Our Originals Band had it's first show and now we have a decision to make............

[New Trail]

Our new originals band did its first show last week and it was a big success. We had a big crowd listening to us and people asking for CD's (which we don't have, yet). In the crowd was some folks who own a club where two of us in the originals band used to play a few years ago in a cover band. They liked the new band very much and want us to play at their club, but they also stressed that "we get a dancing crowd."

 

Now.....we don't have enough originals to play a four hour night (who does except for Bob Dylan???) so, if we take the gig, and decide to go in the direction of bar/club gigging, we have to quickly learn 3 sets of 'dance' music.

 

So.....Should we stick with originals (which we all enjoy BTW) and not play very much at all, or set them aside to play bars, make some money, and use that money to record a CD?

 

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Austincowbell]

Don't take the gig. You'll have one of two possible outcomes:

1. You end up playing covers all night and you become a "cover band with some originals"

2. You play originals all night and people come up to the stage after every song asking for a cover and you get pissed off.

I've seen this play out many times and those crowds want music they know. It's not a matter of your band being 'good' or 'bad' its familiarity.

 

-NOTE - If this is a country bar or a blues bar ignore everything I just said.

[New Trail]

I doubt that we will take the gig, and I don't think our hearts will be into learning a bunch of covers, anyway, but.....why would it be any different at a county bar or a blues bar? Just curious!

[BlueStrat]

 

I doubt that we will take the gig, and I don't think our hearts will be into learning a bunch of covers, anyway, but.....why would it be any different at a county bar or a blues bar? Just curious!

 

 

Can't speak about country bars, but blues clubs generally like bands to play original and obscure blues covers and will mock you if all you play is is Stormy Monday, The Thrill Is Gone, Got My Mojo Working, etc with rare exception. A few well known tunes is okay; a full night of it is a turn-off to blues fans.

[Lee Knight]

Yeah... first off, congrats on making your band work out for the gig. That's great. I know you've been anticipating this moment. Nicely done.

 

As far as taking a 4 hour gig? Naw, get into a cover band. A different gig for that. It is way too crazy to juggle. I've done it and it can be done but, believe me, there are easier ways. Join a cover band. Keep your original band.

[New Trail]

 

Yeah... first off, congrats on making your band work out for the gig. That's great. I know you've been anticipating this moment. Nicely done. As far as taking a 4 hour gig? Naw, get into a cover band. A different gig for that. It is way too crazy to juggle. I've done it and it can be done but, believe me, there are easier ways. Join a cover band. Keep your original band.

 

 

Thanks for the kind words! Yeah, I had already been thinking about doing the gig with either a new covers band or resurrecting an older one to satisfy my cover band itch.

[BATCAT]

You know how you said you wanted stuff to be "perfect"? If you want to write, arrange, and record a polished product (which I assume you're working on) and then do your best to promote it, unless you don't have a day job, it's going to take a good amount of time, effort, and often money. I'd keep the distraction at a minimum.

[SLScott86]

 

You know how you said you wanted stuff to be "perfect"? If you want to write, arrange, and record a polished product (which I assume you're working on) and then do your best to promote it, unless you don't have a day job, it's going to take a good amount of time, effort, and often money. I'd keep the distraction at a minimum.

 

 

This is correct. Get the CD done, even if it's a free demo first. If it's goods enough you can have people singing and dancing to your songs. Which is awesome!

[c4racer]

dance clubs are just not a good fit for original projects. I've been in a few - one half original band that also played covers that fit in with the originals, and about 2/3 of those covers were pretty obscure and had no recognition. So a very small percentage of the set list was recognizable, even tho a good % was danceable. And it totally depended on the crowd - it worked in some places and not in others. We did well at some festivals and some bars, and then not so well at other bars. And that was a hybrid band where we did have 3 sets of material worked up.

 

I have also been in a purely original band with one short set of material (just under an hour) that spent a lot of time recording the album and that is the only material we had. Fun project, but it got pretty boring to me over time. And the venues where you can play are somewhat limited. Look for bigger rock clubs and try to get in as an opening act for more established bands. Or hook up with a few other bands and do a joint show. Hard to carry a whole night on one set of material, and also you will probably tend to lose audience interest after an hour anyway playing all originals that nobody knows. 45-60min is a good short set length for an original band. Combine that with another original band and maybe a blues trio and you can cover 3-4 hours in a club or bar that caters to original bands. Those venues are getting harder and harder to find. There are some festivals that can accomodate an original band too, but probably not the typical wine and arts type of venues.

