Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Scaling Back the Band
Scaling Back the Band
After 10+ years my cover band is close to folding. I told long
stories here last year about a founding member leaving. Well, much of
the fun left with him and I've lost most of my interest. Our Female
Singer has, too, because she has her own band and I found out today
Guitarist (founding member) is also losing interest. Today I heard
that new Male Singer feels like an odd man out in the group and would
prefer to be a front man somewhere, which wouldn't fit with us.
Never liking to walk away from anything (been at my job 17 years) I
came up with an idea to save the band and keep it fun: scale back gigs
to our two favorite places and bring back some old faces. This means
one gig per month, occasionally two. The last two members who left
were the most fun people and are my closest friends. Instead of the
pressure of an active band, we'd have a monthly reunion of friends
getting together for some paid fun.
One gig per month would make this band everybody's side project.
Former Male Singer has another cover band that plays twice a month,
plus he's starting an acoustic project with Former Female Singer, who
is leaving her current band and may be starting yet another. Current
Female Singer and I have an original band together. Guitarist would
like to get into jazz. We would maybe rehearse once, so there would
be no major time commitment. The core musicians played together 10
years and we're tight. We almost never rehearse anyway.
So far, all approached have agreed:
Former Female Singer
Former Male Singer/Guitar/Keys
Current Female Singer
Guitarist
Me
Drummer is always away on business, so he hasn't been approached yet.
He may be a little disappointed that there will be fewer gigs, but
because of his constant traveling he doesn't have time to commit to a
new band, so he's kinda stuck. He'd be free to play with other bands
if he had the time, of course (he does fill-ins).
New Male Singer may either be disappointed or relieved. He doesn't
seem miserable, but this doesn't seem to be the situation he'd enjoy
most. He won't be fired, but he'll want to start looking for a new
band once he hears the plan and will be given time.
The big question is when to do this. We have gigs booked at several
venues through the end of the year, including a radio broadcast in
June and a multi-band charity gig in July (that all these same people
were playing both together and separately anyway). Can't back out of
those.
After 10+ years my cover band is close to folding. I told long
stories here last year about a founding member leaving. Well, much of
the fun left with him and I've lost most of my interest. Our Female
Singer has, too, because she has her own band and I found out today
Guitarist (founding member) is also losing interest. Today I heard
that new Male Singer feels like an odd man out in the group and would
prefer to be a front man somewhere, which wouldn't fit with us.
Never liking to walk away from anything (been at my job 17 years) I
came up with an idea to save the band and keep it fun: scale back gigs
to our two favorite places and bring back some old faces. This means
one gig per month, occasionally two. The last two members who left
were the most fun people and are my closest friends. Instead of the
pressure of an active band, we'd have a monthly reunion of friends
getting together for some paid fun.
One gig per month would make this band everybody's side project.
Former Male Singer has another cover band that plays twice a month,
plus he's starting an acoustic project with Former Female Singer, who
is leaving her current band and may be starting yet another. Current
Female Singer and I have an original band together. Guitarist would
like to get into jazz. We would maybe rehearse once, so there would
be no major time commitment. The core musicians played together 10
years and we're tight. We almost never rehearse anyway.
So far, all approached have agreed:
Former Female Singer
Former Male Singer/Guitar/Keys
Current Female Singer
Guitarist
Me
Drummer is always away on business, so he hasn't been approached yet.
He may be a little disappointed that there will be fewer gigs, but
because of his constant traveling he doesn't have time to commit to a
new band, so he's kinda stuck. He'd be free to play with other bands
if he had the time, of course (he does fill-ins).
New Male Singer may either be disappointed or relieved. He doesn't
seem miserable, but this doesn't seem to be the situation he'd enjoy
most. He won't be fired, but he'll want to start looking for a new
band once he hears the plan and will be given time.
The big question is when to do this. We have gigs booked at several
venues through the end of the year, including a radio broadcast in
June and a multi-band charity gig in July (that all these same people
were playing both together and separately anyway). Can't back out of
those.
Re: Scaling Back the Band
On Apr 21, 3:43 pm, "John (Eryn Shewell Band)"
> The big question is when to do this. We have gigs booked at several
> venues through the end of the year, including a radio broadcast in
> June and a multi-band charity gig in July (that all these same people
> were playing both together and separately anyway). Can't back out of
> those.
I was in a band for 10 years that broke up about 4 years ago.
I miss those guys and we do get together on occasion.
I have been in a few bands since then but it's not the same.
New band members are strangers and the music is different.
