The middle class musician

[Dave Martin]

This thread leads me to another issue that seems to be missing among many younger musicians; most of the guys I work with can (and do) play all kinds of music; for working musicians here, you have to know tunes. Lots of tunes, in all sorts of styles.

You also have to own a tux, a suit, a sports jacket and a western shirt....

[MartinC]

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.

 

 

It may be absurd, but that's the gig cover bands did when I was doing them in the late 70's early 80's. Five sets, six nights a week on the road. We were not jamming, we were playing tunes in various styles. It wasn't a lot of money, but we made a living at it and worked hard at sounding good. I'd venture to say we made more money than some "touring" original bands running around in a van do today. We all drove our own cars and didn't have to beg for a couch-we had rooms provided. Playing those gigs had nothing to do with playing one set of originals as part of a five band bill for no money. Having played both originals and the cover band thing, I can say that the musicianship was WAY higher in most of the cover band situations. People in those bands could read and play many styles. All of the best original band players I've come across in the last 20 years did the full time cover band thing at some point, whether in orchestras, show bands, or rock bands. I'm amazed that people who have never done the full time cover gig have something negative to say about it. Those guys play full time and make a living. They don't live with mom and dad and put up flyers touting their next show at the pay to play venue. When they get the opportunity to gig with pro original bands of different styles, they are prepared. When that is not available, they work in other situations. A tour used to mean that transportation, rooms, a per diem for food, and pay for the gig was provided. Somehow it's turned into something very different for many bands. That's the fault of musicians themselves.

 

It would be nice to learn a bit of guitar, write some great songs, and make a ton without ever having to learn to play other kinds of music. That lightening bolt does hit someone once in a while. But for people that want to be a working musician over time, that's a sucker bet.

[bigdaddydave]

There is no middle-class in our society today-there are only haves and have-nots. The same is true in the music business-there was a whole generation of session musicians (imagine every song in the Top 40 being performed by actual humans!), club musicians, touring acts, etc. that simply don't exist anymore. These people are the same as the guy without a college degree who used to be able to work at a factory at a decent-paying union job with benefits and a pension and was able to send his kids to college and hope for a better future for them-that guy doesn't exist anymore either. I also don't count working at a music store, cd duplication business, etc. as a "middle class musician jobs"-those are music-related day jobs, not the same thing as making a decent living playing music (cover songs included).

50 years ago, people would have thought it silly to get dressed-up and go out to a club to listen to someone play songs off of a record (CD today). They would have thought it equally silly to go out and have the entertainment be people from the audience singing along to a recorded backing track. In the reality-TV era, the audience is the performer and the performer is audience-leaving professionals like ourselves in a predictable situation.

[coyote-1]

That's the thing. Constantly in these threads we see kids who say reading isn't valuable, and we even see folks who claim it's unprofessional to read music during a performance.

You can bet your ass not one of 'em has ever gotten up onstage with a singer who can sing any of hundreds of songs at a moment's notice, nor with a complete stranger to play a less-than familiar tune.

It happens that the singers I work with really DO know hundreds of songs. And you know what? It was a fun gig, even if it was tiring....

 

[sabriel9v]

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.

 

 

Wow, I leave the forum for three hours and Scafeets lays down the gauntlet of all gauntlets. I don't even know where to start. You mentioned the Talking Heads and Patti Smith and essentially the rest of CBGBs clan. I didn't know those bands were making so much on a nightly basis. However, the second wave of punk rockers including Black Flag, Minor Threat, Bad Brains, and the like were not nearly as financially "empowered." I guess I was thinking about those guys when I spoke of punk rock. Either way, you made some great points and I'm not really looking to poke holes in your argument.

[slight-return]

I guess I was thinking about those guys when I spoke of punk rock.

 

 

I think that might be part of the problem, definition and a concentration on personal interest and exposure skewing the analysis

(Bluestrat made some interesting points about some bands like Minor Threat in terms of biz model...and they were after all a short-lived just-post-highschool band not to mention an 80s...not a 70s band - so I'm not sure they fit very well as a representative sample of the 'in the 70s, musicians were polarized' deal)

 

We also got the loosened definition of middle-class musician now including industrial workers (like record duplication workers), which can really really be diluting the idea of "musician" in terms of us looking at "middle-class musicians"

[BlueStrat]

 

There is no middle-class in our society today-there are only haves and have-nots.

 

 

I wouldn't say that. My life is the very definition of middle class.

 

To quote the great songwriter Chris Knight:

 

"I'm thankful for the things I have

And all the things I don't

I got dreams that will come true

And I got some that won't

Most the time I just walk the line

wherever it goes

'Cuz you can't hang yourself

when you ain't got enough rope..."

