If you think of your band as a 'business'...

[Vito Corleone]

Not everybody can write decent originals.

 

 

When has THAT ever stopped anyone from being an all-original band? 95% of the originals band I've ever heard had sucky material. I've always assumed (or hoped) that they didn't care what people thought because they were writing from their heart.

 

But I suppose it's just as likely that they were trying to write commericially-appealing originals as a career and just weren't very good at it. In which case, you're right--they should probably just play Margaritaville instead.

[Lee Flier]

Not everybody can write decent originals. Even among those who can, very few are able to do it over & over again. How many "one-hit wonders" have their been? Just writing one really good song a monumental achievement! So, for the 99.5% of people who can't write decent original songs (or, at least whatever percentage of them are able to recognize that fact), but still love playing, what choice is there? Impose their bad original music on people & "enjoy" watching them not enjoy themselves, or buck up & play music that people actually like & have fun showing them a good time.

Yeah, like I say, the whole schism between "cover" and "original" bands is pretty weird to me. Even though I write songs, there's a lot of other people's stuff I really enjoy doing. I can't think of a single one of my very favorite songwriters (and you probably can't either) who doesn't have other songwriters they love and respect the hell out of enough to cover some of their work. So we only have one "rule" in my band, and that is that we all have to be really into any song we do.

Bottom line: People should play whatever they want & gives them pleasure. It's not up to anybody else to tell somebody what to do unless they're willing to pay them for it!

Absolutely. And even then, I don't have to take the money.

The only thing I don't appreciate is when musicians play stuff they really don't care about just to pander to an audience and make money. The world doesn't need any more of that. Note that this can include "original" artists who flog their decades-old hits even though they're sick to death of them (or never liked them to begin with), just as easily as it can include cover bands.

[Vito Corleone]

The only thing I don't appreciate is when musicians play stuff they really don't care about just to pander to an audience and make money. The world doesn't need any more of that. Note that this can include "original" artists who flog their decades-old hits even though they're sick to death of them (or never liked them to begin with), just as easily as it can include cover bands.

 

 

I get where you're coming from, but I am actually proud of the fact that I can make pretty good money with a hobby that I love doing.

 

My wife's best friend's husband gets his kicks running marathons. That's all very cool, but it's an expensive hobby. My wife digs the fact that her husband's hobby actually brings money INTO the house.

 

And not that I need extra income right now, but I know many people that do who have to do things like work at 7/11 on the weekends or some such to pay the bills. The fact that I can play music for extra income is freakin' awesome.

 

And as far as the decades-old=hit artists go? I dunno...if I was somebody like, say, Don McLean and my choices were spend my golden years working some job I didn't particularly like or putter around the house living off my past royalties or get up on stage and entertain some people who are getting off on hearing "American Pie" one more time? I'm pretty sure I'd choose the latter.

 

So, I don't know that I agree with you that "pandering" to an audience to make money is such a bad thing. I understand why you wouldn't want to go see such a performer (and I might not want to either), but I don't think it's necessarily something to be looked down upon.

[Lee Flier]

Years ago I decided I had little desire to play cover songs I personally love. For one thing, by the time I learn a song backwards and fowards, work it up with a band, and play it 50 times on stage, I no longer like the song so much. Playing songs in cover bands has ruined more than one "favorite song" for me. I prefer playing covers I have little/no emotional attachment to because I can focus more on how the audience is connecting with them than what I think about the song. If that makes any sense.

Interesting. It does make sense from a "professional" standpoint even though I can't relate to it at all. If I work up a song that I like, I tend to like it even more once I start playing it.

And writing music is a very personal exercise for me. Once I write a song, the emotional exercise is complete for me. I have very little desire to work up that song with a band and even less desire to perform it and find out what an audience thinks of the song. I know for a lot of composers that being able to share that emotional experience with others and moving them with their composition is part of what they do. But, for whatever reason, I've never had that same compulsion.

That's funny. For me, I can't get off on writing by myself at all. Actually the most rewarding part of writing for me isn't necessarily even playing it out, but the process of working it up with the band and hearing it come to life. I try to leave the arrangements somewhat open ended, other than obvious stuff like a signature riff or beat, so that the guys can give their input on the arrangements. And our bass player (who writes a lot of our stuff) does the same, so we all feel very invested in the development of our songs, no matter who wrote them. Sitting around by myself writing something has no appeal to me whatsoever.

