Gorillas in a cage-playing for the 1%

[toddkuen]

... My approach to music is as a creative outlet. The structure is covers, the contents within are passion and creativity. It seems like a lot of bands don't really approach the music that way, they just play what they've always played. When it gets exciting is when they take chances with it, even if they are 'just' covers.

 

 

Me too. I love to mess with arrangements on covers.

 

I think a lot of people's interests (including musicians) gets ossified with age. I grew up with X and now that's it. My wife grew up with Hank Williams, Horton, etc. and while she will listen to some new stuff she isn't happy without Hank and friends.

 

I think this is the genesis (no pun intended) of "tribute bands."

 

To me recorded music gets old after a while - boring. So I always listen to new stuff. Creatively playing stuff on the other hand never gets old because there's always something to mess with.

[tim_7string]

True Tim, Everyone has their own line in the sand. I was playing with a band that was opening for huge acts like Linda Ronstat, Santana, etc. and then I started doing solo gigs playing flamenco guitar. The band got maybe 50-100 a man per gig and the solo gigs payed an average of 500.00 I took a solo gig only to find out the band got a festival gig the same day. I was earning a decent living at my day gig, but the 1-2k a month I was getting for playing made a huge difference as to what I could provide for the wife and kids. I caught a lot of flack for doing the solo gig, and it was a step towards making the money a real part of gigging. I'd always done paying gigs, but the money was always just enough to cover expenses of the gig itself-by the time you factored in the gear, the gas, the time, I wasn't really making any money. But at 500. a gig, I was making money. And i was playing music I loved. The fact that I was playing society gigs, corporates, and weddings did not tip the balance towards the band. I like the music I was playing more than the band's music. They were doing cooler gigs, but i was playing better music. That was the deciding factor. The money was gravy. Once I realized I could earn that kind of money playing, it seemed like that would be the weay to go. I put together a trio, and after several years working our way up, we found the band doing the same sort of gigs for the same kind of money erp man. I completely understand why a guy would not want to do this kind of work. But I'm 54 years old, and I spent many years playing clubs for gas and gear money. So what's my line in the sand? Playing music I don't like. Paying to play. Playing for nothing. Playing with weak musicians. Hauling tons of gear. Being expected to bring a crowd to a gig. Getting home at 3am. Doing promotion. And a whole lot more. The list gets longer the older I get. Did I get pushed out of shape by the treatment we got at the gig in the OP? No, go back and read it. We were amused if anything. That crap happens in one form or another on many corporate gigs. You just keep playing and keep smiling. As I recall, there's all kinds of BS playing clubs too. Creepy managers, drunks, etc. Main difference to me is the $.

 

This is a great post, MartinC.

 

Yeah, if you are making 5-10x what you could make in a band, why not? And it's not like you are playing crap you can't stand. I understand someone like guido saying things like a real professional musician can play any music, any time, for any money. Yeah, but I've found that bands on their first few albums almost ALWAYS sound better than a solo artist with some backup guys. The backup guys are the professionals, but they are just playing and creating parts for money. It's a JOB. It's the same as doing bumpers or radio commercials to them, so their vibe is minimal. The band is doing it because they LOVE what they are doing and you can hear that on the recordings. I have always believed that and always will. So, you get to have your cake and eat it too by playing music you love AND getting paid very well to perform it. Fantastic!

 

I've done different gigs over the years and what I found is that I'm most comfortable playing rock music, being the bandleader, doing more than just play guitar by singing lead simultaneously and having the right people in the group that support and encourage what I do, rather than people that put in the minimum effort or worse, try to destroy it. When it's all coming together like this, like it is right now, it's great. I'm hoping it will continue.

 

So, what falls by the wayside? Some of those other lines in the sand: lots of travel (my wife has medical problems, so I need to be around her), playing with different musicians all the time, lots of money in turn for playing songs I can't stand to play, having every single weekend and/or night booked up with gigs, things like that. They are different for everyone.

 

Like you, I'd rather play less gigs for more money. I've been in bands that beat their chest and say "look how many gigs we did over the past several months." Yeah, but how much did you make per night? I'm making almost double or even triple what those bands made AND I get to have time to spend with friends and family. It's working out very well for me at the moment.

