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

[New Trail]

Okay, BUT...

 

 

?

 

[New Trail]

 

.... 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.

 

 

Great freakin' point!!!

 

And haven't we ALL spent time to learn a song that we thought would just KILL at the gig and instead it just died? (Kings of Leon songs come to mind right now) The 'business' thing to do would be to drop those songs instead of insisting on playing them even though they died...

[Vito Corleone]

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.

 

 

We did the same thing. Unfortunately, by that time, the music scene had pretty much passed that particular band by. (This was back in the 80s when it seemed like styles were changing every few months.)

 

 

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.

 

 

In all my years of doing this, I've known of very few bands who pulled off the cover band-to-original band transformation successfully. It seems that the bands who "make it" are primarily those who are able/willing to completely immerse themselves in their originals. I've been out of the original band loop for 15+ years now, and I'm sure it's changed a great deal since then. But if I had to give advice to any band trying to make it doing originals, my #1 advice would be "don't worry about making a living playing music. Get a day job/starve/live with your parents/do whatever else it takes to survive and worry ONLY about the music you're writing and performing."

[Lee Flier]

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?

 

 

I don't agree first of all that this forum is (or should be) primarily about the business end of it - in fact that's partly exactly what I'm complaining about.

 

I also think that people who consider themselves "pure artists" (for lack of a better term) still usually feel that the "business" end of things is important, in the sense that they would probably like to be heard by more people and/or find better ways to present themselves as they would like to be presented.

 

But, this is a different set of rules from traditional business rules as described in the OP i.e. "give the customer what they want." That's the part that's frustrating to me.

 

 

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.

 

 

But that's exactly where traditional business rules break down as they apply to art - which does NOT (again) mean there are NO rules. It doesn't mean you make zero concessions to your audience. It means that you look at what you're doing from a fan's point of view - a fan of your music. If you aren't a fan of your own music to begin with, but it's just an excuse to avoid getting a day job or get people to look at you or make a bunch of money... that's where I have a problem.

[Lee Flier]

In all my years of doing this, I've known of very few bands who pulled off the cover band-to-original band transformation successfully.

Well, the Beatles, Stones, Who, Yardbirds etc. seemed to do all right.

It seems that the bands who "make it" are primarily those who are able/willing to completely immerse themselves in their originals.

After a certain point, yes. I think that for awhile, the important thing for a band is to play together as much as possible - find your voice and what makes you click as a band, and get really tight. That might mean exploring a lot of different territory, including covers. After all, when you first get started it's unlikely that you have a crapload of great originals that totally fit your band. I think that's a big part of why the Beatles/Stones/et al became great original bands - because they had already defined and perfected a style together as performers, and their originals became extensions of that.

[Vito Corleone]

I don't agree first of all that this forum is (or should be) primarily about the business end of it - in fact that's partly exactly what I'm complaining about.

 

 

Well, it's a forum that in its description states it's "about gigging, how to promote your band..." Gigging and promotion are primarily the business end of it. So I think this forum IS a lot about that.

 

 

But that's exactly where traditional business rules break down as they apply to art - which does NOT (again) mean there are NO rules. It doesn't mean you make zero concessions to your audience. It means that you look at what you're doing from a fan's point of view - a fan of your music. If you aren't a fan of your own music to begin with, but it's just an excuse to avoid getting a day job or get people to look at you or make a bunch of money... that's where I have a problem.

 

 

I agree. But do we have that many people here though that aren't a fan of their band's music? Or, at the very least, aren't fans of the way their band plays their music? I get the sense that most people here are pretty proud of what they are doing. We are all just looking for ways to do things better.

 

My only real point here is that, when comparing successful endeavors, you'll find more similarities than differences. Wolfgang Puck's restaurants have a lot more in common with McDonalds and Applebees than not, even though he's cooking up wildly different menus. But the sense of knowing the market, selling his food to that market, knowing what works and what doesn't, etc---those things don't change.

[Lee Flier]

It was YOUR idea that the Chef should advertise his Veal Scones!

Yes, but he's not advertising because he thinks people won't like them! He's advertising because he thinks that if more people knew his veal scones existed, beyond the usual clientele who come to his restaurant, then more people would like them.

This idea that musicians are deliberately playing music that they think people won't like is just bizarre. They think the right people will like it if they can find the right people or be placed in the right context. And sometimes, they're right. But the point is, they believe in what they're doing and they believe other people might, too, if they persevere and keep putting themselves out there in front of different audiences, and getting better at what they do. And as long as that sincere belief exists and sincere effort is being made, even if it otherwise seems to make no "business sense," I think that's great.

