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

[trmckenz]

I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread guys! I'm a young leader of an original band, we are nearing completion of the behind the scenes work. We are running the band as a business and incorporating ourselves. We've dropped a ton of money on new pro gear, a laser light show, all the pieces are there... I'm the songwriter and I am focused on keeping that the main thing. I study pop radio religiously, but man I love rocking out to some truly good music.

 

Does this sound like a good plan? I really believe in this project, I want to help change the world for good. Like a much bigger, more real U2. My biggest personal focus is keeping the band motivated. We havent played any shows yet, but we have 8 songs recorded pretty decently I would like to think, and every song I write is the next best one. I really just want some reassurance that I'm doing things the right way, but then again I will not be blinded by arrogance... I want an honest evaluation. Please consider the whole package... image, sound, website, anything. I'm really just trying to learn how to improve.

 

Could you guys please give me a little feedback? I would trust you to give me honest and accurate opinions of my direction. You talked a lot about how some people just don't know that their art sucks... please fill me in!! Any input is greatly appreciated!

 

www.myspace.com/jantrock

[3shiftgtr]

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 Lee, that is really what is at stake here: how does one get to 'good art' And while you have a pov on how to get good art you also have a pov on how to get bad art: you feel that so many bands use 'business' as an excuse for crap art. And I hear ya on that one.

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.

You say that as a person you just cannot bring yourself to play music that you wouldn't listen to as a fan. And that is where the "veer" I mentioned happens. You have a pov that helps you to define your art. You know what works for you, and that has my respect. But to imply that a musician can't play a piece of music they would never listen to with the same conviction and power as something they would is elitist.

Part of the art in being a sideman can most definitely involve NOT caring about your own tastes. In fact, imposing your tastes on playing other folks music is selfish. 'Play for the song' means to render to the song that which IS the song. And nothing more. That you can play with someone who you admire and enjoy as a listener, is great. But that doesn't change good performance criteria. One actually can give a heartfelt and honest performance playing music they wouldn't listen to as a fan. And it is out of RESPECT for that music and all music in general. One certainly can respect a piece of music that they wouldn't normally listen to.

I submit that to be a world class sideman uses the same skills that it takes to be a great player in a great cover band. Those skills do not have to include the fact that you would listen to the music you are performing at home. It is a matter of respect for the music you are playing and respect for the audience that listens to it. And in order to respect the music and it's audience, you must render the song in its most effective manner with the intent of the artist and song intact. And you must deliver that song with passion. The criteria for good musical performance applies to ALL performances; cover band, sideman, new original project, or a hit song you wrote 30 years ago.

Lee, you obviously don't have respect for drunks in a bar who want to hear Skynyrd no matter who is playing it.:lol:

The 'veer' I'm talking about has to do with the fact that just because YOU need be passionate as a listener in order to play something, doesn't mean that when folks don't integrate their listening worlds with their performance worlds, that {censored} art will ensue. Creating the art and performing the art are two different activities. And I agree that both are artistic endeavors, and didn't mean to imply that they weren't.

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)...

...see your giving in here just a little. You mention that you can 'not care' about the songs but focus on a good performance. That is what I'm talking about. It is elitist to say that you can't make good art if you don't care about it as a fan. That's the separation of the creation of art vs. the performance of art that I was talking about in the last post.

Phoning it in blows, agreed. Hack performances blow, agreed. Insincere performances blow, agreed. Dishonest performances suck, agreed. But loving every note you play as a listener to overcome these dangers, is only one solution. It is not the only solution.

[3shiftgtr]

I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread guys! I'm a young leader of an original band, we are nearing completion of the behind the scenes work. We are running the band as a business and incorporating ourselves. We've dropped a ton of money on new pro gear, a laser light show, all the pieces are there... I'm the songwriter and I am focused on keeping that the main thing. I study pop radio religiously, but man I love rocking out to some truly good music. Does this sound like a good plan? I really believe in this project, I want to help change the world for good. Like a much bigger, more real U2. My biggest personal focus is keeping the band motivated. We havent played any shows yet, but we have 8 songs recorded pretty decently I would like to think, and every song I write is the next best one. I really just want some reassurance that I'm doing things the right way, but then again I will not be blinded by arrogance... I want an honest evaluation. Please consider the whole package... image, sound, website, anything. I'm really just trying to learn how to improve. Could you guys please give me a little feedback? I would trust you to give me honest and accurate opinions of my direction. You talked a lot about how some people just don't know that their art sucks... please fill me in!! Any input is greatly appreciated! www.myspace.com/jantrock

Middle of a thread that is pretty in depth is the wrong place to ask this off topic question! Don't worry, tho'. Looks like your new here. Welcome! I made a bunch of noob posts early too. Try starting a thread and asking for some input. Believe me, you'll get plenty of feedback.