And most of what I prefer listening to is something different altogether. It's not stuff I want to play live and it's usually stuff that is beyond my compositional skills. While what I listen to often inspires what I write, I can't really say that the end product is very similar.

I can somewhat relate to this in that there's a lot of stuff I like to listen to that you wouldn't know by my playing or writing style. Some people think that everything I listen to sounds like the stuff that has obviously influenced my own band, but that's not true at all. So I know what you're saying here. But otherwise, sounds like we're very different in terms of what turns our crank. And I think that accounts for a lot of the ridiculous arguments that spring up on this list, except that most people don't bother explaining themselves like we have so it ends up just being a stupid argument.

[New Trail]

 

...The only thing I don't appreciate is when musicians play stuff they really don't care about just to pander to an audience and make money......

 

 

Do you appreciate it when the Chef at your favorite restaurant prepares the meal that you order just because you like it?

[TrickyBoy]

The only thing I don't appreciate is when musicians play stuff they really don't care about just to pander to an audience and make money. The world doesn't need any more of that. Note that this can include "original" artists who flog their decades-old hits even though they're sick to death of them (or never liked them to begin with), just as easily as it can include cover bands.

Ehhh... I kind of have the opposite attitude. I hate when original artists have a hit or two from "back in the day" and then they tour supporting a new album of inferior material and refuse to play their old hits.

I think musicians often get too wrapped up in the "artist" mentality and forget that music is also entertainment. It's a balancing act. Yes their is a level of artistic integrity (and I think this is applicable for both original and cover bands), but at the same time you need to entertain the crowd, and if that means trotting out that one #1 hit that you had back in 1974 every show you play, so be it. Still beats a day job

[Lee Flier]

I get where you're coming from, but I am actually proud of the fact that I can make pretty good money with a hobby that I love doing.

 

 

That's the key, there. When I say I don't appreciate people who pander to an audience, what I mean is that they obviously don't love what they're doing but they do it anyway. To me, it's fairly obvious if an artist doesn't give a {censored} about what they're doing or is being condescending toward an audience.

 

If you really enjoy what you're doing, more power to ya. I've got nothing against that whatsoever.

 

 

And as far as the decades-old=hit artists go? I dunno...if I was somebody like, say, Don McLean and my choices were spend my golden years working some job I didn't particularly like or putter around the house living off my past royalties or get up on stage and entertain some people who are getting off on hearing "American Pie" one more time? I'm pretty sure I'd choose the latter.

 

 

Maybe you would, and there are plenty of people who clearly DO still have a good time playing their old hits. I certainly have nothing against people playing their old hits - I've gone to see the Rolling Stones numerous times on recent tours and it's obvious they still love to play.

 

OTOH I've also gone to see, say, Bob Dylan lately and at least half the time, although he has a great band he clearly doesn't give a {censored} about a lot of the old songs anymore. He seems audibly filled with contempt that some sizable portion of his audience wouldn't feel they got their money's worth if he didn't mouth "Like A Rolling Stone". I'd rather he just didn't do those songs if he doesn't want to do them, and focused on stuff he cares about. He doesn't need the money and assuming he does still want to tour, he could just play smaller venues for people who'd be more into his new stuff (much of which has been great anyway). So I don't think I'll be going to see him again any time soon.

 

See what I mean?

[Vito Corleone]

That's funny. For me, I can't get off on writing by myself at all. Actually the most rewarding part of writing for me isn't necessarily even playing it out, but the process of working it up with the band and hearing it come to life. I try to leave the arrangements somewhat open ended, other than obvious stuff like a signature riff or beat, so that the guys can give their input on the arrangements. And our bass player (who writes a lot of our stuff) does the same, so we all feel very invested in the development of our songs, no matter who wrote them. Sitting around by myself writing something has no appeal to me whatsoever.

Working up originals with the band has always been the part of the process I enjoy the least. But I think that is because the original bands I have played in have always been concerned with being successful and writing hits. So the "working it up" process has always been one primarily concerned with things like "are we getting to the hook fast enough?" "how long should the solo be?" and other stuff that, IMO, detracted from the art of the song. And then by the time we performed them, they might as well have been just another cover song. I always felt like we were covering ourselves at that point, especially since we were often trying to duplicate our recorded versions of the songs as opposed to performing something that sprung completely from a live performance.