 

So, don't think that I was attacking you as some sort of sell-out. Not at all. I wouldn't like to be treated like some slave with someone acting like "I *OWN* you" kind of crap and whether or not that is actually happening, I might interpret it as such. But if I loved the music enough (and the money), I might put up with it for a few hours like you do. I definitely wouldn't if I had to play country all night long *and* be treated as a gorilla in a cage. It would just be a bad experience all around for me then.

[toddkuen]

Well, THAT'S an odd mis-perception of what I've been talking about. What does talking about one feeling superior doing what they do vs. what somebody else does have to do with creativity? I don't get the connection. Guthrie or Dylan or whoever were incapable of writing and performing his own music without having to express his disdain for guys who played in Broadway shows to do so? I seriously doubt that would be the case.

 

 

The inertia of a big, stone wheel always tries to roll over everything else. So a big block of "superior minded" people liking one thing can squash out/make it harder for creative folks interested in something else.

 

Kind of like a lot of folks here interested in "music as a business" versus "muso's."

[Vito Corleone]

Kind of like a lot of folks here interested in "music as a business" versus "muso's."

 

 

Each has to be judged on its own merits. A music-as-a-business operation would be judged as successful based primarily on how well it does as a business, I would think. A "muso" operation would have other criteria.

 

My only gripe ever with the "muso" types are those who put down the music-as-a-business types because they feel it isn't successful on criteria the model never attempts to be. (Or to at least emphasizes as a priority.)

 

I respect the hell of out someone like Madonna for what she's accomplished in the music business. Seems to me she's accomplished virtually every goal she's set out to do. To criticize her because she's never written a symphony would be kinda dumb.

 

Similarly, it would be wrong for me to criticize someone who obviously puts playing what they like to play over how much money they can make with it because they don't make much money with it. I don't think I've ever done that, but if I have feel free to point it out and I'll extend a retraction and an apology.

 

My only *head scratch* with those types is when they talk about how for them it isn't about the money, and then bitch because some club owner just fired them or reduced their pay or they can't find gigs. So yeah, I've probably made comments in those situtations that are somewhat critical.

[Lee Knight]

My only gripe ever with the "muso" types are those who put down the music-as-a-business types because they feel it isn't successful on criteria the model never attempts to be.

 

 

My only gripe with cover bands types are those that seem surprised they are not respected on artistic merits.

 

The following is not a criticism of cover bands. By and large, cover bands tend not to be interpreters. They tend to emulate. This is based on what I've heard in the performances and what I hear here from a lot of the players here on this board. A large percentage of players claim they go for the "note for note" approach. There is certainly nothing wrong with that and makes sense if you're looking to optimize your return on investment. The investment includes rehearsal time. It has been stated several times in this forum by some, that interpreting or creating new and fresh arrangements is too time intensive.

 

So now we have a conscious move from artistic expression and toward providing a service. Once again, nothing wrong with that. That is a choice, and one I've made at various times. Now David, I can't help but hear some frustration from you in your quote below. I truly understand it and empathize. Really...

 

 

...when did it start becoming acceptible for other musicians to do so? When did this attitude of "I only do what I want they way I want to do it, and I'd never sacrifice my art for MONEY, and those that do are somehow beneath me and if you're not doing it for the art, then you aren't doing anything worthwhile" become prevelant in the industry? Fine--play music for whatever reasons please you in whatever manner you choose---that's what it's all about (that's what most ANYthing in life is all about, really...) but to look down upon others with a "I'd never do THAT gig...or play THAT song...or put THAT on..." attitude? What's THAT all about?

 

 

So what's that all about? It's not right. I agree. It seems unfortunate but inevitable to me. Cover musicians tend to be less artistic and creative. You yourself have said so many times. So a guy who writes his own music and his band are writing their parts, the shallower of them are going to cop an attitude. And it goes back and forth from camp to camp. The disrespect. "Some creativity! The guy can barely play a lead solo!" to "Those guys are fags in their monkey suits and kissing ass!"

 

Now, the OP's attitude seemed spot on. That sounds frustrating, but surely not surprising. Just as some musicians expecting a certain respect and being denied it. It's shallow and it's uncool for these musicians to "put on THAT..." attitude", but frankly a lot of cover musicians will be waiting a while for that respect. Whenever I chose to go note for note covers, I accepted that. That is the trade off. And then you cash your check. It's not fair but it pays.

 

This occasional referring back to the old days, etc. "Hey! They were cover bands!" You know, it was pretty standard for a good musician to interpret. A note for note cover musician can not compare themselves to a classical musician. Or The Beatles doing the Isleys Twist and Shout. They interpret, cover bands don't. Issac Stern is reading note for note and yet his interpretation of a piece will be night and day from Itzhak Pearlman's.