[wades_keys]

But to imply that a musician can't play a piece of music they would never listen to with the same conviction and power as something they would is elitist. Part of the art in being a sideman can most definitely involve NOT caring about your own tastes. In fact, imposing your tastes on playing other folks music is selfish. 'Play for the song' means to render to the song that which IS the song. And nothing more.

 

Quoted for truth.

 

If this weren't true, ALL marching bands and orchestras would suck.

[Lee Flier]

You say that as a person you just cannot bring yourself to play music that you wouldn't listen to as a fan. And that is where the "veer" I mentioned happens. You have a pov that helps you to define your art. You know what works for you, and that has my respect. But to imply that a musician can't play a piece of music they would never listen to with the same conviction and power as something they would is elitist.

 

 

But I didn't imply that. I don't care how a musician gets to a point where they can play with power and conviction (I described how I get there personally, but I've acknowledged all along that lots of other people have other ways); all I care about is that they do. Guido mentioned for instance how he does it - which is that he doesn't care about the particular material so much but the act of playing something that really gets the audience off is his motivator. And I told him (sincerely) that I respect that.

 

I don't care what causes you to give a crap about the music you're playing. Just please give a very large crap, give it your all or go home, and don't just give a crap about the paycheck. That's all I ask.

 

 

Part of the art in being a sideman can most definitely involve NOT caring about your own tastes. In fact, imposing your tastes on playing other folks music is selfish. 'Play for the song' means to render to the song that which IS the song. And nothing more.

 

 

I totally agree. I don't "impose" my tastes on anybody; I just don't play with anybody whose songs I don't feel I can serve well. That means not only playing them with conviction but also having the depth of understanding of what the artist is going for that I can come up with really appropriate parts.

 

Some people genuinely do have really broad tastes and/or genuinely take pride in and get off on the challenge of coming up with the right part for whatever is thrown at them. I've already mentioned that. No problem there. Again... as long as you have something to keep your head and heart in the game musically. Not phoning it in, not treating the artist or audience with contempt by pandering to them. That's it. I don't know how many times or ways I need to say it, it's pretty simple.

 

 

One actually can give a heartfelt and honest performance playing music they wouldn't listen to as a fan. And it is out of RESPECT for that music and all music in general. One certainly can respect a piece of music that they wouldn't normally listen to.

 

 

Sure, and there's a lot of music I feel that way about. But "respecting" a piece of music doesn't necessarily mean I can lend it the depth it needs. Sometimes I can really get into playing something I wouldn't normally listen to, because I feel I have something to contribute to it. Other times, I don't. Again, the common denominator is how much can I care about it, how much can I really give to it. If the answer is "not much," I have no business playing it.

[TrickyBoy]

The minute you become a performer, whether or not you wrote the song you're performing, that is your art.

 

 

Here's where I respectfully disagree with you. The minute you become a performer and accept compensation for said performance, that is your job.

 

I make a decent living in computers for my day job, and I'll be the first to admit, that I don't get any of personal satisfaction from it. However, I go to work every morning and do the best job I can to provide the best possible service for my clients. And because of that I get paid well.

 

However not a day goes by where I wouldn't rather be playing guitar for Bruce Springsteen (and to put it bluntly, I'd rather eat a cow turd than listen to consecutive Springsteen tunes). But I can promise you that if I somehow landed a job backing Bruce, you'd have no idea that I truly hate everything he's ever written (with the exception of that Philadelphia song, which I've always been fond of).

[Lee Flier]

Here's where I respectfully disagree with you. The minute you become a performer and accept compensation for said performance, that is your job .

Well you're right - we completely disagree. It's your job AND your art. So you'd best pick your jobs carefully.

I make a decent living in computers for my day job, and I'll be the first to admit, that I don't get any of personal satisfaction from it. However, I go to work every morning and do the best job I can to provide the best possible service for my clients. And because of that I get paid well.