If a person is playing songs they don't enjoy they are either being well paid to do so (band member in a country band comes to mind) or they are part of a band who is running their band as a business.

Yes, I agree - and my point is I think that sucks, and I wish that most musicians in that situation would just go do something else.

How can running something as a business be wrong?!? This is Capitalist America, isn't it?

Capitalism works great for selling veal scones, shoes, and a lot of other things. But that doesn't mean it's the solution to everything. It sucks as a judge of art, and as a catalyst for art.

[Vito Corleone]

Well, the Beatles, Stones, Who, Yardbirds etc. seemed to do all right.

I said "in all MY years". Those bands all predate me. I think that yeah, in the 50s and 60s you COULD start out as a cover band and move on. Heck, the Stones got SIGNED as essentially a cover band. But I think that business model was all-but-dead by the 70s, and certainly by the 80s, and probably still is today.

After a certain point, yes. I think that for awhile, the important thing for a band is to play together as much as possible - find your voice and what makes you click as a band, and get really tight. That might mean exploring a lot of different territory, including covers. After all, when you first get started it's unlikely that you have a crapload of great originals that totally fit your band. I think that's a big part of why the Beatles/Stones/et al became great original bands - because they had already defined and perfected a style together as performers, and their originals became extensions of that.

I don't disagree with that. I just wouldn't spend too much time working on finding your voice. If it's not clicking into something original and cool in a short amount of time, I'd think about moving on. And certainly, any young musicians first starting out need to play lots and lots and lots of covers. I don't too many 15-year olds should worry about playing only originals. But by the time you've honed your individual skills to a reasonable degree and your interest becomes primarily one of writing and performing originals and finding success with that? Yeah, then I think spending a lot of time doing covers (especially if it's because you'd rather do that then get a day job) it can be a distraction to the bigger goals.

[Vito Corleone]

This idea that musicians are deliberately playing music that they think people won't like is just bizarre. They think the right people will like it if they can find the right people or be placed in the right context. And sometimes, they're right. But the point is, they believe in what they're doing and they believe other people might, too , if they persevere and keep putting themselves out there in front of different audiences, and getting better at what they do. And as long as that sincere belief exists and sincere effort is being made, even if it otherwise seems to make no "business sense," I think that's great.

 

 

This is where the points about being delusional and understanding your place in the market/scene come into play. It's one thing to think that you have great scones that just need to be marketed better. It's another thing to not know that your scones suck. I appreciate sincere belief and sincere effort as much as the next artist and/or critic, but I can't think it's great simply because THEY believe what they are doing is wonderful in face of all other evidence to the contrary. That's not great, that's just sad.

[Lee Flier]

Well, it's a forum that in its description states it's "about gigging, how to promote your band..." Gigging and promotion are primarily the business end of it. So I think this forum IS a lot about that.

 

 

But as I said - the rules of business as you'd apply it to promoting a band are quite different from general business rules. Not to say there's no intersection between them, but the motivations are different. In business, your goal is to make money. Anything that will help you make more money is good, and if something isn't making money, you drop it and do something else.

 

Art is about promoting a specific "product" in the hope that you'll find an audience for it. Generally, musicians have an investment in their music beyond making money at it, and if they don't, I as an audience member would have a huge problem with that. And yet, many are willing to make the same sorts of concessions that any other business would.

 

 

But do we have that many people here though that aren't a fan of their band's music?

 

 

I don't know. I haven't seen most of the bands who post on here, and I obviously can't read people's minds. I do know that when I go out to clubs to see bands, I see a lot of bands who obviously don't give a crap about their music. I assume some of them post or lurk here. I'm not specifically passing judgment on anyone though; just asking people to consider these things for themselves, that maybe the types of business decisions they make aren't right for them.

 

 

We are all just looking for ways to do things better .

 

 

Absolutely... as we all should be. But I think our respective motivations for doing what we do "better" may be different, and are worth considering for ourselves.

 

 

My only real point here is that, when comparing successful endeavors, you'll find more similarities than differences. Wolfgang Puck's restaurants have a lot more in common with McDonalds and Applebees than not, even though he's cooking up wildly different menus. But the sense of knowing the market, selling his food to that market, knowing what works and what doesn't, etc---those things don't change.