With my old band I knew what to expect.
Pt
On Apr 21, 3:43 pm, "John (Eryn Shewell Band)"
> The big question is when to do this. We have gigs booked at several
> venues through the end of the year, including a radio broadcast in
> June and a multi-band charity gig in July (that all these same people
> were playing both together and separately anyway). Can't back out of
> those.
I was in a band for 10 years that broke up about 4 years ago.
I miss those guys and we do get together on occasion.
I have been in a few bands since then but it's not the same.
New band members are strangers and the music is different.
With my old band I knew what to expect.
Pt
Re: Scaling Back the Band
Hook up a steady gig somewhere, 2-4 times a month on an off night, and try
to turn it into a "thing". Take the door if you have to.
Have a "core" group of guys (hopefully including a singer and a
guitarplayer) who run the gig, then rotate the others in as their schedules
dictate. Use "outside" players to fill in the gaps.
This way, you won't have to be constantly booking to keep the thing afloat,
you can work with who you want, and you might make some money to boot.
"John (Eryn Shewell Band)" <skokiaan@aol . com > wrote in message
news:64e197e2-45df-4d1e-8ab0-c5b1c1b918ab@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups . com ...
> After 10+ years my cover band is close to folding. I told long
> stories here last year about a founding member leaving. Well, much of
> the fun left with him and I've lost most of my interest. Our Female
> Singer has, too, because she has her own band and I found out today
> Guitarist (founding member) is also losing interest. Today I heard
> that new Male Singer feels like an odd man out in the group and would
> prefer to be a front man somewhere, which wouldn't fit with us.
>
> Never liking to walk away from anything (been at my job 17 years) I
> came up with an idea to save the band and keep it fun: scale back gigs
> to our two favorite places and bring back some old faces. This means
> one gig per month, occasionally two. The last two members who left
> were the most fun people and are my closest friends. Instead of the
> pressure of an active band, we'd have a monthly reunion of friends
> getting together for some paid fun.
>
> One gig per month would make this band everybody's side project.
> Former Male Singer has another cover band that plays twice a month,
> plus he's starting an acoustic project with Former Female Singer, who
> is leaving her current band and may be starting yet another. Current
> Female Singer and I have an original band together. Guitarist would
> like to get into jazz. We would maybe rehearse once, so there would
> be no major time commitment. The core musicians played together 10
> years and we're tight. We almost never rehearse anyway.
>
> So far, all approached have agreed:
> Former Female Singer
> Former Male Singer/Guitar/Keys
> Current Female Singer
> Guitarist
> Me
>
> Drummer is always away on business, so he hasn't been approached yet.
> He may be a little disappointed that there will be fewer gigs, but
> because of his constant traveling he doesn't have time to commit to a
> new band, so he's kinda stuck. He'd be free to play with other bands
> if he had the time, of course (he does fill-ins).
>
> New Male Singer may either be disappointed or relieved. He doesn't
> seem miserable, but this doesn't seem to be the situation he'd enjoy
> most. He won't be fired, but he'll want to start looking for a new
> band once he hears the plan and will be given time.
>
> The big question is when to do this. We have gigs booked at several
> venues through the end of the year, including a radio broadcast in
> June and a multi-band charity gig in July (that all these same people
> were playing both together and separately anyway). Can't back out of
> those.
Hook up a steady gig somewhere, 2-4 times a month on an off night, and try
to turn it into a "thing". Take the door if you have to.
Have a "core" group of guys (hopefully including a singer and a
guitarplayer) who run the gig, then rotate the others in as their schedules
dictate. Use "outside" players to fill in the gaps.
This way, you won't have to be constantly booking to keep the thing afloat,
you can work with who you want, and you might make some money to boot.
"John (Eryn Shewell Band)" <skokiaan@aol . com > wrote in message
news:64e197e2-45df-4d1e-8ab0-c5b1c1b918ab@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups . com ...
> After 10+ years my cover band is close to folding. I told long
> stories here last year about a founding member leaving. Well, much of
> the fun left with him and I've lost most of my interest. Our Female
> Singer has, too, because she has her own band and I found out today
> Guitarist (founding member) is also losing interest. Today I heard
> that new Male Singer feels like an odd man out in the group and would
> prefer to be a front man somewhere, which wouldn't fit with us.