I can somewhat relate to this in that there's a lot of stuff I like to listen to that you wouldn't know by my playing or writing style. Some people think that everything I listen to sounds like the stuff that has obviously influenced my own band, but that's not true at all. So I know what you're saying here. But otherwise, sounds like we're very different in terms of what turns our crank. And I think that accounts for a lot of the ridiculous arguments that spring up on this list, except that most people don't bother explaining themselves like we have so it ends up just being a stupid argument.

Yeah, it's nice to have reasonable discussions!

[Lee Flier]

Do you appreciate it when the Chef at your favorite restaurant prepares the meal that you order just because you like it?

 

 

See, this is a really bad analogy on a whole lot of levels. Music isn't a restaurant, although there are a few chefs who are "rock stars" in the sense that they're personally known and people look forward to their next "release" because they trust it'll probably be good. I think that is where most of us who play music would like to be.

 

But the problem here is that when you go into a restaurant, it's assumed that you know what you want to order and you don't want to be surprised. And that may be the case with people who go to see cover bands, but again, that's not all there is to music. I think fans go out to see live music because they want to be moved in some way (even if that just means "moved to shake your ass on the dance floor"), and the most successful music is generally music that succeeds in moving people in a way they didn't necessarily "order," or anticipate in advance.

[Lee Flier]

Ehhh... I kind of have the opposite attitude. I hate when original artists have a hit or two from "back in the day" and then they tour supporting a new album of inferior material and refuse to play their old hits.

I may or may not like that, depending who it is and what their new material is like. I do agree that artists should be fair to the fans. By that I mean, if you can't sincerely get up and do your old hits and really enjoy it, then don't do it. If you're only going to do your new stuff, you should be honest about that and let the fans decide whether they like the new stuff enough to come and see you. And if you're not enjoying playing out at all, don't tour at all.

I've seen all of the above situations work and not work, depending who it is and how good their new material is.

I think musicians often get too wrapped up in the "artist" mentality and forget that music is also entertainment. It's a balancing act. Yes their is a level of artistic integrity (and I think this is applicable for both original and cover bands), but at the same time you need to entertain the crowd, and if that means trotting out that one #1 hit that you had back in 1974 every show you play, so be it. Still beats a day job

Like I said above, it isn't trotting out your old hit that is the problem - it's whether you can do it without contempt. If you can't, you shouldn't do it. Plenty of artists still can, and that's great. I'm all for still being able to appreciate your old hits and do a great job of them, and as a fan I really appreciate it when people can do that! But if they can't, I'd just as soon see them do their new stuff if it's any good, or covers they enjoy, or just not see them at all.

[wades_keys]

Do you appreciate it when the Chef at your favorite restaurant prepares the meal that you order just because you like it?

I expect a good chef to taste his own food, to have a refined palate and excellent judgement, and to serve to me only food that meets his expectations.

So no, I wouldn't want to dictate terms and conditions to a chef anymore than I would want folks in the audience or management dictating to me what I play and how i play it.

[Lee Flier]

I expect a good chef to taste his own food, to have a refined palate and excellent judgement, and to serve to me only food that meets his expectations. So no, I wouldn't want to dictate terms and conditions to a chef anymore than I would want folks in the audience or management dictating to me what I play and how i play it.

Exactly. I'm perfectly willing to trust a good chef (or musician) to know what I'll like better than I do.

I also have the right to choose a different restaurant if my old favorite is no longer pleasing to me.

I do understand that sometimes, you just want to go to Applebee's. But it would really suck if that's all there was. And if the best chefs all decided to base their menus around "what the audience wanted," the result would be nothing but Applebee's and McDonald's and Starbuck's.

[New Trail]

The restaurant analogy works. If your favorite restaurant removed "Veal Scones" from their menu because they weren't selling, even though they were 'your' favorite dish, it's a good 'business' decision, and is just like a band dropping a song that doesn't work with the crowd, and keeping the ones that do. For a Chef to keep cooking Veal Scones even if they don't sell would be like a band continuing to play a song that the crowd hates just because the band likes it.