 

 

But Wolfgang Puck is simply one example of one guy who found mega-success with quality food. And it's great to hear about people like that, but for every guy like him there are thousands who are just as good or better as chefs, but don't have the kind of mass success he does. And I think we agree that this isn't a bad thing - they are playing by different rules.

 

There are a few artists that I really love (as a fan) who've achieved that kind of mass success, but most stumble after awhile in their desperation to stay on top of the latest trends. Whereas there are other artists I love just as much (or these days, probably more) who have flown mostly under the radar, have made very few concessions to the business end of things in terms of what they do musically, and IMO their music remains consistently better for it. And I don't see this category represented very often in all the lame "business vs. art" discussions here. It's as if it doesn't exist. That's all I'm saying.

[Lee Flier]

I said "in all MY years". Those bands all predate me. I think that yeah, in the 50s and 60s you COULD start out as a cover band and move on. Heck, the Stones got SIGNED as essentially a cover band. But I think that business model was all-but-dead by the 70s, and certainly by the 80s, and probably still is today.

It is, but I think that's to the detriment of bands. There are too many groups of people calling themselves "bands" now who know the dozen songs they wrote and that's all they know how to play together. Makes it kinda hard to develop any kind of defining sound.

I don't disagree with that. I just wouldn't spend too much time working on finding your voice. If it's not clicking into something original and cool in a short amount of time, I'd think about moving on.

Agreed.

[New Trail]

Let's say Wolfgang Puck, when he started out years ago, had a wonderful (he thought) recipe for Veal Scone, so he made a bunch and offered it in his new restaurant. People tried them, some people liked them, but more didn't, and even asked for Bacon and Cheddar Scones. So Wolfie, being a good businessman, made the a Bacon and Cheddar Scone and it was a great success. Flash forward to today, when Wolfie opens up a new restaurant he already knows that Veal Scones won't sell, so he doesn't put them on the menu, instead he puts Bacon and Cheddar Scones on the menu, because they have already proved to be a popular selling item for him.

 

If you think of that in a band scenario and substitute "crowd pleasin' favorite" for Bacon and Cheddar Scone, and "the most obscure undanceable hard-to-play cover tune possible" for Veal Scone, do you see my point?

[Lee Flier]

I appreciate sincere belief and sincere effort as much as the next artist and/or critic, but I can't think it's great simply because THEY believe what they are doing is wonderful in face of all other evidence to the contrary.

Me either. Believe me, I'm the first to leave if I see a band that I think sucks, whether they play covers or originals.

I'm just saying that all good bands are motivated by the belief that what they are specifically doing is good and will appeal to some people at some point. And a lot of good bands suffer through a lot of crap behind that, and a lot of naysaying. Many of your and my favorite artists stuck to their guns long after a traditional business person would have decided to cut their losses and try some other "product." Many have also kept going after a major label decided they were no longer profitable enough for their business model, and in fact quite a few have done their best work after that point.

And that is why I can never really advocate the use of traditional business rules for music.

[Vito Corleone]

But Wolfgang Puck is simply one example of one guy who found mega-success with quality food. And it's great to hear about people like that, but for every guy like him there are thousands who are just as good or better as chefs, but don't have the kind of mass success he does. And I think we agree that this isn't a bad thing - they are playing by different rules.

 

 

Agreed. But the points I'm trying to make are for those great chefs who WANT to be the next Puck but have seemed to convince themselves that anything that smacks of the way Applebee's would do it cheapens their product or lessens their art. It's THOSE people who aren't getting it.

 

 

There are a few artists that I really love (as a fan) who've achieved that kind of mass success, but most stumble after awhile in their desperation to stay on top of the latest trends. Whereas there are other artists I love just as much (or these days, probably more) who have flown mostly under the radar, have made very few concessions to the business end of things in terms of what they do musically, and IMO their music remains consistently better for it. And I don't see this category represented very often in all the lame "business vs. art" discussions here. It's as if it doesn't exist. That's all I'm saying.

 

 

There are certainly the Richard Thompsons of the world who manage to eek out long careers in the fashion you mention. That's a difficult career path to strive for, though. I think it just more HAPPENS for those sort of artists than it being any particular goal. I'm guessing Thompson initially would have welcomed mega-success with Fairport Convention but, when it didn't happen and he ended up in a nice little comfortable spot where he could continue to make records and a living without artistic compromises--so much the better.