[Lee Flier]

 

They liked the new band very much and want us to play at their club, but they also stressed that "we get a dancing crowd."

 

 

So I assume that means that they think your originals would go over well with their crowd?

 

 

Now.....we don't have enough originals to play a four hour night (who does except for Bob Dylan???) so, if we take the gig, and decide to go in the direction of bar/club gigging, we have to quickly learn 3 sets of 'dance' music. So.....Should we stick with originals (which we all enjoy BTW) and not play very much at all, or set them aside to play bars, make some money, and use that money to record a CD?

 

 

Well, the latter is exactly what my band did. For the first few years that we were together, we did a mix of playing at the usual originals clubs, plus playing in places that normally feature cover bands and throwing in our originals. Mind you, the bars where we played the cover gigs were usually out in the 'burbs and there was little chance there'd be any overlap of the two crowds. And we always played covers that meshed well with our originals and reflected our influences as a band - we didn't play the usual cover band fare. Since our music is pretty roots-oriented anyway, this was OK for us - we could do Beatles and Stones and Who and Kinks and that sort of thing, and that was something the audiences could get into but our originals didn't sound out of place in that situation. So this is not something that could work for every band, but it was fine for us and it's been fine for many very successful bands. I've always hated the rigid originals/covers schism anyway.

 

So I guess it really just depends whether the style of your originals would lend itself to being mixed in with danceable covers, or you would be really changing the sound of your band just to accommodate cover gigs. If the latter, I'd say you should either join a different cover band (and just play out occasionally with your original band) or play cover gigs under a different name.

 

And yes, we used the money from cover gigs to finance our first CD. Playing these out of the way bars also gave us the opportunity to try out new originals as we wrote them, and see how they went over. Now we have enough originals to fill a whole night, although we rarely actually do that anymore.

[SLScott86]

 

So I assume that means that they think your originals would go over well with their crowd? Well, the latter is exactly what my band did. For the first few years that we were together, we did a mix of playing at the usual originals clubs, plus playing in places that normally feature cover bands and throwing in our originals. Mind you, the bars where we played the cover gigs were usually out in the 'burbs and there was little chance there'd be any overlap of the two crowds. And we always played covers that meshed well with our originals and reflected our influences as a band - we didn't play the usual cover band fare. Since our music is pretty roots-oriented anyway, this was OK for us - we could do Beatles and Stones and Who and Kinks and that sort of thing, and that was something the audiences could get into but our originals didn't sound out of place in that situation. So this is not something that could work for every band, but it was fine for us and it's been fine for many very successful bands. I've always hated the rigid originals/covers schism anyway. So I guess it really just depends whether the style of your originals would lend itself to being mixed in with danceable covers, or you would be really changing the sound of your band just to accommodate cover gigs. If the latter, I'd say you should either join a different cover band (and just play out occasionally with your original band) or play cover gigs under a different name. And yes, we used the money from cover gigs to finance our first CD. Playing these out of the way bars also gave us the opportunity to try out new originals as we wrote them, and see how they went over. Now we have enough originals to fill a whole night, although we rarely actually do that anymore.

 

 

This is sort of like our situation. We are from a tiny tiny town where everyone knows us individually and we can draw a great bar crowd of a couple hundred, and then go to the mid-sized city a half hour away and play the rock clubs. Bar gigs are split about 50/50 and the covers are covers that fit our sound with some from influences that wouldn't totally be expected. Our miniscule hometown is actually a huge advantage because we get support as the local sons.

 

So yeah, depending on circumstances, there are scenarios where it could be worth playing.

[MartinC]

My original band's first gig was two sets, then three sets. We played some covers too. Over the years most of our gigs, we were the only band, so we have never avoided longer gigs, or avoided playing a few selected covers. The money and profile from doing those gigs paid for promo and the cd. I'd take the gig if you think it wouldn't mess up the direction of the group. IOW, if you can do the gig andf still be the band you want to be, then do it. I wouldn't let lack of a handful of tunes stop me from a good paying gig. If anything, it may inspire you to write a few tunes to fill out the sets. Sometimes the tunes you bust out quickly will work better than those that you spend a lot of time on.

