The middle class musician

sabriel9v · February 12, 2008

Try doing 5 hour nights, 6 nights a week - for months or years at a time. Not only will that improve your stamina, but it will make you a better, more rounded player (as noted above), it will give you the opportunity to learn how to entertain people (a VERY different thing than simply learning the craft of being a musician), it can give you insight into what makes a great song that the crowd responds to and, since it can be a living in 4 hours a night, you have 6-8 hours a day available for individual practice and for group rehearsals. The musicians who did those sorts of gigs were, as a general rule far better musicians than the average schmoe today who plays his band's original music. They had better ears, better technique and better retention of hundreds of songs from all across the musical spectrum. And though you may not think that it 'does nothing for the musical world as a whole', you might need to re-think that; cover bands were most peoples' first and best exposure to live music - and even today, a great dance group can make people who would otherwise never even consider the possibility that you could get out and dance to live music. Some of you might think that it's cheesy, but I personally get a large kick when I see a a partner in a law firm doing the Gator to Shout....

The folks at those gigs are having fun - and anything that bring a little joy into the world is a good thing.

5 hour nights? Who the hell wants to play for five hours. Better yet, who wants to listen to the same band play for five hours. Now you're just getting into drugged out jam band territory.

schmatass · February 12, 2008

5 hour nights? Who the hell wants to play for five hours. Better yet, who wants to listen to the same band play for five hours. Now you're just getting into drugged out jam band territory.

I have to agree. 5 hours is pretty grueling. My band only does half of that: two 75 minute sets a night (about 35 tunes roughly) with a 30 minute break in between sets. Cake walk.

Dave Martin · February 12, 2008

5 hour nights? Who the hell wants to play for five hours. Better yet, who wants to listen to the same band play for five hours. Now you're just getting into drugged out jam band territory.

You've never done it. And you apparently haven't been reading. The gigs were 5 hours. 45 minute sets, 15 minute breaks. Folks DID stay and dance for the whole night. The band was neither drugged out or jamming; with a very few exceptions, songs were under 4 minutes long, just like the singles that we learned then from. The bands I worked with that did 5 hour nights (though admittedly, we'd only do 4 hours monday through thursday with the 5 hourn nights on Friday and Saturday) were professionals who played as well in the 5th set as we did in the 1st.

And lest you think those days are gone, my corporate gig in Memphis a week ago Saturday started at 7:30 and went until 12:30. The first couple of sets were dinner music, then the whole 9 piece band played the three hours - continuously (no breaks). I gather than not only was the band booked for next year's function that night, but they picked up three more dates for later this year. And the gig paid better than a whole week paid in 1976...

Do a little research; study on the 'dime a dance' joints that were around in the '30's and '40's (By the way, Charlie Parker played 'em). 8 and 10 hour days on the band stand, and if any song went over about 2 minutes, the girls dancing would get mad.... Those guys knew LOTS of songs....

cherri · February 12, 2008

5 hour nights?

It's a good idea to be prepared for any contingency. Last summer for example ... we played an afternoon show, four hours, outside a bar for a biker event. The band scheduled for the 8 - midnight gig cancelled at the last minute. We took a two hour break, moved the PA and our rigs inside, and played another four hour show. Different crowd, same venue. Paid twice + a thank you bonus + generous CD sales.

Care not about the merits/credibility/value of covers VS originals. If a band has tasty originals that are appropriate to the event, people will dig them. I think bands get so narrowly focused on their own work, they forget that it isn't going to suit every audience. Instead of adapting their work, they complain about the audience / market / venues / bookers.

Too many folks around passing off mediocre music as 'original and artistic' when it's really just semi okay work. The band doesn't realize it, they love their work. They've slaved over it. Maybe they lack education in music, theory, and arrangement. Or the band hasn't taken the time to truly master their instruments; and haven't developed enough of an ear to tell what's lacking. Or, their work may be excellent, but it doesn't appeal to a large enough audience to make it marketable.

IMHO - Adaptability is the key to making a living as a musician.

gtrbass · February 12, 2008

Is this middle class you're referring to largely consist of cover bands and session players?