[Lee Flier]

The restaurant analogy works. If your favorite restaurant removed "Veal Scones" from their menu because they weren't selling, even though they were 'your' favorite dish, it's a good 'business' decision, and is just like a band dropping a song that doesn't work with the crowd, and keeping the ones that do. For a Chef to keep cooking Veal Scones even if they don't sell would be like a band continuing to play a song that the crowd hates just because the band likes it.

 

 

But you talk as if those are the only choices. If the chef really believes that the veal scones are good, and if the few people who buy them really rave about them, they might not actually remove them from the menu. They might do an ad campaign to try to attract more people who might like the scones, for instance. This is particularly true if the menu is somewhat "different" from the usual and/or the restaurant is in an area where people don't tend to have adventurous tastes.

 

If the chef still doesn't succeed, they might try moving the restaurant to a different city. Or simply hosting dinners at their home for a select few who really appreciate what they do. If the chef is really creative and passionate, it isn't a given that they'll drop something just because a particular crowd doesn't like it.

 

In any case, a chef doesn't have to eat what he cooks. If a chef doesn't personally like everything they serve me, it doesn't bother me or, presumably, the chef much. If a musician has to play music they don't like to play, it shows. I've been cheated and condescended to as a fan, and something we both love has been compromised, and life's too short (both mine and the musician's) for that.

[New Trail]

 

But you talk as if those are the only choices. If the chef really believes that the veal scones are good, and if the few people who buy them really rave about them, they might not actually remove them from the menu. They might do an ad campaign to try to attract more people who might like the scones, for instance. This is particularly true if the menu is somewhat "different" from the usual and/or the restaurant is in an area where people don't tend to have adventurous tastes. If the chef still doesn't succeed, they might try moving the restaurant to a different city. Or simply hosting dinners at their home for a select few who really appreciate what they do. If the chef is really creative and passionate, it isn't a given that they'll drop something just because a particular crowd doesn't like it. In any case, a chef doesn't have to eat what he cooks. If a chef doesn't personally like everything they serve me, it doesn't bother me or, presumably, the chef much. If a musician has to play music they don't like to play, it shows. I've been cheated and condescended to as a fan, and something we both love has been compromised, and life's too short (both mine and the musician's) for that.

 

 

Interesting...however

 

1. You hear a lot of bands advertise that they are "party" bands, but you don't hear too many bands advertising that they play songs that people won't like.

2. Not a lot of bands can move to another town just to play the songs they want to play, some can, but probably most can't.

3. The Chef probably has other scones on the menu that are selling well, so he knows that he can make a good scone, it's just that his customers don't like THAT scone.

4. While it's true that a Chef doesn't have to eat what he cooks, it's also true that a band doesn't have to listen to the original versions of songs they play. I enjoyed playing country music when I played it years ago even tho I didn't enjoy (and didn't) listening to it at that time.

5. Maybe the Chef gets pissy about the fact that Bacon & Cheddar Scones outsell the Veal Scones but he keeps the Bacon & Cheddar Scones on the menu and drops the Veal Scones because he runs his restaurant like a business. He may get tired of making Bacon & Cheddar Scones for the hundredth time, and he may REALLY want to make a Veal Scone, but if you come in and order a Bacon & Cheddar Scone, he'll make one for you without objection because he's running his restaurant as a business.

[Vito Corleone]

I expect a good chef to taste his own food, to have a refined palate and excellent judgement, and to serve to me only food that meets his expectations.

So you don't care if your steak is rare or well done? You never ask for substitutions?

So no, I wouldn't want to dictate terms and conditions to a chef anymore than I would want folks in the audience or management dictating to me what I play and how i play it.

Few chefs are so talented and well-known that they can dictate their own terms that completely and be successful. Most are hired by a restaurant owner who is looking for a chef to execute a particular menu to a particular clientele. Restaurant owners and their chefs work constantly at refining their menus so that they are as commercially successful as possible. The desires of the public VERY MUCH dictates what a chef cooks and how he cooks it.

[Vito Corleone]

I do understand that sometimes, you just want to go to Applebee's. But it would really suck if that's all there was. And if the best chefs all decided to base their menus around "what the audience wanted," the result would be nothing but Applebee's and McDonald's and Starbuck's.