Same here. But that's a job that can be quantified. You don't have to be passionate about it to do a good job at it. You just have to have a good work ethic and the ability to do what the client requires, which is generally pretty well defined. Music or any kind of art requires a lot more than that, and a lot of people seem to have lost sight of that fact.

However not a day goes by where I wouldn't rather be playing guitar for Bruce Springsteen (and to put it bluntly, I'd rather eat a cow turd than listen to consecutive Springsteen tunes).

Well that is where we dramatically part ways. I chose to have the day job that I do because I would much rather do something else for a living than accept a gig playing stuff I don't care about with people I don't care about. I can't think of anything more miserable than that, with the exception of having sex with someone I can't stand. In my book, they're pretty similar. Your mileage may and obviously does vary.

But I can promise you that if I somehow landed a job backing Bruce, you'd have no idea that I truly hate everything he's ever written.

Maybe I wouldn't have any idea that you hate it, but are you going to do the gig with the conviction that Little Steven does? No. Are there other people who could? Yes, so one of those people should have the gig. Would that make a difference to the audience? Yes, although they may or may not know exactly why. Do I think you deserve to get a gig backing someone whose music you can't stand just so you can get out of having to work a pretty decent day job? No, sorry. That might be great for you personally but it sure doesn't do anything for music.

[3shiftgtr]

But I didn't imply that. I don't care how a musician gets to a point where they can play with power and conviction (I described how I get there personally, but I've acknowledged all along that lots of other people have other ways); all I care about is that they do .

K. Gotta admit that I didn't read EVERY word of EVERY post, I was just gleaning....musta gleaned sideways somewhere!

I don't care what causes you to give a crap about the music you're playing. Just please give a very large crap, give it your all or go home, and don't just give a crap about the paycheck. That's all I ask. I totally agree. I don't "impose" my tastes on anybody; I just don't play with anybody whose songs I don't feel I can serve well. That means not only playing them with conviction but also having the depth of understanding of what the artist is going for that I can come up with really appropriate parts. Some people genuinely do have really broad tastes and/or genuinely take pride in and get off on the challenge of coming up with the right part for whatever is thrown at them. I've already mentioned that. No problem there. Again... as long as you have something to keep your head and heart in the game musically. Not phoning it in, not treating the artist or audience with contempt by pandering to them. That's it. I don't know how many times or ways I need to say it, it's pretty simple. Sure, and there's a lot of music I feel that way about. But "respecting" a piece of music doesn't necessarily mean I can lend it the depth it needs. Sometimes I can really get into playing something I wouldn't normally listen to, because I feel I have something to contribute to it. Other times, I don't. Again, the common denominator is how much can I care about it, how much can I really give to it. If the answer is "not much," I have no business playing it.

:thu: for all of this.

[Hegmatronicon]

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.) 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."

 

 

Nickleback, Metallica, Godsmack etc etc

[GCDEF]

...it would liberate you from having to make certain decisions based on emotions rather than what would improve your business, such as what songs to play, or "I'm too cool to play Lynyrd Skynyrd." If you had a roofing business, you wouldn't be a very smart roofer if you said "I ONLY intall tile roofs, I'm too cool to do shingles" if you have a customer that wants shingles.

 

 

Just because you're a business doesn't mean you have to cater to everybody's whim. You create a specialized product and people choose if they want it or not. In fact, specialization - as in setting yourself apart from the crowd - is one way to increase business. In fact, not specializing and trying to play a generic set list to please everybody makes for a pretty drab band, and I think that's where a lot of cover bands go wrong.

 

I think the restaurant analogy works pretty well. You wouldn't expect your favorite sushi restaurant to whip up a pizza just because somebody asks for it.

[wades_keys]

Few chefs are so talented and well-known that they can dictate their own terms that completely and be successful.

 

I go to the restaurant and order off the menu, expecting the chef to prepare the food the right way. I don't diva up and tell him what ingredients to use, make sure you do this, or that...

 

If I don't like the food, presentation or atmosphere, I'm not gonna lecture the chef on what he should do better. I just won't eat there anymore.

 

That chef isn't taking orders from me - he's not asking for requests.

 

I don't take requests either. I use my best judgement when it comes to what to play given the mix of people that I'm playing with.