In short, yes. It has always been that way. I wouldn't want to call a philharmonic orchestra a cover band per se, but essentially they are covering Mozart, or Beethoven, or whoever.

The middle class for musicians is a service industry. How many players are in original bands where one or two guys dominate the songwriting? Those other players are sidemen. 90% of all musicians are playing music someone else has written.

What are your options to make a living?

Play in a band. 98% of people playing in a band that makes money are playing covers.

Session work. Playing on someone's record for a fee.

Teaching music at an elementary or secondary school level.

Giving music lessons.

Playing in an orchestra.

Working at a retailer.

Working for an MI mfg.

Being a composer for soundtracks, commercials, games, etc. (Everyone thinks they're gonna do this to some degree, but the truth is that very few make a living at it.)

The musical middle class is doing some combination of some of those things to make a living at music.

soundwave106 · February 12, 2008

I have to agree. 5 hours is pretty grueling. My band only does half of that: two 75 minute sets a night (about 35 tunes roughly) with a 30 minute break in between sets. Cake walk.

The average gig when I was in a cover band was 3 sets between 45-60 minutes long, with 15-30 minute breaks. 5 hours wouldn't have been that big of a deal if we had continued building up our song list. (The band unfortunately didn't last to the point.)

schmatass · February 12, 2008

The average gig when I was in a cover band was 3 sets between 45-60 minutes long, with 15-30 minute breaks. 5 hours wouldn't have been that big of a deal if we had continued building up our song list. (The band unfortunately didn't last to the point.)

I've done those types of gigs too and they're not bad at all. Good times.

When I originally read Dave Martin's post about doing 5 hour gigs - it made me think of all the stories I'd read about The Beatles from their Hamburg days; playing 6 hours+ a night all jacked up on Preludin. Those guys paid their dues and then some. To even think of those types of conditions would dwarf most bands by todays comparisons.

sabriel9v · February 12, 2008

You've never done it. And you apparently haven't been reading. The gigs were 5 hours. 45 minute sets, 15 minute breaks. Folks DID stay and dance for the whole night. The band was neither drugged out or jamming; with a very few exceptions, songs were under 4 minutes long, just like the singles that we learned then from. The bands I worked with that did 5 hour nights (though admittedly, we'd only do 4 hours monday through thursday with the 5 hourn nights on Friday and Saturday) were professionals who played as well in the 5th set as we did in the 1st.

And lest you think those days are gone, my corporate gig in Memphis a week ago Saturday started at 7:30 and went until 12:30. The first couple of sets were dinner music, then the whole 9 piece band played the three hours - continuously (no breaks). I gather than not only was the band booked for next year's function that night, but they picked up three more dates for later this year. And the gig paid better than a whole week paid in 1976...

Do a little research; study on the 'dime a dance' joints that were around in the '30's and '40's (By the way, Charlie Parker played 'em). 8 and 10 hour days on the band stand, and if any song went over about 2 minutes, the girls dancing would get mad.... Those guys knew LOTS of songs....

No, I haven't done a 5 hr. set and I have been reading...and still wouldn't do a five hour set. That's just crazy to me unless I'm getting paid an extraordinarily large amount of money. It sounds like your gig in Memphis netted a nice share of cash though. Either way, don't think another musician is not capable of hanging with the big boys just because they don't play five hour sets :poke:

sabriel9v · February 12, 2008

In short, yes. It has always been that way. I wouldn't want to call a philharmonic orchestra a cover band per se, but essentially they are covering Mozart, or Beethoven, or whoever.

The middle class for musicians is a service industry. How many players are in original bands where one or two guys dominate the songwriting? Those other players are sidemen. 90% of all musicians are playing music someone else has written.

What are your options to make a living?

Play in a band. 98% of people playing in a band that makes money are playing covers.

Session work. Playing on someone's record for a fee.

Teaching music at an elementary or secondary school level.

Giving music lessons.

Playing in an orchestra.

Working at a retailer.

Working for an MI mfg.

Being a composer for soundtracks, commercials, games, etc. (Everyone thinks they're gonna do this to some degree, but the truth is that very few make a living at it.)