 

Or another example might be Aimee Mann who certainly started out looking for mega-success with 'Til Tuesday but has landed quite nicely where she is. More power to these sorts of artists and, like you, they are among some of my favorites. But I'm not sure how that works as a career-goal for those just starting out or still trying to make it.

[Lee Flier]

If you think of that in a band scenario and substitute "crowd pleasin' favorite" for Bacon and Cheddar Scone, and "the most obscure undanceable hard-to-play cover tune possible" for Veal Scone, do you see my point?

I've never not seen your point. It's obviously a formula that lots of people use, and it "works" such as it is. It's just not one that in most cases I happen to think is good for music in the big picture, or would employ personally.

I also think there's a lot of ground between playing "Mustang Sally" and 20 minute Dream Theater covers, yet that seems to be what a lot of these discussions deteriorate into.

[Lee Flier]

Agreed. But the points I'm trying to make are for those great chefs who WANT to be the next Puck but have seemed to convince themselves that anything that smacks of the way Applebee's would do it cheapens their product or lessens their art. It's THOSE people who aren't getting it.

Well, that depends. The bottom line is it's all about finding your own voice as a musician, and then looking at your work from the perspective of a fan of that type of stuff. I think most artists would welcome any level of success if it came to them on their terms, but a lot don't really think ahead of time about how far they're willing to go to achieve that success vs. how much of it really would be compromising their music.

I don't think that the very act of dropping a song from your repertoire because it doesn't go over as well as other songs is "selling out," for instance. But if you then substitute a song that goes over great but you personally dislike it, or the song has production elements or other things that are really contrary to what you usually try to put across, then I think that's a problem and I don't think fans are out of line to complain about it.

And that's really how I look at things. I try to make music that I would be a fan of, as a fan of music. And then I ask myself whether I'm being fair to fan-me in any decision I make as artist-me. "Fan-me" is not "Joe average" - because I have no idea who "Joe average" is or what he supposedly likes, and it would be condescending for me to try. I have to make music that I am a fan of, first and foremost, and then try to present that in the best way I can and hope that other people will like it.

So... does fan-me enjoy watching long self indulgent guitar solos? No... so I don't play them. Does fan-me like music with lots of lush harmonies? Yes, so my band does those. Does fan-me like seeing musicians who have some sort of image that reflects who they are? Well, it's not a big requirement for me personally, but I do appreciate it when I see it, if the artist seems to really see their image as a visual extension of what they're expressing. Does fan-me like well crafted, succinct songwriting? Yes, so that's what I try to do. Does fan-me like trendy dance-pop production with lots of Autotune and sampled drums and such? No, can't stand it, so I won't be doing any of that no matter how much someone tries to convince me that I could have a "hit" if I did. Does fan-me like it when a musician I admire sticks to their guns and what works for them in spite of the temptation to cave in to the latest trends? YES, very much, so that is what I do. And so forth. It ain't rocket science.

Now that doesn't mean that I can't learn to do all of these things better, or present or promote them better. But that would not be compromising anything important.

There are certainly the Richard Thompsons of the world who manage to eek out long careers in the fashion you mention. That's a difficult career path to strive for, though. I think it just more HAPPENS for those sort of artists than it being any particular goal. I'm guessing Thompson initially would have welcomed mega-success with Fairport Convention but, when it didn't happen and he ended up in a nice little comfortable spot where he could continue to make records and a living without artistic compromises--so much the better. Or another example might be Aimee Mann who certainly started out looking for mega-success with 'Til Tuesday but has landed quite nicely where she is. More power to these sorts of artists and, like you, they are among some of my favorites. But I'm not sure how that works as a career-goal for those just starting out or still trying to make it.

I don't think most artists really start off having the "goal" of being a "cult" artist like Thompson (and I'm a HUGE Thompson fan, probably no surprise to you), no. That's just a function of being realistic about your "market" as you alluded to earlier - that is, realizing you're probably never going to have Top 40 appeal. But I don't think you can start off as an artist by thinking about who your "market" is, as I've been saying. Most artists would welcome whatever level of success they can get to, but hopefully if it's on their terms (as I described it above). And if they can't gain mass success on their own terms, I would hope that instead of making too many concessions to the "business" side of things they'd rather forge a career like Thompson or Aimee. I agree that it's not an easy thing to do, but too many people think they want a career in music because it's easy, or because "it's better than a day job." I'm saying, I think that's bull{censored}.