The problem is that there are far too many musicians who think they are Wolfgang Puck when, in reality, they can barely serve up a decent Big Mac.

There are a few bands that are so original and so good in what they do that they can draw good crowds and make good money. But those are few and far between. Many, many more THINK they are serving up rare and exotic cuisene when all they are really doing is playing stuff that only THEY like and can't understand why nobody else "gets it".

[Vito Corleone]

He may get tired of making Bacon & Cheddar Scones for the hundredth time, and he may REALLY want to make a Veal Scone, but if you come in and order a Bacon & Cheddar Scone, he'll make one for you without objection because he's running his restaurant as a business.

 

 

Or if he doesn't, he won't be in business very long.

 

Did anyone else watch that Gordon Ramsey show that was on awhile back where he'd go around the country doing restaurant makeovers? Week after week he'd end up screaming at restaurant owners who specifically asked him to come in and tell them what they could do better with their restuarants and keep them from going out of business but they would be horribly offended when he would invariably tell them to "make contemporary food that people like in a style and atmosphere that they find comfortable and attractive". It was if they only thing they thought they were going to hear from him was "your food is great; it must your customers that are stupid. Simply repaint your front door and everything will be perfect." It was amazing how many of them insisted their food was perfect, it was just the customers who didn't 'get it'.

 

I really enjoyed how much those clueless restuarant owners reminded me of musicians I know.

[Live2PlayLive]

Why not have TWO acts, one original and one built to make money? That way you only have one set of tools for both your dream job and your "day job."

I'm headed out the door to my "day job" act (tribute band) right now. My dream job act is on hold until Fall.

[SpaceNorman]

 

The problem is that there are far too many musicians who think they are Wolfgang Puck when, in reality, they can barely serve up a decent Big Mac. There are a few bands that are so original and so good in what they do that they can draw good crowds and make good money. But those are few and far between. Many, many more THINK they are serving up rare and exotic cuisene when all they are really doing is playing stuff that only THEY like and can't understand why nobody else "gets it".

 

 

There's a HUGE dose of reality in Guido's post! Best is that it applies to the world of cover bands and originals bands alike!

 

As a band member - few things frustrate me more finding my musical endeavors tangled up with those that think they are "serving up rare and exotic cuisuine". Nothing worse than dealing with somebody who doesn't realize they're pushing their personal tastes in song selection, wardrobe choices, band image, etc. - as THE representation of what everybody likes.

[Lee Flier]

1. You hear a lot of bands advertise that they are "party" bands, but you don't hear too many bands advertising that they play songs that people won't like.

Huh? This is ludicrous. The band doesn't believe they're playing songs that people won't like. They invite you to try their songs and see if you like them.

4. While it's true that a Chef doesn't have to eat what he cooks, it's also true that a band doesn't have to listen to the original versions of songs they play. I enjoyed playing country music when I played it years ago even tho I didn't enjoy (and didn't) listening to it at that time.

That's nice, but a lot of people do in fact play songs they don't enjoy playing, and that's what I'm referring to. For the third or fourth time, if someone actually enjoys what they're playing, I have no problem with that, regardless whether I like it as an audience member or not.

5. Maybe the Chef gets pissy about the fact that Bacon & Cheddar Scones outsell the Veal Scones but he keeps the Bacon & Cheddar Scones on the menu and drops the Veal Scones because he runs his restaurant like a business. He may get tired of making Bacon & Cheddar Scones for the hundredth time, and he may REALLY want to make a Veal Scone, but if you come in and order a Bacon & Cheddar Scone, he'll make one for you without objection because he's running his restaurant as a business.

True generally, but as I keep saying, while there are a few similarities, I think the music/restaurant analogy is a really poor one overall. If you don't understand why it doesn't hold up, I don't know what to tell you - I don't think music really means very much to you. Obviously, many people "successfully" run their band as a "business." I happen to think personally though that this is exactly what's wrong with music.

[Lee Flier]

The problem is that there are far too many musicians who think they are Wolfgang Puck when, in reality, they can barely serve up a decent Big Mac. There are a few bands that are so original and so good in what they do that they can draw good crowds and make good money. But those are few and far between. Many, many more THINK they are serving up rare and exotic cuisene when all they are really doing is playing stuff that only THEY like and can't understand why nobody else "gets it".