The musical middle class is doing some combination of some of those things to make a living at music.

I suppose I was also referring to all the people that benefit from the new technology that's been introduced to the music industry ie Tunecore employees, Sonicbids workers, employees at cd duplication factories and warehouses. Not just people who play or teach music.

slight-return · February 12, 2008

I suppose I was also referring to all the people that benefit from the new technology that's been introduced to the music industry ie Tunecore employees, Sonicbids workers, employees at cd duplication factories and warehouses. Not just people who play or teach music.

I don't think that'd be so much a musician middle class as an industrial middle class.

(As we expanding the definition, we will also need to go back and look at the 'back in the day things were polarized' in more than punk band v mega star terms)

We'd have to take a closer look at the numbers (I guess first we'd have to get the numbers) to determine things like

-what has the change in manufacturing/distribution employee count been?

-Are we seeing new jobs or churn? (is the CD duplicator merely a displaced vinyl presser, etc)

-Can we attribute any net new jobs to the technology (or do they covary with a general growth, say, of population)

-I suppose then we'd need to look at if those jobs, largely, are middle class

BlueStrat · February 13, 2008

5 hour nights? Who the hell wants to play for five hours. Better yet, who wants to listen to the same band play for five hours. Now you're just getting into drugged out jam band territory.

A good cover band will turn the room at least once. That's how bars make money.

When we play (4 hours around here, but in Oregon and some Montana clubs I did, 5 hours was the norm-Alaska was 6! ) we usually start out with a crowd who are early to bed types- they leave around 10:30 or 11, but then the mid -evening bar hopping crowd comes in at around ten and may stay until 11-12, when the places usually start thinning out and we're done at one AM, with maybe half the room full. Occaisionally we;ll get a big table of diehard fans stay the whole evening, but not that often.

No cover band in their right minds expects a crowd to stay 5 hours, and in fact the bar would make less if they did.

BlueStrat · February 13, 2008

Do a little research; study on the 'dime a dance' joints that were around in the '30's and '40's (By the way, Charlie Parker played 'em). 8 and 10 hour days on the band stand, and if any song went over about 2 minutes, the girls dancing would get mad.... Those guys knew LOTS of songs....

When Molly Hatchett was playing juke joints in the South before they made it big, they did 5 or 6 hour nights and never took a break, playing with two guitars (they had 3) or one guitarist switching to bass or drums to allow every guy in the band a chance to grab a beer and a pee break or two a night.

BlueStrat · February 13, 2008

It's a good idea to be prepared for any contingency. Last summer for example ... we played an afternoon show, four hours, outside a bar for a biker event. The band scheduled for the 8 - midnight gig cancelled at the last minute. We took a two hour break, moved the PA and our rigs inside, and played another four hour show. Different crowd, same venue. Paid twice + a thank you bonus + generous CD sales.

Care not about the merits/credibility/value of covers VS originals. If a band has tasty originals that are appropriate to the event, people will dig them. I think bands get so narrowly focused on their own work, they forget that it isn't going to suit every audience. Instead of adapting their work, they complain about the audience / market / venues / bookers.

Too many folks around passing off mediocre music as 'original and artistic' when it's really just semi okay work. The band doesn't realize it, they love their work. They've slaved over it. Maybe they lack education in music, theory, and arrangement. Or the band hasn't taken the time to truly master their instruments; and haven't developed enough of an ear to tell what's lacking. Or, their work may be excellent, but it doesn't appeal to a large enough audience to make it marketable.

IMHO - Adaptability is the key to making a living as a musician.

Brilliant post, spot on, and my experience as well. We did a big stage festival gig once where the band following us broke down somwewhere on the road, so as we were winding up our concert set, the stage manager asked if we could give them another 45 minutes, and the band after the one who were supposed to be after us would play the other 45 minutes. We did it without breaking stride, got paid another 500 bucks for that 45 minutes, and as you said, sold more CDs.

sabriel9v · February 13, 2008

When Molly Hatchett was playing juke joints in the South before they made it big, they did 5 or 6 hour nights and never took a break, playing with two guitars (they had 3) or one guitarist switching to bass or drums to allow every guy in the band a chance to grab a beer and a pee break or two a night.