 

This means by definition cover band musicians score a little or a lot lower on artistic merit. That's no mystery. So where did the attitude come from? It's not right, but it's not surprising...

[BlueStrat]

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. You're trying to equate cover bands with The Band? WTF? There is no shame in being in a cover band. But you are pretending it is something that it isn't. Let's be realistic here. I absolutely agree that playing covers is a viable road for a musician. One that I rode, as you know, for a good while. But to think of the world of cover bands like, "Well, The Beatles played covers and The Band played covers... therefore I am owed the respect of The Band!"

 

 

The argument that The Beatles or The Band started as cover bands is flawed for the simple reason that they did not remain cover bands. Neither the Beatles nor the Band, or any other famous band that started out playing covers, is remembered for the covers they played. Maybe the Animals covering "House of the Rising Sun."

[TIMKEYS]

The argument that The Beatles or The Band started as cover bands is flawed for the simple reason that they did not remain cover bands. Neither the Beatles nor the Band, or any other famous band that started out playing covers, is remembered for the covers they played. Maybe the Animals covering "House of the Rising Sun."

 

 

I know you are a little younger than I am. 60 here. Back when i was in high school it was very common for a bands first record typically a 45 to be a cover. Many of these bands turned the re do covers into national top 40 hits. Keep me hangin on comes to mind,, the V Fudge covered that. California Sun was not written by the rivearas. There are tons of examples from back in the day. Heat wave was released by multiple bands. In country its pretty common for stars to come out of cover situations. Lots of them payed their dues playing in cover bands. Toby , george strait, etc. Many songs have been recorded by multiple stars and their bands over the years. There are lots of bands that do original music right along with the covers. I know we do, and dont intend to quit doing covers. It opens up gigs that could never be had as a total original band. We just did a series of shows in Tampa. The biggest show , a couple thousand had a theme of southern rock and country. Thats what we did for that show.

[nobodyknows]

 

Kind of like a lot of folks here interested in "music as a business" versus "muso's."

 

 

Well played Sir - and you got a bite immediately - lol....

[SpaceNorman]

 

My only gripe with cover bands types are those that seem surprised they are not respected on artistic merits.

 

 

Since we're discussing gripes ... my only gripe is with the original artist types who apparently think that by choosing to perform original material - they've suddenly become experts on art and creativity.

 

 

So a guy who writes his own music and his band are writing their parts....

 

 

I have no problem giving any songwriter their props. It doesn't matter whether their material really impresses me - they still get respect for putting themselves out there and performing their material regardless of the cost.

 

Non-songwriter musicians playing original music ... not so much. I see little difference between what a non-songwrite musician playing original music does and what a cover band musician does. Both take an idea provided by a songwriter and create the part they play in order to support that idea. It's samey-same in my book.

 

 

Cover musicians tend to be less artistic and creative.... This means by definition cover band musicians score a little or a lot lower on artistic merit.

 

 

Whatever makes you feel good Lee! For me - the quality of musicianship is what differentiates between levels of artistic-ness and creativity - NOT what material a musician chooses to play. A "{censored} hot" player has to have a corresponding artistic and creative side to be a "{censored} hot" player.

 

I've been around the block enough times to be able to recognize a meh performance when I see one. I also recognize high quality musicianship when I see it. So when I see a local original act knock out a meh performance and then gets critical of a local cover act who's musicianship far surpasses that of the original act - yes, I'm gonna roll my eyes.

 

Playing covers is a choice - not a recognition of artistic and/or creative shortcomings. The local originals scene in my area means playing 30 minute sets to tiny crowds of family and friends - for little (if any) money. My cover bands typically play 180 minutes of material to crowds numbering in the hundreds ... and I virtually always walk out with real cash in my pocket. I choose to play covers because I prefer playing to people and get paid - not because I'm just not artistic or creative enough to play originals.