[WynnD]

 

Our new originals band did its first show last week and it was a big success. We had a big crowd listening to us and people asking for CD's (which we don't have, yet). In the crowd was some folks who own a club where two of us in the originals band used to play a few years ago in a cover band. They liked the new band very much and want us to play at their club, but they also stressed that "we get a dancing crowd." Now.....we don't have enough originals to play a four hour night (who does except for Bob Dylan???) so, if we take the gig, and decide to go in the direction of bar/club gigging, we have to quickly learn 3 sets of 'dance' music. So.....Should we stick with originals (which we all enjoy BTW) and not play very much at all, or set them aside to play bars, make some money, and use that money to record a CD? Thanks for your thoughts!

 

 

Take the gig. Continue to work on your originals and use them every gig so people will be used to them and start expecting them from other bands that don't know the material.

It's a rare originals band that doesn't do some covers. The Beatles, Earth Wind and Fire, and Aretha Franklin have all done covers. (I don't really know if Areatha does any originals, but she sure takes a song and makes it her own.)

[BATCAT]

Take the gig. Continue to work on your originals and use them every gig so people will be used to them and start expecting them from other bands that don't know the material. It's a rare originals band that doesn't do some covers. The Beatles, Earth Wind and Fire, and Aretha Franklin have all done covers. (I don't really know if Areatha does any originals, but she sure takes a song and makes it her own.)

 

It's worth pointing out, though, that there a difference between "doing some covers" (I've almost never been in a band that didn't) and learning three sets of a specific kind of music. He should do whatever he want, but I'm just sayin'... right now might be a good time to focus on recording a really strong first effort so they actually have a product, rather than learning 40 covers or something. (again, at this time)

 

[JailTime]

If a club owner said that to my band, we would not take it. We can do about 3 hours of original music, and we add in covers that fit our sound and style - Like Lee Flier was suggesting. It limits the number of places we can play, but that's ok for us. Not sure about the OP.

 

In my band, we've all come to the conclusion that being in an original band is a losing investment. So it has become a passion and a labor of love, and that makes it easy for us to pass on gigs that don't fit who we are. But we're doing exactly what we think a great band would do, albeit much more slowly due to having to earn a living in between gigs, and people are taking notice. We write what we think are great songs, record them in the best studio environments and play kick-ass shows. We want people to dig it and humbly solicit, but in the end, we know what we want to do, we own it and everyone who doesn't like it can {censored} off, figuratively.

[TIMKEYS]

 

Our new originals band did its first show last week and it was a big success. We had a big crowd listening to us and people asking for CD's (which we don't have, yet). In the crowd was some folks who own a club where two of us in the originals band used to play a few years ago in a cover band. They liked the new band very much and want us to play at their club, but they also stressed that "we get a dancing crowd." Now.....we don't have enough originals to play a four hour night (who does except for Bob Dylan???) so, if we take the gig, and decide to go in the direction of bar/club gigging, we have to quickly learn 3 sets of 'dance' music. So.....Should we stick with originals (which we all enjoy BTW) and not play very much at all, or set them aside to play bars, make some money, and use that money to record a CD? Thanks for your thoughts!

 

 

 

Two schools of thought. Stay original or do both. My feeling is that a band should not narrow ist market place. You can write and perform your stuff right along with the stuff you like that fits your band. Your thrust can still be about your own music. To be popular you have to play all kinds of gigs. Its about fans. Fish in the big pond, and do both.

[New Trail]

Lots of good thoughts, guys! Thanks!

 

Our originals are pretty accessible and mostly all danceable, too, and would probably fit in with a classic rock format, which is probably what we all like, anyway. I would want to add newer stuff, modern rock, which might be a hard sell to the guys.

 

The problem would be finding covers that fit us and that are are also danceable, and NOT obscure. Obscure covers + Originals would, IMO, be the kiss of death for a band playing for a dancing crowd, unless one lived in a very progressive part of the country, which we don't!