[sabriel9v]

I wouldn't say that. My life is the very definition of middle class. To quote the great songwriter Chris Knight: "I'm thankful for the things I have And all the things I don't I got dreams that will come true And I got some that won't Most the time I just walk the line wherever it goes 'Cuz you can't hang yourself when you ain't got enough rope..."

I like that quote. It totally defines the middle class of America

[Dave Martin]

There is no middle-class in our society today-there are only haves and have-nots.

 

Nonsense. Well, I should qualify that - precisely what do you consider the 'haves' to have that the 'have-nots' don't have?

[Ides of March]

You guys are lucky to be playing music as much as you are. I would love to be doing that. Unfortunately with a new baby a wife and a 6 year old my music carreer has ended. I pretty much have been relegated to writing, recording originals in the basement studio and open mic's. But for me original music venues in philadelphia have dwindled down to nothing pretty much. Either closed or burned down. There really isn't an outlet for original bands to make progress in getting their name out. Not to mention there are bands that don't want to start out playing covers, would rather practice their own songs rather than another one that's been beat to death.

[sabriel9v]

You guys are lucky to be playing music as much as you are. I would love to be doing that. Unfortunately with a new baby a wife and a 6 year old my music carreer has ended. I pretty much have been relegated to writing, recording originals in the basement studio and open mic's. But for me original music venues in philadelphia have dwindled down to nothing pretty much. Either closed or burned down. There really isn't an outlet for original bands to make progress in getting their name out. Not to mention there are bands that don't want to start out playing covers, would rather practice their own songs rather than another one that's been beat to death.

 

 

I get a little discouraged every time I read posts like this. I hear about original scenes dwindling or dying...whether it's in Philly, Gainesville, Charlotte, Greenville, Boston, wherever...how are all these scenes dying at the same time? Or are we receiving very biased and inaccurate opinions?

[bigdaddydave]

Nonsense. Well, I should qualify that - precisely what do you consider the 'haves' to have that the 'have-nots' don't have?

 

 

Well, a liveable income and health insurance to start. The manufacturing jobs and middle management jobs that once sustained the middle class have been mostly eliminated or off-shored. The top one percent in terms of net worth in our society control nearly one-fifth of all of the wealth in our economy. In terms of real dollars, workers today actually make less money than they did 20years ago. There has never in our history been a bigger gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans. Look at your local want-ads-what you will probably find are good-paying professional jobs for degreed people and low-paying service jobs-anything in-between will be fairly rare. My father, who only had his GED was able to work at a unionized manufacturing job and make enough money to support a family of 3, have health insurance, and send 2 of us to college (not me, I was gonna be a rock star). He retired with a pension-if you can find a job like that that exists today, I'd like to know about it.

 

And, Bluestrat, I understand that in terms of income you might be the "defintion of middle class" but I also suspect that you are mostly self-employed (correct me if I'm wrong) that's not what I'm talking about here.

[Ides of March]

I get a little discouraged every time I read posts like this. I hear about original scenes dwindling or dying...whether it's in Philly, Gainesville, Charlotte, Greenville, Boston, wherever...how are all these scenes dying at the same time? Or are we receiving very biased and inaccurate opinions?

 

 

I really believe that most original venues don't give new bands a chance. I understand about promotion and getting the word out, myspace, websites whatever but if the songs suck what's the point of spending most of your time promoting when you should be listening to music and learning how to write better songs. Also you get these demands from the bar owners of how many people can you bring! or What is your fan base like? What this and what that. Jesus, a band just starting out isn't going to have 100 fans right away, or be able to fill THEIR {censored}ing bar with people. Maybe their bar should have customers for the band, maybe we should be asking how many people will be at their bar that night! Or we won't play!

 

Plus I am sure bar owners or original music are probably sick of these bands proclaiming to be the greatest thing since the Beatles and end up being immature dicks, or bands that just plain aren't any good. That will cause the customers to leave.

[sabriel9v]

 

I really believe that most original venues don't give new bands a chance. I understand about promotion and getting the word out, myspace, websites whatever but if the songs suck what's the point of spending most of your time promoting when you should be listening to music and learning how to write better songs.

 

 

It seems like what you're suggesting is not a question of age, but professionalism and talent. I feel those two things are autonomous of a band's age. What if all the members have played in different groups, some of those groups being mildly successful. I mean look at Rage Against the Machine and Tool. All those guys had been in other bands, paid their dues, and hit it big because they had already attended band camp and walked the walk.

[the-good-way]

...how are all these scenes dying at the same time?

 

 

It may be a variety of causes, some of which may be a function of the 'new way'.