I still think that's absurd and taxing on one's body. The longest I've played is three and a half hrs. We did a few covers, but mainly originals and just jamming. But I have a feeling these dive/juke joints were not compensating artists the way they were supposed to. I've seen guys trash original bands that play multi-bill gigs in other threads and exclaiming that those bands are essentially whoring themselves out. Is playing for 5 hrs. in a dive bar any different? However, it can be a great learning experience for a band to play 3 or 4 hr. long shows by themselves. A harsh, but effective way to build up stage chops.

BlueStrat · February 13, 2008

I still think that's absurd and taxing on one's body. The longest I've played is three and a half hrs. We did a few covers, but mainly originals and just jamming. But I have a feeling these dive/juke joints were not compensating artists the way they were supposed to. I've seen guys trash original bands that play multi-bill gigs in other threads and exclaiming that those bands are essentially whoring themselves out. Is playing for 5 hrs. in a dive bar any different? However, it can be a great learning experience for a band to play 3 or 4 hr. long shows by themselves. A harsh, but effective way to build up stage chops.

They said they were making like 3 or 4 hundred dollars a night then, low for that time, spread around between 5 or 6 guys, but keep in mind it was 1980 dollars.

Sadly, too many bands are going out and playing for the same amount now, and feel only too happy to get it.

They said in the interview I read that where they were from, playing straight through was what you did to keep a crowd. I never had to do that anywhere on the road I played. I do it when I play my solo, though- I play 3 hours straight without a break. I noticed that when I take breaks, people take it as their cue to get up an leave without going to the tip jar. But when they get up to leave while I'm playing, they almost always tip. But it isn't hard for me; I'm sitting on a comfortable chair singing acoustic stuff-not very strenuous at all.

sabriel9v · February 13, 2008

They said they were making like 3 or 4 hundred dollars a night then, low for that time, spread around between 5 or 6 guys, but keep in mind it was 1980 dollars.

Sadly, too many bands are going out and playing for the same amount now, and feel only too happy to get it.

They said in the interview I read that where they were from, playing straight through was what you did to keep a crowd. I never had to do that anywhere on the road I played. I do it when I play my solo, though- I play 3 hours straight without a break. I noticed that when I take breaks, people take it as their cue to get up an leave without going to the tip jar. But when they get up to leave while I'm playing, they almost always tip. But it isn't hard for me; I'm sitting on a comfortable chair singing acoustic stuff-not very strenuous at all.

Yeah, that's about 60-80 bucks per man. Not that great for five hours...also considering that, more than likely, everyone had worked their ass off that night. I think cherri made an excellent point though. Adaptability is the key to making it as a musician. Whether doing live shows or negotiating contracts in a conference room.

BlueStrat · February 13, 2008

I think cherri made an excellent point though. Adaptability is the key to making it as a musician. Whether doing live shows or negotiating contracts in a conference room.

She's pretty smart for an old broad!

:poke:

soundwave106 · February 13, 2008

I've seen guys trash original bands that play multi-bill gigs in other threads and exclaiming that those bands are essentially whoring themselves out. Is playing for 5 hrs. in a dive bar any different?

In this town, dive bars are where you go to find four or five original bands a night that probably these days make $50-$100 TOTAL at best, plus maybe drink specials (whoop-de-do). Which is sort of pointless pay... you've got to be purely in it for the fun of it. But they get a lot of takers.

The cover bands play a step up in bar class... the places I played in a cover band usually offered food of some sort, and actually had stages, dance floors, lights, and decor. The pay was $500-$600 for the 3 hours, usually. Not exactly "make a living" pay, but if you got enough songs and experience, you stepped up to corporate/wedding gigs where you could get something close to acceptable pay levels.

So, it's a different type of whoring out I suppose.

BlueStrat's point about the crowds is spot on too. Crowds don't tend to hang around for more than a set or so. A lot of them are bar-hopping after all. So the nature of the crowd often can change in mid-set. This happens with original bands, too, but a lot of the original bands are either unprepared or unwilling to entertain the crowd these days. It's easier with cover bands to adjust. Frankly, it would ultimately be easiest if you had a mix of covers and originals in your lineup.