 

 

I agree, believe me, but like I say, it takes a certain degree of insanity/ego/whatever to believe anyone is going to give a crap about your original music. And many people write/play music simply because they feel compelled to do it, they don't feel like it's a choice. So it makes sense that a lot of people would miss the mark. It's just part of the deal, part of how music is made.

 

Also, just because one doesn't draw big crowds doesn't necessarily mean they aren't good. They might have a small audience who appreciates what they do, but they might not have the image/marketing skills/whatever or they may not be playing in a genre that is currently popular. Some artists become popular even long after they're dead.

 

So, it's hard for me to really criticize anyone who's out there trying, "delusional" though they may seem.

[Vito Corleone]

Why not have TWO acts, one original and one built to make money? That way you only have one set of tools for both your dream job and your "day job." I'm headed out the door to my "day job" act (tribute band) right now. My dream job act is on hold until Fall.

 

 

For years I made my living as a touring Top 40/rock cover band and we wrote originals and worked on getting a record deal (our main goal) on the side. It actually ended up being a distraction as we ultimately weren't able to put enough time and energy into our originals and playing the latest Top 40 hits 5 nights a weeks had the residual effect of making our originals a bit dated. We worked on writing songs that fit nicely into our songlist which might have been fine had we written and recorded them a year earlier.

[Lee Flier]

For years I made my living as a touring Top 40/rock cover band and we wrote originals and worked on getting a record deal (our main goal) on the side. It actually ended up being a distraction as we ultimately weren't able to put enough time and energy into our originals ....

 

 

I had the same experience. That's when I decided to do something else for a living, so that whatever decisions I made musically wouldn't have to have anything to do with paying the bills.

 

It's cool if you can pull it off, though, and my current band actually did play lots of cover gigs for awhile just to raise money for financing our first CD and such, plus we got a lot tighter as a band from doing that. But it wasn't something we wanted to keep doing forever, even though we were doing covers that we actually liked. The constant grind of playing enough to make a living wasn't conducive to our other goals.

[Vito Corleone]

I agree, believe me, but like I say, it takes a certain degree of insanity/ego/whatever to believe anyone is going to give a crap about your original music. And many people write/play music simply because they feel compelled to do it, they don't feel like it's a choice. So it makes sense that a lot of people would miss the mark. It's just part of the deal, part of how music is made.

 

 

We agree far more than not on these points. If someone is completely happy with what they are doing and the results they are getting, (or are so compelled to do what they do that they don't really care about the results) then there's nothing to say or that I would WANT to say to them. Most likely, those people aren't even hanging out in a forum like this. If ALL you care about is the art of your music and care NOTHING about the business end of it, then why hang out in a forum that is primarily about the business end of it?

 

So, for me anyway, it seems that a lot of the disagreements in this forum result when a thread like this is started by someone giving business advice and then someone replies "well, not every musicians cares about the business part!". Yeah. Duh. I know that. Obviously the advice given isn't for those who don't care at all.

 

 

Also, just because one doesn't draw big crowds doesn't necessarily mean they aren't good. They might have a small audience who appreciates what they do, but they might not have the image/marketing skills/whatever or they may not be playing in a genre that is currently popular. Some artists become popular even long after they're dead.

 

 

Again, I agree 100%. I don't think I've ever said "draw huge crowds or you're a failure". Or even "if you don't make money playing your music, you're a failure". Everyone has different goals and wants and needs. But to the degree that you WANT to be successful--whether you're cooking up rare cuisene or frying up burgers---the it's important to A) not be delusional about how good you really are and B) be willing to take the steps necessary to be successful.

 

Wolfgang Puck became successful not just because he cooked up rare cuisene that challenged people's palettes, but because he fully understood the business end of it and made his restaurants work. I'm guessing he'd have been just as successful going the Applebee's route. But he, most importantly, understood his limitations as a chef and the limitations of the marketplace he was working in. I'm sure that for every great exotic dish that was a hit on his menu there were 10 others that, for whatever reason, didn't work. What made him a successful restauranteer in addition to a great chef was being able to understand the difference or, at the very least, listen to those around him who did.