 

An orientation to recorded programming as "the entertainment" could yield different user experience and expectations as in "who wants to listen to the same band play for five hours?" as contrasted to who's the band tonight (all-night) or even a "house band" system

 

(An interesting amplifying factor - the new generation of Juke Boxes being web-enabled, can even flatten the "rotation" of the tradtional juke box)

 

 

The DIY/catharsis motivation that was dicussed in the "Black Flag" thread may have overshot the comfort zone for the aspiring young performer. DIY instead of DIy -- where the catharsis of DIY is fully democratized (residing with each individual -- the YOURSELF ), not a representative republic (residing with selected performers..."the band"...a proxy for yourself) as in karaoke or choosing "a playlist" from the, near infinite juke-box

 

This could be the practical realization, at least in part, of Warhol's notable "In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes"

 

(an interesting convergence - one successful operating model of the 'new way' seems to be abstracting the content generation a level...Youtube, myspace, even HC forums rely heavilly on, not only, user-generated content, but freely-offered content)

[BlueStrat]

 

Well, a liveable income and health insurance to start. The manufacturing jobs and middle management jobs that once sustained the middle class have been mostly eliminated or off-shored. The top one percent in terms of net worth in our society control nearly one-fifth of all of the wealth in our economy. In terms of real dollars, workers today actually make less money than they did 20years ago. There has never in our history been a bigger gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans. Look at your local want-ads-what you will probably find are good-paying professional jobs for degreed people and low-paying service jobs-anything in-between will be fairly rare. My father, who only had his GED was able to work at a unionized manufacturing job and make enough money to support a family of 3, have health insurance, and send 2 of us to college (not me, I was gonna be a rock star). He retired with a pension-if you can find a job like that that exists today, I'd like to know about it. And, Bluestrat, I understand that in terms of income you might be the "defintion of middle class" but I also suspect that you are mostly self-employed (correct me if I'm wrong) that's not what I'm talking about here.

 

 

Actually, the company I've subbed from for the last 16 years offered me a job two years ago as a salaried employee supervisor. I currently earn over 50k a year, as does my wife, plus the 6 or 7k I make playing music.

 

As far as the top 1% is concerned, you're right, but I'd also add than never in the history of the country have so few payed so much of the total revenue payed in to the government. They may possess 20% of the wealth, but they pay about 40% of all income taxes collected; the top 5 % pay 50%, and the top 10% pay 60%. The bottom 10% pay 0.

[gtrbass]

I really believe that most original venues don't give new bands a chance. I understand about promotion and getting the word out, myspace, websites whatever but if the songs suck what's the point of spending most of your time promoting when you should be listening to music and learning how to write better songs. Also you get these demands from the bar owners of how many people can you bring! or What is your fan base like? What this and what that. Jesus, a band just starting out isn't going to have 100 fans right away, or be able to fill THEIR {censored}ing bar with people. Maybe their bar should have customers for the band, maybe we should be asking how many people will be at their bar that night! Or we won't play! Plus I am sure bar owners or original music are probably sick of these bands proclaiming to be the greatest thing since the Beatles and end up being immature dicks, or bands that just plain aren't any good. That will cause the customers to leave.

 

 

If you are going to launch a product or a service, the responsibility to create demand is up to the developer. You could look at the club as a point of distribution for your entertainment services. In any distribution arrangement there is an expectation of sales. Music entertainment is a 'value add' service.

 

Unfortunately, original music is rarely a form of entertainment that the consumer will seek and a built in audience is uncommon. The only original clubs I know of which have a built in walk up crowd are 'cool hang' venues like CBGB's (RIP), or some college bars.

 

It is certainly a catch 22.

[sabriel9v]

It may be a variety of causes, some of which may be a function of the 'new way'. An orientation to recorded programming as "the entertainment" could yield different user experience and expectations as in "who wants to listen to the same band play for five hours?" as contrasted to who's the band tonight (all-night) or even a "house band" system (An interesting amplifying factor - the new generation of Juke Boxes being web-enabled, can even flatten the "rotation" of the tradtional juke box) The DIY/catharsis motivation that was dicussed in the "Black Flag" thread may have overshot the comfort zone for the aspiring young performer. DIY instead of DIy -- where the catharsis of DIY is fully democratized (residing with each individual -- the YOURSELF ), not a representative republic (residing with selected performers..."the band"...a proxy for yourself) as in karaoke or choosing "a playlist" from the, near infinite juke-box This could be the practical realization, at least in part, of Warhol's notable "In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes" (an interesting convergence - one successful operating model of the 'new way' seems to be abstracting the content generation a level...Youtube, myspace, even HC forums rely heavilly on, not only, user-generated content, but freely-offered content)

 

 

is this slight return?

[bigdaddydave]

Actually, the company I've subbed from for the last 16 years offered me a job two years ago as a salaried employee supervisor. I currently earn over 50k a year, as does my wife, plus the 6 or 7k I make playing music. As far as the top 1% is concerned, you're right, but I'd also add than never in the history of the country have so few payed so much of the total revenue payed in to the government. They may possess 20% of the wealth, but they pay about 40% of all income taxes collected; the top 5 % pay 50%, and the top 10% pay 60%. The bottom 10% pay 0.