Scafeets · February 13, 2008

S.....on the other end of the spectrum you had your broke and barely surviving punk bands .....

....... punk was a baby genre that was forced to create new outlets of distribution and find new avenues because they weren't accepted in the mainstream.

I'm going to wade into this thread late in the game and bring it back to the OP's initial premise -- just for the hell of it.

Those "broke and barely surviving punk bands" did quite well. The Ramones were pulling in $1,500 a night at CBGB's before they had a record deal. Likewise, the Talking Heads, Patti Smith and dozens of others were packing them in at clubs, making more than the would-be corporate rockers who were playing for $500 at the showcase clubs like the Bottom Line in NYC and the Roxy in LA.

The mainstream record companies were late to the party, as they are on all new musical trends. Sire, Stiff and a few other indie labels with strong promo departments and major international distribution got the "product" out there. The early punk bands often had strong, experienced managers and were well represented by the best industry lawyers.

The point: Punk bands did it the way R&B, blues, the British Invasion and every other new form of music made it: The bands played the clubs and started at the small labels. Then, the majors smelled the money - initially making distribution deals and ultimately signing artists directly.

So, to bring the original post up through the next several pages, this thread turned into another "originals vs. covers" debate. With that in mind, do a little research and you'll find that the Ramones, T-Heads and Patti Smith all played covers and had their biggest radio success with covers.

Just like Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, the Beatles, Stones, Fleetwood Mac, etc. -- it took longer for them to develop as songwriters than as performers.

I would suggest that more of today's original bands would benefit from the tradition of covering songs to round out their live sets and recordings.

It took Lennon-McCartney 5 years of touring and 3 albums before they could put together an album of originals. By contrast, there are a lot of young bands who think they can bang out a bunch of original music that will captivate a large audience for 90 minutes.

But from where I sit, there are still precious few concerts or CDs --even from successful artists -- that put 10 winners together.

It's not about "The Industry" and people who blame the current scene on record companies aren't looking at the whole picture. There's a glut of self-produced original music being given away and the sheer volume of crap obscures the truly talented.

The club scene sucks, radio is as bad as it's ever been and the promise of internet exposure is canceled by the sheer volume of mediocre stuff you need to wade through.

As for the middle class, I guess that's just a matter of perspective. If "middle class" means making enough money to raise a family, that's never been an option for most original artists. You either "make it" or not. Some artists make it by doing 200 clubs dates a year on the road. And others by writing and/or producing hits for others or being a first-call sideman or session player. And these individuals represent the other 1% not making it by having a successful recording and concert career. (We'll assume that 1% is making better-than-middle class money, although most of them only make it for a few years.)

That leaves the bulk of middle class musicians as the province of professional musicians who take the other routes discussed here, including teaching, cover and wedding bands, session work, etc.

schmatass · February 13, 2008

SCAFEETS FOR PRESIDENT!

BonzoMcbrain · February 13, 2008

Yeah, I'm not like "against" covers or anything. I spent years jamming on covers with people. We'll still pick out some songs to do and learn. Van Halen had some pretty cool covers, Hendrix had some cool covers, plenty of groups used covers. My only thing is that Van Halen was by no means, a "cover" band. They may have started out as one to break into the scene, but once business picked up, they unleashed their originals. They always wanted to do originals. They also seriously changed the covers they did. Van Halenized it. So, from that perspective, covers are fine with me. I just don't think cover "bands" really add all that much if you were to zoom out. They play a more basic role.

Our record is short two songs, actually. We were supposed to have 14 songs, but we had to cut out the covers. I just didn't want to deal with all of that stuff, you know? There's too much tape to get through to try to sell covers. Totally ridiculous in my view. I'd be more into the cover thing, do it on the side you know, if there was a bigger market around here for it. There's just not a lot going on. I just don't see that changing, and like I said, I'd rather get into a different field than decide to join the cover band ranks around here.

gtrbass · February 13, 2008