[Lee Knight]

Since we're discussing gripes ... my only gripe is with the original artist types who apparently think that by choosing to perform original material - they've suddenly become experts on art and creativity. I have no problem giving any songwriter their props. It doesn't matter whether their material really impresses me - they still get respect for putting themselves out there and performing their material regardless of the cost. Non-songwriter musicians playing original music ... not so much. I see little difference between what a non-songwrite musician playing original music does and what a cover band musician does. Both take an idea provided by a songwriter and create the part they play in order to support that idea. It's samey-same in my book. Whatever makes you feel good Lee! For me - the quality of musicianship is what differentiates between levels of artistic-ness and creativity - NOT what material a musician chooses to play. A "{censored} hot" player has to have a corresponding artistic and creative side to be a "{censored} hot" player. I've been around the block enough times to be able to recognize a meh performance when I see one. I also recognize high quality musicianship when I see it. So when I see a local original act knock out a meh performance and then gets critical of a local cover act who's musicianship far surpasses that of the original act - yes, I'm gonna roll my eyes. Playing covers is a choice - not a recognition of artistic and/or creative shortcomings. The local originals scene in my area means playing 30 minute sets to tiny crowds of family and friends - for little (if any) money. My cover bands typically play 180 minutes of material to crowds numbering in the hundreds ... and I virtually always walk out with real cash in my pocket. I choose to play covers because I prefer playing to people and get paid - not because I'm just not artistic or creative enough to play originals.

I seem to recall you discussing how like a fish out of water you felt at a recording session where you were asked to come up with a part. There is a very big distinction based on your post from maybe a year ago. Nothing wrong with that. You seem to think I'm passing judgment but the fact is I'm not. I don't think one is better or worse but they are very different. And the post I responded to of David's was the post pointing fingers at original artists and implying they're to judgmental toward cover musicians. That was his post, not mine.

It's like the PC reaction when some asks you to "describe him" and I say, "the black guy". And I'm a racist because I identify the guy as black? Or I identify the guy as a cover musician.

Whatever makes you feel good Lee!

Yes, right... that's what I'm doing. Trying to make myself feel better. I'm only pointing out the sheer blindness of the cover musician who might not expect the lack of respect from the original musician. The fact that I state it's wrong, but acknowledge it just the same somehow makes me the bad guy? Just who is trying to make themselves feel better, Norman?

It is wrong and shallow. You won't find me putting down cover musicians, because I've been one and understand the challenges and skill involved.

[SpaceNorman]

 

I seem to recall you discussing how like a fish out of water you felt at a recording session where you were asked to come up with a part. There is a very big distinction based on your post from maybe a year ago. Nothing wrong with that.

 

 

I don't do alot of session work - so I know exactly the comment you're referring to. If I'm not mistaken, I was talking about feeling like a fish out of the water for having to come up with a part "on demand" while receiving instant feedback from a committee of producer types who were in the control room - discussing each take. The tune being recorded was actually a "rip" (a knock-off of a cover tune - same musical structure, different lyrics) that was being recorded for some internal "corporate rah-rah" stuff for a large paint distributor.

 

The following YouTube clip is a pretty good depiction of the session in question:

 

...so yes, being that I don't do alot of session work, I did feel like a fish out of water. However, it didn't stop me from coming up with a dozen or so variations on the theme and deliver what was asked of me and get paid. I'll go a step farther and opine that it was my cover band experience that prepared me to be successful in this setting. 30 or so years of playing material that covers pretty much everything from soup to nutz in terms of musical styles gave me ALOT of variety to draw on when put on the spot to play something a dozen or so different ways.

 

I also get the whole "don't hate on the messenger" thing. Regardless of how you want to spin the semantics of your post - you drew several conclusions (Statements such as "Cover musicians tend to be less artistic and creative" and "This means by definition cover band musicians score a little or a lot lower on artistic merit" ARE conclusions). I'm not hating on the messenger - I'm simply disagreeing with your conclusions.

 

I stand by my assertions that a) the quality of musicianship is what differentiates between levels of artistic-ness and creativity - NOT what material a musician chooses to play and that b) playing covers is a choice - not a recognition of artistic and/or creative shortcomings.

 

...and yes, I feel good about having made that point.