Sorry for the mis-information about ya-so you're really a drone just like the rest of us! . You're completely correct about the taxes vs. income situation, the bottom 10% who don't pay taxes are actually getting a tax refund this year . However, I think that such an income gap has created an almost feudal system with nobility and serfs, without much in-between.

I still maintain, though, that the jobs that created the "American Middle Class" in the post-war era are gone. So many hard-working families are one layoff or medical crisis away from total disaster. Back to my dear old dad-he was neither degreed nor a professional, but he was able to give my brothers and I a better life-something many people just aren't able to do for their kids today.
Anyway, for anyone who's interested, the book "Nickel and Dimed in America" by Barbara Eichmann (I think that's her name) will really open your eyes to what's going on. OK, I'll step down from the soapbox-pretty soon my posts are going to get moved to the Political Forum-and that place scares me...

[coyote-1]

Where'd you get these numbers? Have a link? To an official source?

Actually, the company I've subbed from for the last 16 years offered me a job two years ago as a salaried employee supervisor. I currently earn over 50k a year, as does my wife, plus the 6 or 7k I make playing music. As far as the top 1% is concerned, you're right, but I'd also add than never in the history of the country have so few payed so much of the total revenue payed in to the government. They may possess 20% of the wealth, but they pay about 40% of all income taxes collected; the top 5 % pay 50%, and the top 10% pay 60%. The bottom 10% pay 0.

And what exactly ARE these numbers? When you say "top 1%", are you saying "of 100 million earners, the one million individuals who have the highest declared wage income"? Or "the one million who have the highest individual total annual compensation?? Or is that top 1% as measured against an average earner, which would skew those numbers?

You need to be clearer. Then we'll get to your contentions.

[BonzoMcbrain]

I think a built in audience is there, in a sense. Like, my friends and all have heard us working on some of this stuff, and they relay their thoughts to their friends. So, I've got a pretty big group of people waiting to hear some new tunes!

It's not a big audience by any means, but it's certainly enough to fill up a bar if everyone can make it out on the night of the gig. We've always had a good audience in the past. We have our fair share of local support, even though a third of them haven't heard a note. I just met them through a friend, and now we're friends, and they're all interested because of word of mouth and our "image" or something like that.

So, I'd say your friends are kind of like a built in audience. They can help you get the project off and running, and you really can't beat word of mouth.

[soundwave106]

As far as the top 1% is concerned, you're right, but I'd also add than never in the history of the country have so few payed so much of the total revenue payed in to the government. They may possess 20% of the wealth, but they pay about 40% of all income taxes collected; the top 5 % pay 50%, and the top 10% pay 60%. The bottom 10% pay 0.

 

 

Personally, I don't find that the % statistics mean that much. Even with a flat tax rate, one person making $1 billion would require 25,000 people making an average of $40,000 just to match the billionaire's contribution. Unless the tax is severely regressive, those who make more pay more.

 

The top income tax rate is quite a bit less than it was in say the 1950s where the top bracket was around 90%... whether that caused less people in those times to actually enter that top bracket, who knows. From what I remember, the income inequality now is actually less than it was in the 1880s. It is greater than it was in the 1950s, though.

[Dean Roddey]

You can't have a maximum tax bracket that's 90%. That will just crush the innovatio out of the system. I think that 25% of someone's income, no matter how big it is, is enough. They should actually have to pay it, and not be able to weasel out of it, but that's enough. One would hope that these folks, once they get beyond their Darwinistic competition phase, will move more into a philanthropic mode. If it can happen to Bill Gates, it can happen to anyone.

[Ides of March]

It seems like what you're suggesting is not a question of age, but professionalism and talent. I feel those two things are autonomous of a band's age. What if all the members have played in different groups, some of those groups being mildly successful. I mean look at Rage Against the Machine and Tool. All those guys had been in other bands, paid their dues, and hit it big because they had already attended band camp and walked the walk.

 

 

Yeah, but new bands have to start somewhere. And a good demo is where to start. But to completely honest, it's availability. Not everyone wants to be in a cover band. And there are alot of songwriters that believe in the songs they write to be pretty good. But where to play them? You can't get fans if they can't come see you.

[Dave Martin]

There has never in our history been a bigger gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans.

 

That's not strictly true; the gilded age that gave us the Vanderbilts and the like were stunning for both extreme wealth and extreme poverty (in real inflation and tax adjusted dollars, the robber baron's fortunes were huge - at a time when the poorest americans were literally starving to death). Very few americans actually starve these days, which raises the bottom of gap. Taxes lower the top of the gap (remember that there was no income tax in those days; that was a 'temporary' measure enacted to help pay for the Great War.