 

I don't give a {censored} if "everybody" likes Nickelback: my singer can't and won't do Chad Kroeger, we don't have the look or the stage presence for that {censored}, so we ain't doin' it.

 

It seems like the coverband mentality has morphed into "all things for all people" and that's just a load of {censored} as far as I'm concerned - FOR ME. You all do what you do and run your bands the way you think you should.

 

As for me, I'm just gonna try and keep our situation on the rails and pick songs that are fun to play, that we can sound good playing, and that we can enjoy playing.

[Vito Corleone]

That chef isn't taking orders from me - he's not asking for requests.

 

 

The point isn't about 'taking requests'. It's about understanding the marketplace, your place in it, and handling your business accordingly.

 

As I said in an earlier post, if your band would be best served by being 75% business and 25% art and you believe those percentages are reversed, you're {censored}ing up.

 

The #1 priority is to be able to understand your place in the artbusiness continuum. My experience is the vast majority of musicians do not. And their bands suffer as a result. Far too many musicians think they are the next Wolfgang Puck when, in fact, they are much closer to Chef Boy Ar Dee.

 

 

It seems like the coverband mentality has morphed into "all things for all people"

 

 

I don't see that at all. The vast majority of coverbands I see are far more specialized in their approach to playing music than not. What makes you think so many bands are trying to be "all things to all people".

[New Trail]

 

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.......

 

 

Marketing is great, but I don't think any amount of marketing will make someone order a Veal Scone, that they already know they don't like, rather than a Bacon and Cheddar Scone that they DO like! I guess it could make new people try it, tho...

[Lee Flier]

Marketing is great, but I don't think any amount of marketing will make someone order a Veal Scone, that they already know they don't like, rather than a Bacon and Cheddar Scone that they DO like! I guess it could make new people try it, tho...

Yes, that is the whole point of marketing - to get new people to try what you have to offer, not to sway people who've already decided they don't like it.

Here's some basic business for ya: in advertising, if .05% of a target market results in a sale, it's considered a very successful ad campaign. Yes, .05%. 1 in 200 people.

If you're a band and you play in a bar that gets 100 regulars, in other words, you're fortunate if even one person likes your band enough to want to come back next time. The odds are actually a bit better than that because at least you know that all the people in the bar are there at least in part to hear music, so they're a "pre-screened target". But the chance that more than a few of those 100 regulars are going to like most of what you play is fairly slim, unless you have an extremely generic setlist, and even then, that in itself is likely to drive some people away.

But if you start branching out and playing in other bars, and doing advertising that is descriptive of what you have to offer so more people know about it, then you will attract more people to your shows who like what you have to offer, assuming you do it well.

The trouble is that these days, a lot of people with more diverse tastes just stay home and listen to music on the Internet, because any time they go out, all they see is some generic band that they don't like. So reaching those folks via advertising is tricky. But it can be done if you're determined and passionate enough.

[wades_keys]

The point isn't about 'taking requests'. It's about understanding the marketplace, your place in it, and handling your business accordingly. As I said in an earlier post, if your band would be best served by being 75% business and 25% art and you believe those percentages are reversed, you're {censored}ing up. The #1 priority is to be able to understand your place in the artbusiness continuum. My experience is the vast majority of musicians do not. And their bands suffer as a result. Far too many musicians think they are the next Wolfgang Puck when, in fact, they are much closer to Chef Boy Ar Dee. I don't see that at all. The vast majority of coverbands I see are far more specialized in their approach to playing music than not. What makes you think so many bands are trying to be "all things to all people".

 

A band is not an entity that can be controlled. It is a collective.

 

Compromises happen.

 

No one voice can supersede any other voice without consequences.

[TrickyBoy]

Well that is where we dramatically part ways. I chose to have the day job that I do because I would much rather do something else for a living than accept a gig playing stuff I don't care about with people I don't care about. I can't think of anything more miserable than that, with the exception of having sex with someone I can't stand. In my book, they're pretty similar. Your mileage may and obviously does vary.

I made the same decision 20 years ago to pursue a non-music related career. I often think that was a huge mistake. Oh well, what's done is done. All I can do now is make the best of what I've got (and I ain't complaining, I have things pretty good )

I think one place you and I differ in opinion is that you seem to view playing music and performing music as one and the same. For me, I look at them as extremely different. If I was only interested in the artistic aspect of the music I played, I would rarely, if ever perform and would spend almost all my time recording with other musicians. That's where I "get off" musically.