>
> Never liking to walk away from anything (been at my job 17 years) I
> came up with an idea to save the band and keep it fun: scale back gigs
> to our two favorite places and bring back some old faces. This means
> one gig per month, occasionally two. The last two members who left
> were the most fun people and are my closest friends. Instead of the
> pressure of an active band, we'd have a monthly reunion of friends
> getting together for some paid fun.
>
> One gig per month would make this band everybody's side project.
> Former Male Singer has another cover band that plays twice a month,
> plus he's starting an acoustic project with Former Female Singer, who
> is leaving her current band and may be starting yet another. Current
> Female Singer and I have an original band together. Guitarist would
> like to get into jazz. We would maybe rehearse once, so there would
> be no major time commitment. The core musicians played together 10
> years and we're tight. We almost never rehearse anyway.
>
> So far, all approached have agreed:
> Former Female Singer
> Former Male Singer/Guitar/Keys
> Current Female Singer
> Guitarist
> Me
>
> Drummer is always away on business, so he hasn't been approached yet.
> He may be a little disappointed that there will be fewer gigs, but
> because of his constant traveling he doesn't have time to commit to a
> new band, so he's kinda stuck. He'd be free to play with other bands
> if he had the time, of course (he does fill-ins).
>
> New Male Singer may either be disappointed or relieved. He doesn't
> seem miserable, but this doesn't seem to be the situation he'd enjoy
> most. He won't be fired, but he'll want to start looking for a new
> band once he hears the plan and will be given time.
>
> The big question is when to do this. We have gigs booked at several
> venues through the end of the year, including a radio broadcast in
> June and a multi-band charity gig in July (that all these same people
> were playing both together and separately anyway). Can't back out of
> those.
Re: Scaling Back the Band
On Apr 22, 12:00=EF=BF=BDam, "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote:
> Hook up a steady gig somewhere, 2-4 times a month on an off night, and try=
> to turn it into a "thing". Take the door if you have to.
We already have plenty of well-paying gigs. One Saturday a month for
money is better for all.
> Have a "core" group of guys (hopefully including a singer and a
> guitarplayer) who run the gig, then rotate the others in as their schedule=
s
> dictate. Use "outside" players to fill in the gaps.
Sounds almost like open mic night. Nobody would be interested in
doing that.
> This way, you won't have to be constantly booking to keep the thing afloat=
,
> you can work with who you want, and you might make some money to boot.
We have steady gigs at places we've been playing for many years. We're
automatically booked at these places.
On Apr 22, 12:00=EF=BF=BDam, "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote:
> Hook up a steady gig somewhere, 2-4 times a month on an off night, and try=
> to turn it into a "thing". Take the door if you have to.
We already have plenty of well-paying gigs. One Saturday a month for
money is better for all.
> Have a "core" group of guys (hopefully including a singer and a
> guitarplayer) who run the gig, then rotate the others in as their schedule=
s
> dictate. Use "outside" players to fill in the gaps.
Sounds almost like open mic night. Nobody would be interested in
doing that.
> This way, you won't have to be constantly booking to keep the thing afloat=
,
> you can work with who you want, and you might make some money to boot.
We have steady gigs at places we've been playing for many years. We're
automatically booked at these places.
Re: Scaling Back the Band
a) Then WTF is your problem?
b) if everybody knows the tunes ahead of time and you don't let hacks on
stage, it's not an open mike night. Lots of bands have a flexible lineup
anchored by a couple permanent guys; hell, lots of bands aren't even "bands"
at all.
c) See "a" . Gig + money = "band"
"John (Eryn Shewell Band)" <skokiaan@aol . com > wrote in message
news:64e197e2-45df-4d1e-8ab0-c5b1c1b918ab@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups . com ...
> After 10+ years my cover band is close to folding. I told long
> stories here last year about a founding member leaving. Well, much of
> the fun left with him and I've lost most of my interest. Our Female
> Singer has, too, because she has her own band and I found out today
> Guitarist (founding member) is also losing interest. Today I heard
> that new Male Singer feels like an odd man out in the group and would
> prefer to be a front man somewhere, which wouldn't fit with us.
>
> Never liking to walk away from anything (been at my job 17 years) I
> came up with an idea to save the band and keep it fun: scale back gigs
> to our two favorite places and bring back some old faces. This means
> one gig per month, occasionally two. The last two members who left
> were the most fun people and are my closest friends. Instead of the
> pressure of an active band, we'd have a monthly reunion of friends
> getting together for some paid fun.
>
> One gig per month would make this band everybody's side project.