[Lee Knight]

I don't do alot of session work - so I know exactly the comment you're referring to. If I'm not mistaken, I was talking about feeling like a fish out of the water for having to come up with a part "on demand" while receiving instant feedback from a committee of producer types who were in the control room - discussing each take. The tune being recorded was actually a "rip" (a knock-off of a cover tune - same musical structure, different lyrics) that was being recorded for some internal "corporate rah-rah" stuff for a large paint distributor. The following YouTube clip is a pretty good depiction of the session in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN9AZ-N3Npo ...so yes, being that I don't do alot of session work, I did feel like a fish out of water. However, it didn't stop me from coming up with a dozen or so variations on the theme and deliver what was asked of me and get paid. I'll go a step farther and opine that it was my cover band experience that prepared me to be successful in this setting. 30 or so years of playing material that covers pretty much everything from soup to nutz in terms of musical styles gave me ALOT of variety to draw on when put on the spot to play something a dozen or so different ways. I also get the whole "don't hate on the messenger" thing. Regardless of how you want to spin the semantics of your post - you drew several conclusions (Statements such as "Cover musicians tend to be less artistic and creative" and "This means by definition cover band musicians score a little or a lot lower on artistic merit" ARE conclusions). I'm not hating on the messenger - I'm simply disagreeing with your conclusions. I stand by my assertions that a) the quality of musicianship is what differentiates between levels of artistic-ness and creativity - NOT what material a musician chooses to play and that b) playing covers is a choice - not a recognition of artistic and/or creative shortcomings. ...and yes, I feel good about having made that point.

 

 

 

I'm not making judgments but I am making observations. And those observations are ironically in line with David's. David has made the point that cover bands frequently don't have the time to implement original arrangements. And... he has made the point that they frequently don't have the creativity to implement them.

 

This seems mildly at odds with being hurt when someone point out a lack of creativity. That's my point. Personally, I don't get any musician not wanting to be creative. To consciously decide not to be creative. That's foreign to me. I gotten challenged for making that point so it seems some are more than willing to learn the record and that's it. Do I judge? To each his own. No I don't judge. But it's not for me.

 

The material chosen doesn't make a difference and I've repeatedly been adamant to that point. Play bluegrass polkas and it's all the same to me. It's music. But to stop short of interpretation, at least to my definition, stops short of creativity and artistic concerns. I dont' see chasing xyz's tone as an artistic endeavor. It's admirable, but it's not creative.

 

Once again, no value judgment here. But a lot seem to want their cake and eat it too. To not step into artistic territory but be respected as if they have. This needs pointing out. Not to wag a finger but maybe to inspire a little pioneer spirit when it come to playing.

 

Call me naive and optimistic!

[melvinspeed]

I see little difference between what a non-songwrite musician playing original music does and what a cover band musician does. Both take an idea provided by a songwriter and create the part they play in order to support that idea. It's samey-same in my book.

As a guy who's band just transitioned from all covers to all originals, I gotta tell ya I'm enjoying this thread.

However, I fudamentally disagree with Norman's quote above. It's a lot easier for me to play an existing drum line than to fabricate my own. Lots of trial and error go into finding a beat that compliments the song and supports the songwriters efforts... but one that also give some variety to the music so every damn beat doesn't sound the same. That work is done for you in a cover band where you're emulating an existing beat that has been vetted by the band, producers, engineers, etc. So no, it's not samey-same in my book. Maybe it's a different experience with keys than drums?

[Lee Knight]

^^^ How dare you put down cover musicians!!!

[tim_7string]

Kind of hard to look at oneself completely objectively (actually, it's pretty much impossible), but I would say I'm more of an original music guy that likes to play covers rather than the other way around. The way I approach riffs and parts colors the songs. I can't play anything exactly note-for-note. I *think* I can, but I can't. I can think of complimentary ideas and arrangements very easily, for existing songs or stuff that is really basic and needs fleshing out. It's just a skill, a talent if you will, that I have.

 

Some people don't have it. No shame in that.

[SpaceNorman]

 

Maybe it's a different experience with keys than drums?

 

 

That's an interesting point. Having given it a second's worth of thought - the instrument you play likely does make a difference in terms of how much room for creativity you have when playing "covers". I suspect a drummer has less room to take creative liberty with a song and still get the job done as a cover player than a keyboard player. As a keyboard player - I usually feel that I've got lots of room for creativity - even playing covers. The "original" I'm looking to cover more often then not was typically constructed using instruments not present in the band I play with and/or using multitrack recording techniques that mean I'm not copying a single part as recorded on the original - but rather crafting a part that captures the best / most important facets of what are in fact multiple parts on the original recording. While I must capture the spirit of the original if I'm to be successful - I have lots of room for being creative in terms of how I going about doing that. I can see where a drummer likely doesn't enjoy as much freedom in that regard as I do.

[BlueStrat]

 

I see little difference between what a non-songwrite musician playing original music does and what a cover band musician does. Both take an idea provided by a songwriter and create the part they play in order to support that idea. It's samey-same in my book.