However, what drives me to schlep my gear to a club, set up, sound check, play for four hours tear down and get home at 3am smelling like an ash tray is the satisfaction I get from the audience. I feed off of that. It's the narcissist in me that I'm feeding when we perform out. It's why I think I'd do very well touring with someone who plays music I hate to large crowds. Because I could find other aspects of the performance to get passionate about.

IDK, at this point I may just be rambling. What I can say getting back to my initial point is that I remember seeing the guy playing piano in Nordstrom when I was a teen and thinking "I never want to be that guy". I still don't.

An no disrespect meant by anything here. We differ in opinions. That's why I like this site.

[New Trail]

....The trouble is that these days, a lot of people with more diverse tastes just stay home and listen to music on the Internet, because any time they go out, all they see is some generic band that they don't like. .....

 

I wonder how you know this, first of all, but secondly, if this is true, doesn't it make an even stronger case for playing music that people like? If the people that would like a 20 minute Dream Theater song aren't going out anyway, maybe the people that ARE going out would LOVE it if you play Mustang Sally, if you're running your band as a business, that is?!?

[Vito Corleone]

A band is not an entity that can be controlled. It is a collective. Compromises happen. No one voice can supersede any other voice without consequences.

 

 

GOOD bands are the bands where everyone agrees on a common goal and the compromises only exist on how to reach that goal--and hopefully such compromises are for the better.

 

The Police were successful because, for whatever reasons, the 3 guys decided to be a band that plays whatever songs they write and cover with a heavy reggae/ska influence and with Sting being the primary lead singer. Had they not been willing to stick to this simple plan in the beginning, and were arguing about what styles to play each different song, they'd never have gotten off the ground. From what I understand Sting was never particularly crazy about the reggae/ska thing to begin with but he was smart enough to understand it would work for that band-- i.e. it was a good business decision at the time.

 

The same principle applies to cover bands. There should be little or no compromise on the bigger goals: we are THIS type of band that plays THESE types of gigs to THIS sort of customer in order to play THIS often for THIS amount of money.

 

There may need to be some compromises made along the way on how to reach that goal, but if a cover band is still arguing over what sort of band they want to be, what sort of songs they want to play, and what sort of gigs they want to do, they aren't going to get very far.

[wades_keys]

I wonder how you know this, first of all, but secondly, if this is true, doesn't it make an even stronger case for playing music that people like? If the people that would like a 20 minute Dream Theater song aren't going out anyway, maybe the people that ARE going out would LOVE it if you play Mustang Sally, if you're running your band as a business, that is?!?

 

The bottom line and where things start to go south is when one person assumes that he is a better spokesman for what "the people like" than other band members.

 

Then you get into the real nitty gritty and what motivates each individual and keeps them happy and content in their role in the band.

 

We screw up when we talk about "the band" as some entity with its own personality.

 

We have to consider each person in that collective and what their role is: that has to jibe with where they see themselves as well.

 

Sometimes just being too intense, serious or passionate about "the band" is going to be enough to wear other people in the band out.

 

Sometimes one person's idea of a "discussion" is anothers "argument". Sometimes one person's idea of "what the people will like" is not going to agreed upon by the other.

 

It's all well and good to think that bands can somehow be these magical, utopian, socialist entities - "for the people".

 

In reality that is almost never the case.

 

 

GOOD bands are the bands where everyone agrees on a common goal and the compromises only exist on how to reach that goal--and hopefully such compromises are for the better.

 

Goals are easily agreed on.

 

The devil is in the details.

 

Some just don't care about the details - they let the other guy get "his way", because they don't feel the need to cause a stir.

[Vito Corleone]

We screw up when we talk about "the band" as some entity with it's own personality.

 

 

I disagree. It IS its own entity with its own personality. One that is a product of the collective input of the individual members to be sure, but it is its own entity nonetheless.

 

And this is when the 'run it like a business' analogies come back into play. When you show up to your day job you set aside a certain degree of your individuality and focus instead on what best your individual skills can bring to the collective goal of the business.

 

It's the same thing with a band. It's not about 5 guys all being 100% individuals and throwing it all into a pot and seeing what the resulting soup tastes like. It's about knowing what sort of soup you want to make and what can each individual bring to recipe to make it the best tasting soup possible.