 

My thinking is, if we go covers, don't half-ass it and just throw together a quick set list, but do it right and learn songs that will give us the best chance of success. IMO success = happy crowd, happy owners, repeat bookings.

 

We're having a band meeting this week to discuss this issue, and rehearse. I suspect the consensus will be to forgo the gig, and covers, and stay all original, since everyone will still be jazzed from the gig.

 

Any thoughts on possible danceable covers, if we go that direction?

[BlueStrat]

I'm always leery of clubs that say "we love your band...could you do something else so you can play here?"

[New Trail]

 

I'm always leery of clubs that say "we love your band...could you do something else so you can play here?"

 

 

I agree, that would certainly be the case, except that we already know and like these folks. I've played for them before in two bands. They're great, actually!

[ski219]

I would keep the focus on originals. We have 2 sets worth and are busy writing and arranging enough to play 3. We are also planning on recording our first full length album and have financed all of our recording thus far through gigs.

 

At a few places we play we have other bands open for us and have used both original and cover bands. Some places we just play 2 sets. We also play a fair amount of multi band gigs in NYC. These pay crappy but can be fun. Last Saturday we made a whopping $125.00 for one long set in the village. A couple of weeks ago we had a big (for an original band in our neck of the woods) payday of $500 for a 2 set gig.

 

We are definitely not in this for the money. For us it's more about writing and arranging songs which we have a lot of fun with, and then getting them recorded which is a great feeling of accomplishment. I have never understood bands that write a sets worth of material and keep playing it over and over again. To me, that is not what being in an original band is about. Do they think those 10 or 12 songs are the best they have in them?

[BlueStrat]

I agree, that would certainly be the case, except that we already know and like these folks. I've played for them before in two bands. They're great, actually!

 

Yes, but my fear for you is that you would end up spending a lot of time on covers and the original concept would fall by the wayside. I would rather see you put together a side project band, even if it was the same guys, and call it something else and play covers. Understand, I'm not opposed to original bands playing covers, or cover bands playing originals. I just did a concert hall show Friday where I played 8 originals and two covers for my set. Saturday was a four hour gig playing mostly covers with my originals sprinkled in. But I'm a modern blues band, not a rock or pop dance band. I like the idea of doing covers to finance your original projects- that's how I paid for all 4 of my CDs. If you think you can do it playing rock stuff, and your songs are similar enough to the covers, go for it, but I still think keeping the two projects separate might be better.

 

But WTF do I know?

[Vito Corleone]

It's been years since I've played in an originals band and the marketplace has changed greatly since then, but I'm with the guys who say don't mix the two. My experience was always that a great originals band is a full-time job in and of itself and the time needed to devote on anything more than maybe a small handful of covers detracts greatly from the work and energy needed to focus properly on the originals.

[Lee Flier]

 

Yes, but my fear for you is that you would end up spending a lot of time on covers and the original concept would fall by the wayside.

 

 

This might be true at first, and if somebody in the band has no long term perspective, it could be a problem. But really, if it's stuff you all know from hearing it on the radio and you're a decent band, it wouldn't take too long to learn enough tunes to fill out a cover gig and then go back to focusing on originals. It's true that if that becomes the main focus, it can be a real buzzkill when you're trying to focus on writing and arranging new material. But it doesn't have to be that way if you don't want it to be. Just make sure you discuss it all up front. And of course, there's nothing wrong with turning the gig down and sticking with the originals 100%, either. I'm just saying we made it work, and if you really want it to work and can use the extra $$, you can. Just have to make sure you always keep the end game in sight, which is still to be an original band.

 

 

I would rather see you put together a side project band, even if it was the same guys, and call it something else and play covers.

 

 

Yeah, like I mentioned, this is a good idea if the material ends up being dissimilar enough between the two projects. But of course it wouldn't solve the potential problem with losing focus on the originals. That's the main hurdle to get over first: do we want to do this? Can we do it without losing momentum and energy behind the originals? And then if you've answered yes to those two questions, then you can choose your material and decide whether you want to do it under a different name or what.

[New Trail]

.... I like the idea of doing covers to finance your original projects- that's how I paid for all 4 of my CDs.....But WTF do I know?

 

Well, I'd say that you know a LOT if you've managed to produce 4 CD's using this plan! Cool stuff!