[Vito Corleone]

I really liked, understand and agree with everything in your post. I would only take some exception with this last little bit:

I agree that it's not an easy thing to do, but too many people think they want a career in music because it's easy, or because "it's better than a day job." I'm saying, I think that's bull{censored}.

Is a career in music ever easy? No. But I hope you aren't forgetting about all the professional players out there who are simply just that: the guys in Vegas or on Broadway who make a living doing music for production shows, or players who go on tour with Artist X and play whatever music is put in front of them in the manner in which they are asked to do. I don't there is anything wrong with being, say, Celine Dion's guitarist. Is there any art involved in that gig? Not much. Is there a lot of compromise? Sure. You're just a hired gun. Is it better than a day job? I'm sure it is for the guy doing that job, for he could probably just as easily be a stock broker or sell real estate, but why not make money with your talent and skill?

Does that make him a sellout? Not in my book. And my guess is 99% of the guys who would call him such aren't good enough players to get the gig.

[Lee Flier]

Most of the "hired guns" I've met enjoy what they're doing. They can because their tastes are pretty broad and they enjoy the challenge of playing whatever is thrown at them. That's not me, but I respect it. And all of them worked very hard to get where they are. They didn't just do it because they thought it'd be easier than being a stock broker.

 

he could probably just as easily be a stock broker or sell real estate, but why not make money with your talent and skill?

 

For me, the answer is that not everyone wants to lend their talent and skill to a cause they don't support. I've made my living at music and audio engineering, and could have continued on that path, but I just didn't think it was worth it to spend most of my days playing and/or listening to music I didn't like, and that I felt was mostly contrived to be "hits" by a lot of people who didn't really give a crap about music. The 10% of the time I could work with people I cared about wasn't worth the rest of it. As I described it to friends at the time, it was kinda like being a hooker all day long and then going home and trying to enjoy making love to your husband. It's just not worth killing the magic of the most magical thing in life.

 

I'd much rather make most of my living doing something I'm not so attached to, and then I can afford to only take on musical projects that I really want to do, and not worry about whether or not they make me much money. That just works better for me.

[Vito Corleone]

Most of the "hired guns" I've met enjoy what they're doing. They can because their tastes are pretty broad and they enjoy the challenge of playing whatever is thrown at them. That's not me, but I respect it. And all of them worked very hard to get where they are. They didn't just do it because they thought it'd be easier than being a stock broker.

 

 

Well, for them it is, to some degree, because it's the skill they already possess. Why learn to be a stock broker when you already play guitar like a monster? And no, it's never easy to make a living playing music. But a lot of the "hired guns" I know don't like the music they play so much, or they've gotten tired of the gig, but it pays well and they stick with it until the next gig comes along. Still, I have nothing but admiration for their skills and see nothing at all to look down upon.

 

 

I'd much rather make most of my living doing something I'm not so attached to, and then I can afford to only take on musical projects that I really want to do, and not worry about whether or not they make me much money. That just works better for me.

 

 

Well, it certainly seems like you've found your own comfort zone between all the various forces at work. And, in the end, that's all any of us are talking about accomplishing here. I think the only real questions to be asked and answered are: what is the advice for those who WANT to do something more/different, but aren't sure how to get there?

[Lee Flier]

Well, for them it is, to some degree, because it's the skill they already possess. Why learn to be a stock broker when you already play guitar like a monster?

 

 

For the reasons I mentioned above... and there's certainly nothing wrong with being multi-skilled.

 

 

And no, it's never easy to make a living playing music. But a lot of the "hired guns" I know don't like the music they play so much, or they've gotten tired of the gig, but it pays well and they stick with it until the next gig comes along. Still, I have nothing but admiration for their skills and see nothing at all to look down upon.

 

 

See, I don't want to go see anybody who's phoning it in. I think a carpenter or a stock broker can still do quality work when they're not really into it that day. But musicians rarely can, and for every musician who's phoning it in there are 5 or 10 more who'd love to have the gig and would play it with passion.

 

So I have a big problem with that.

 

 

Well, it certainly seems like you've found your own comfort zone between all the various forces at work. And, in the end, that's all any of us are talking about accomplishing here. I think the only real questions to be asked and answered are: what is the advice for those who WANT to do something more/different, but aren't sure how to get there?