[Lee Flier]

I made the same decision 20 years ago to pursue a non-music related career. I often think that was a huge mistake.

We all have those days. But I've realized everybody has those days regardless what you do. I know lots of full time musicians who have those days where they wish they'd done something else for a living.

I think one place you and I differ in opinion is that you seem to view playing music and performing music as one and the same. For me, I look at them as extremely different. If I was only interested in the artistic aspect of the music I played, I would rarely, if ever perform and would spend almost all my time recording with other musicians. That's where I "get off" musically.

I get off on that too. But the connection with bandmates and audience while onstage, and the continual re-interpretation of songs in that moment, is something I can't get from recording. So we do both.

However, what drives me to schlep my gear to a club, set up, sound check, play for four hours tear down and get home at 3am smelling like an ash tray is the satisfaction I get from the audience. I feed off of that. It's the narcissist in me that I'm feeding when we perform out. It's why I think I'd do very well touring with someone who plays music I hate to large crowds.

Ah, yeah. Well I get off on the satisfaction of the audience too, but... again, looking at it from the perspective of a fan, of an audience member... audiences want to believe that they're experiencing a shared connection to the music. If someone onstage doesn't like the music they're playing, that trust and connection is broken, IMO, even if the audience doesn't directly know it. It's the experience of sharing my passion for the music with the audience that gets me off. The size of the audience doesn't particularly matter. And that is why I'm absolutely sure I get off more playing in front of 100 people where all 100 of us in the room are completely into the music, than I would playing in front of 100,000 people if some of us aren't into it. And I'm sure the audience gets off more too.

[Lee Flier]

I wonder how you know this, first of all,

I know it because I'm in an original band whose potential (and actual) fan base consists of a lot of people who don't go out that often.

but secondly, if this is true, doesn't it make an even stronger case for playing music that people like? If the people that would like a 20 minute Dream Theater song aren't going out anyway, maybe the people that ARE going out would LOVE it if you play Mustang Sally, if you're running your band as a business, that is?!?

No, you're missing the point again. The point is to get those people who don't go out to want to go out again - to see YOUR band. Otherwise you end up with 57 bands playing "Mustang Sally" and a completely moribund music scene with much fewer people even interested in music at all. Kinda like what we mostly have now.

[Vito Corleone]

T It's all well and good to think that bands can somehow be these magical, utopian, socialist entities - "for the people". In reality that is almost never the case.

 

 

Absolutely. I'm on record around here more than once saying I think a democratic approach to a band is a bad one. Somebody(s) has to take charge and other people have to simply be good little soldiers. As long as everyone believes in the common goal, this shouldn't be too big a problem.

 

 

Goals are easily agreed on. The devil is in the details.

 

 

As it is with any business. Which brings us again back to why it is important to treat your band as a business to a large degree.

 

 

Some just don't care about the details - they let the other guy get "his way", because they don't feel the need to cause a stir.

 

 

And that's a GOOD thing. You can't have 5 head chefs in a restaurant. But you do need plenty of good line cooks to make the restaurant work.

[New Trail]

....No, you're missing the point again. The point is to get those people who don't go out to want to go out again - to see YOUR band. Otherwise you end up with 57 bands playing "Mustang Sally" and a completely moribund music scene with much fewer people even interested in music at all. Kinda like what we mostly have now.

 

So you would rather try to get people that aren't going out to go out, rather than to cater to and please the folks that ARE coming out?

[Lee Flier]

So you would rather try to get people that aren't going out to go out, rather than to cater to and please the folks that ARE coming out?

 

 

Yes, exactly, and that's exactly how many of the most successful businesses operate actually. They aren't just catering to people who already know what they want - they're marketing to people who don't know they want something until they try it.

 

See, it's not as if a lot of these people who stay home aren't rabid music fans hungry for something they like. They would go out more if they had something to get excited about. To go back to your restaurant analogy - if you're a person who likes veal scones (or maybe have never tried them, but you would like them if you tried them) and all the restaurants in your area are serving bacon and cheddar scones, which you don't like, then pretty soon you'd just stop going out to eat. That's not because you dislike veal scones, or restaurants. It's because nobody is serving anything you like. If someone took it upon themselves to make something different and market it in a way that could reach you, you would be a very loyal and appreciative customer. In fact, you'd never eat out anywhere else, and you'd tell all your friends.