 

 

Maybe it's different where you live, but very few cover bands around here write their own parts for cover songs. They may play a bastardized version of the original recording, often because they aren't skilled enough or are to lazy to cop the original, but unless you're completely doing a whole new arrangement, like an Al Jarreau or Tommy Emmanuel cover of a Beatles song, it really isn't anywhere near the same thing.

[SpaceNorman]

Maybe it's different where you live, but very few cover bands around here write their own parts for cover songs. They may play a bastardized version of the original recording, often because they aren't skilled enough or are to lazy to cop the original, but unless you're completely doing a whole new arrangement, like an Al Jarreau or Tommy Emmanuel cover of a Beatles song, it really isn't anywhere near the same thing.

 

You have a very valid point - it's a little more cynical than how I view it ... but with more than a little bit of truth in it. Tell you what, I'll agree with your wholeheartedly - as long as you don't try to tell me that similar parts (...in terms of difficulty and/or the degree of musical precision with which they're played) played by "original" band musicians need to be automatically considered as shining examples of artistry and creativity!

 

Go that route - and I'll argue that the primary difference between the typical {censored}ty original band and the typical {censored}ty cover band is that there's nothing anybody can point to as proof of how wrong the originals guys are playing their parts. :poke:

[StratGuy22]

There's lots of bad original music out there.

 

 

There's also lots of bad poetry out there.

 

 

 

 

I'm a cover band guy. I seek no artistic merit. I play other peoples songs, I have fun, I get paid, I go home.

 

 

I'm not writing the next big song, I'm not bearing my soul, I just hit the chords, sing the words and have fun.

 

 

I'm a guy that paints houses, vs painting landscapes.

 

 

I've seen good painted landscapes, and I've seen {censored}ty ones as well.

 

 

 

[BATCAT]

While I must capture the spirit of the original if I'm to be successful - I have lots of room for being creative in terms of how I going about doing that. I can see where a drummer likely doesn't enjoy as much freedom in that regard as I do.

It really depends, though... think about songs where the original drum part is an obvious drum machine bit (and sometimes physically awkward or impossible to play), or if there's some prominent percussion part that you need to incorporate into your beat, or other studio shenanigans, be it overdubbed stuff, yadda yadda. It all depends on the individual song.

[SpaceNorman]

It really depends, though... think about songs where the original drum part is an obvious drum machine bit (and sometimes physically awkward or impossible to play), or if there's some prominent percussion part that you need to incorporate into your beat, or other studio shenanigans, be it overdubbed stuff, yadda yadda. It all depends on the individual song.

 

In concept, it's the same for virtually all instruments. My comments were more a statement/question about frequency. As a keyboard player doing dance/party band covers - I find that the parts I ultimately play are influenced by things that require I get creative in order to do justice to the song on almost every tune. I'm thinking that drummers may not have to deal with these things quite as frequently. Am I off in that regard?

[Lee Knight]

There's lots of bad original music out there. There's also lots of bad poetry out there.

Ha! Yeah! There is certainly no disagreement from me!

[BlueStrat]

You have a very valid point - it's a little more cynical than how I view it ... but with more than a little bit of truth in it. Tell you what, I'll agree with your wholeheartedly - as long as you don't try to tell me that similar parts (...in terms of difficulty and/or the degree of musical precision with which they're played) played by "original" band musicians need to be automatically considered as shining examples of artistry and creativity! Go that route - and I'll argue that the primary difference between the typical {censored}ty original band and the typical {censored}ty cover band is that there's nothing anybody can point to as proof of how wrong the originals guys are playing their parts. :poke:

 

I can't disagree with any of that!

[Roy Brooks]

I just do it. I will play practically anywhere with anybody playing any kind of music when the gig pays well enough to make it worth my time to do it. I just need to know the address, the hours, and the uniform of the day. I show up and do the job. I always eat before I go to the gig. And I keep some non-alcoholic refreshments in the car.

[Lee Knight]

I just do it. I will play practically anywhere with anybody playing any kind of music when the gig pays well enough to make it worth my time to do it. I just need to know the address, the hours, and the uniform of the day. I show up and do the job. I always eat before I go to the gig. And I keep some non-alcoholic refreshments in the car.

 

 

I love it! You love playing and it sounds like you're unconcerned with anybody's opinions about what you do. I agree. You create a situation where it's possible to take gigs and not bemoan the ancillary issues. Nice.