 

 

I don't mean to imply that I don't want to do anything more or different. I'm sure we'd all like to, and there are a zillion ways to go about it. All I'm saying is that what I don't think the world needs more of is people who "run their band like a business." The music biz is already chock full of those and it's certainly not made for better music. And I don't think it's a coincidence that attendance at venues large and small has gone way down in recent years.

[Vito Corleone]

See, I don't want to go see anybody who's phoning it in. I think a carpenter or a stock broker can still do quality work when they're not really into it that day. But musicians rarely can, and for every musician who's phoning it in there are 5 or 10 more who'd love to have the gig and would play it with passion. So I have a big problem with that.

 

 

I disagree somewhat. The real pros rarely "phone it in". That's what makes them the real pros. I'd be surprised if Celine's guitarist is truely loving the music he's been hired to play. But he's probably pro enough to play it the degree of passion required for the gig. Or at least fake it well enough that nobody can tell the difference. Which is kind of the same thing.

 

 

 

 

All I'm saying is that what I don't think the world needs more of is people who "run their band like a business."

 

 

Again, depends on the band and the goals of that band. Most cover bands are, to some degree, a business. (And original bands too once they reach a certain level.) As such, then running it like a business only makes sense.

 

Playing music, like being a professional chef, writing books, making pottery you can sell, and most any other art is part art/part business. The degree to which each band is one or the other is variable to the needs and desires of that band. I think the best way I can sum up the entire point of this thread is to say that if your particular band is best served to be looked at as 75% business and 25% art and you have those percentages reversed, you're screwing up.

 

The first step is to know where your band lies in the art/business contiuum.

 

The second step is to not make the mistake of pretending those percentages are something other than what they really are out of either laziness or delusions of grandure.

[Lee Flier]

I disagree somewhat. The real pros rarely "phone it in". That's what makes them the real pros. I'd be surprised if Celine's guitarist is truely loving the music he's been hired to play. But he's probably pro enough to play it the degree of passion required for the gig. Or at least fake it well enough that nobody can tell the difference. Which is kind of the same thing.

Beats me - I wouldn't go to a Celine Dion concert so I can't comment on that.

I just know that I've seen a lot of musicians who appear to be phoning it in, lately. They have the slick production and the cool image and all the marketing tricks down pat, but there's no passion there at all.

Again, depends on the band and the goals of that band. Most cover bands are, to some degree, a business. (And original bands too once they reach a certain level.) As such, then running it like a business only makes sense.

I guess we could go around and around forever. I've said several times that I agree that a band is to some degree a business, and applying a certain amount of business sense will certainly help move a band forward. But running it the same way you would a factory or a restaurant does not make sense.

I think the best way I can sum up the entire point of this thread is to say that if your particular band is best served to be looked at as 75% business and 25% art and you have those percentages reversed, you're screwing up.

And I'm saying, I don't want to see any band whose motivation is 75% business and 25% art, and I wish everybody with those type of percentages would just go do something else. The world doesn't need any more bands like that.

[3shiftgtr]

Fascinating discussion Lee and Guido. Nice posts....

But here is something that has been alluded to but not fully fleshed out in the discussions. I'll use the sideman thing y'all just talked about as a starting point.

I spent several years as a sideman for signed artists. It really is a glorified cover gig. There is a bit more to it in the logistics of touring and attention to detail and such, but the "art" in being a sideman is strictly business.

Which brings us to the concept of the art itself. The DISPLAY of the art (performance) is neither artistic nor business, in and of itself. It is when you use it to ENTERTAIN and in turn charge people, then it becomes a business. The art itself, while it can have commercial considerations in it's conception, is the art: the music. When songwriter X writes a song, crafts it, goes into a studio and records it with all the input and care from the producers, players and engineers, you wind up with a rendered piece of sonic art: the music.

Lee, I agree with you that the music business is over full with folks who make their music all about business, and that is part of what creates music devoid of depth. But I think where your concepts veer off are when you don't make a distinction between the music itself, and the performance of said music.

The thing is, one can make art without any consideration to business. Just make the truest, most honest art possible....do the desires of your heart without compromise...to cling to your vision and inspiration...and leave any consideration to business outside the door....just give 100% of yourself and walk away with what inspires YOU....

...and be an absolute slut in the marketing and performance of it. Approaching the marketing of it as a hardcore sales operation won't change the art itself in anyway. It will just change it's purview: it's ability to be heard. So you can treat the MAKING of your art without any business considerations, but if you want that art to be heard, you MUST market it with business acumen. And then categorically speaking, you will be looking at your band as a business.

