "had no idea" comments, I am guessing we are doing pretty well with our Chevy Cruze.

[tim_7string]

 

Originally Posted by wades_keys

This, with the caveat that trios shouldn't try to compete with bigger bands. Bump up the groove and dial in the bass. Maybe then you're trio will be more limber, sound more clean in the mix and ultimately stand on its own. But let me tell ya from experience all flaws are in display and the bass and drums had better be driving the bus or it's going to be pretty thin and weak.

 

Already there. The bass is *very* prominent in our band. We have a fat, clean, precise sound due to the musicianship as well as months of experience playing together. I would say we are on par with some bands, better than some and not quite as good (or have as much to offer) as a few bands. I would consider us above average but certainly not at the top. Pretty good for *just* a trio.

[jeff42]

we are doing pretty well... for a trio Seriously, bar owners are happy, our price is being inched up, our crowds are decent and our schedule is as full ad we want right now with 14 gigs between now and 2013.

[SeniorBlues]

It isn't the number of people on stage that is the issue so much as it is the guitar,bass,drums chairs which many club owners think will all sound essentially the same. How about sax,keys/bass,drums?

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by SeniorBlues

It isn't the number of people on stage that is the issue so much as it is the guitar,bass,drums chairs which many club owners think will all sound essentially the same. How about sax,keys/bass,drums?

 

Good point. There are only so many ways one can distinguish their guitar/bass/drums trio from the one who played the place last week and the one coming next week. Especially if the genre of music being played is the same/similar.

[tim_7string]

 

Originally Posted by SeniorBlues

It isn't the number of people on stage that is the issue so much as it is the guitar,bass,drums chairs which many club owners think will all sound essentially the same. How about sax,keys/bass,drums?

 

Yep, that is definitely another factor to the stigma of the trio: too many bands that coast or that don't go out of their comfort zone. I don't play like a typical guitarist. It's more orchestral (as my cousin puts it), leaving room for dynamics with fills, silence for a measure or two, slow bends with delays, intense riffing contrasted with delicate passages.

I did consider doing the keys/bass thing while singing lead and finding a guitarist/vocalist before starting this band, but I figured it would be too much work for me. It's hard enough at times playing rhythm, lead and singing, all at once. I sometimes wish my cousin could switch on keys/keys bass instead of just bass guitar, but it's not going to happen. I know it would expand our sound. The only other options are to use backing tracks or add a fourth musician.

[wades_keys]

Being in a trio I think forces every member to listen and react more so than other formats. As far as other bands and how we "stack up": I don't give that much thought. I just make sure I'm doing what I can to move the ball forward and using a critical ear first on my playing, tone, presence and mix and then with the whole ensemble.