[SeniorBlues]

It's important to make a distinction between marketing your product and changing your product to be more accessible to what you perceive to be the clients you want to appeal to. There is more than one marketplace; more than one music circuit to play, at least in larger metropolitan areas.

It's also important to realize that the music itself may or may not be what is being sold. A hot looking front singer or a theatrical presentation may be the primary selling point, making the caliber of musicianship a lot less important. There are, of course, excellent musicians with very little emphasis on presentation who know where they belong in the scheme of things and appear to be happy with their niche.

I'm concerned that there's a concept being promoted here quite often that clients have to already be familiar with the music you're playing in order to respond favorably . . . . get up and dance, buy another drink, etc. Where I live there are bands that play mostly older obscure stuff that make more per night and play out more often than most other groups. Judging by some of the comments I've read, you haven't heard groups like this and therefor can't imagine that this "product" is viable in any niche market.

[Lee Flier]

Lee, I agree with you that the music business is over full with folks who make their music all about business, and that is part of what creates music devoid of depth. But I think where your concepts veer off are when you don't make a distinction between the music itself, and the performance of said music.

 

 

Wow. No, I don't agree that that's where my concepts "veer off" - I think a good bit of my point is there IS no distinction. The minute you become a performer, whether or not you wrote the song you're performing, that is your art. You're creating something, at that moment, and in fact that is where the rubber meets the road. All the audience has to experience at that moment is your performance, and if you {censored} it up or phone it in, the song isn't going to get over. You might be able to invoke some kind of Pavlovian response to a familiar song in front of a drunk audience, but that's about it.

 

This whole idea that art ends where the songwriting and arranging and recording end is Bull{censored} with a capital B. I suppose this attitude explains why people think it's fine to use backing tracks and drum machines and things like that, but if you're a hired sideman for a signed artist you are not in a "glorified cover band," and in fact I have nothing at all against cover bands in general. What I have something against is anybody who gets on a stage and plays music they don't give a crap about.

 

Geesh, my band just did a tour backing one of my favorite artists and we had one of the best times of our lives. Can't wait to do more gigs with him. We were just as invested in those performances as if they had been our own songs, because we are truly moved by those songs and by being onstage with that artist. And if we didn't feel that way about it, we wouldn't have done the gigs. It's that simple.

 

 

...and be an absolute slut in the marketing and performance of it. Approaching the marketing of it as a hardcore sales operation won't change the art itself in anyway.

 

 

Now, THAT I agree with (the marketing aspect of it anyway - NOT the performance). I think it's very silly to equate the very marketing and sale of your art with "selling out" or compromise. It's when you are willing to change your work to the point where you're not really very into it anymore that it becomes bogus - whether that means making an original recording that slavishly follows the "flavor of the month," or a star playing their old hits that they can't stand to play anymore, or playing music you're really not into in a cover band, or as a sideman for a signed artist you don't really care about. It's all the same to me.

 

On the other hand, if you write songs you believe in and you work on gaining the requisite performance skills (as simple or as complicated as they may be) to put your songs across... or you are a sideman for an artist you really believe in and work hard to interpret their songs with passion and play what's appropriate for the song as a team player... or you play in a cover band and really dig the songs you're doing (or you don't care what songs you're doing because you're focused on giving a good performance and getting the audience into it)... or you're a star who can still put the fire in their old hits and play them like you just wrote them... that's all the same to me too. The music has been served, and that's what's important. And yes, you should market the crap out of your music if that's the case, because I wanna hear it, and I won't hear it if you don't advertise it. So by all means, be a slut with your promotion and image and whatever else you feel would help you become known.

 

BUT, if you can't do that, fercryinoutloud stay home. I'm not "too cool to play Skynyrd" - I'm just not into Skynyrd as a fan and I'd be embarrassed to get on a stage and play some half assed version of a bunch of songs I don't care about, and become another piece of roadkill on the superhighway of mediocre music. And it would be the same if it was a signed artist paying me a bunch of money to play songs I don't care about. If I can't find a gig I'm into, I stay home. Or go out and see another band that I might like and could possibly work with in the future. This is not a good "business decision" because I'm losing money with that attitude, but that's exactly where business and art are completely at odds and we need to acknowledge and accept that. The whole point of music is to move people, to make people believe in it. If YOU don't even believe in it, the point is lost before you even get onstage.