> Former Male Singer has another cover band that plays twice a month,
> plus he's starting an acoustic project with Former Female Singer, who
> is leaving her current band and may be starting yet another. Current
> Female Singer and I have an original band together. Guitarist would
> like to get into jazz. We would maybe rehearse once, so there would
> be no major time commitment. The core musicians played together 10
> years and we're tight. We almost never rehearse anyway.
>
> So far, all approached have agreed:
> Former Female Singer
> Former Male Singer/Guitar/Keys
> Current Female Singer
> Guitarist
> Me
>
> Drummer is always away on business, so he hasn't been approached yet.
> He may be a little disappointed that there will be fewer gigs, but
> because of his constant traveling he doesn't have time to commit to a
> new band, so he's kinda stuck. He'd be free to play with other bands
> if he had the time, of course (he does fill-ins).
>
> New Male Singer may either be disappointed or relieved. He doesn't
> seem miserable, but this doesn't seem to be the situation he'd enjoy
> most. He won't be fired, but he'll want to start looking for a new
> band once he hears the plan and will be given time.
>
> The big question is when to do this. We have gigs booked at several
> venues through the end of the year, including a radio broadcast in
> June and a multi-band charity gig in July (that all these same people
> were playing both together and separately anyway). Can't back out of
> those.
a) Then WTF is your problem?
b) if everybody knows the tunes ahead of time and you don't let hacks on
stage, it's not an open mike night. Lots of bands have a flexible lineup
anchored by a couple permanent guys; hell, lots of bands aren't even "bands"
at all.
c) See "a" . Gig + money = "band"
"John (Eryn Shewell Band)" <skokiaan@aol . com > wrote in message
news:64e197e2-45df-4d1e-8ab0-c5b1c1b918ab@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups . com ...
> After 10+ years my cover band is close to folding. I told long
> stories here last year about a founding member leaving. Well, much of
> the fun left with him and I've lost most of my interest. Our Female
> Singer has, too, because she has her own band and I found out today
> Guitarist (founding member) is also losing interest. Today I heard
> that new Male Singer feels like an odd man out in the group and would
> prefer to be a front man somewhere, which wouldn't fit with us.
>
> Never liking to walk away from anything (been at my job 17 years) I
> came up with an idea to save the band and keep it fun: scale back gigs
> to our two favorite places and bring back some old faces. This means
> one gig per month, occasionally two. The last two members who left
> were the most fun people and are my closest friends. Instead of the
> pressure of an active band, we'd have a monthly reunion of friends
> getting together for some paid fun.
>
> One gig per month would make this band everybody's side project.
> Former Male Singer has another cover band that plays twice a month,
> plus he's starting an acoustic project with Former Female Singer, who
> is leaving her current band and may be starting yet another. Current
> Female Singer and I have an original band together. Guitarist would
> like to get into jazz. We would maybe rehearse once, so there would
> be no major time commitment. The core musicians played together 10
> years and we're tight. We almost never rehearse anyway.
>
> So far, all approached have agreed:
> Former Female Singer
> Former Male Singer/Guitar/Keys
> Current Female Singer
> Guitarist
> Me
>
> Drummer is always away on business, so he hasn't been approached yet.
> He may be a little disappointed that there will be fewer gigs, but
> because of his constant traveling he doesn't have time to commit to a
> new band, so he's kinda stuck. He'd be free to play with other bands
> if he had the time, of course (he does fill-ins).
>
> New Male Singer may either be disappointed or relieved. He doesn't
> seem miserable, but this doesn't seem to be the situation he'd enjoy
> most. He won't be fired, but he'll want to start looking for a new
> band once he hears the plan and will be given time.
>
> The big question is when to do this. We have gigs booked at several
> venues through the end of the year, including a radio broadcast in
> June and a multi-band charity gig in July (that all these same people
> were playing both together and separately anyway). Can't back out of
> those.
Re: Scaling Back the Band
>new Male Singer feels like an odd man out in the group and would prefer to be a front man somewhere
This is a bit off topic but it's something I've been wondering about
for awhile. In today's music, the singer is now emphasised to the
point where usually the band is named after him. In most cases the
other musicians are merely hired guns to back up the singer. Here's
my question:
In such a climate, doesn't this encourage everyone to want to be a
front man (especially if they have some talent singing)? Why be a
part of the whole when you can be the big name and take the biggest
chunk for yourself? Why would someone aspire to play a particular
instrument if they're just going to be interchangeable and replaceable
cogs in a machine? Do you think we could be headed toward a situation
where we might end up with a shortage of actual musicians, with most
people coming up being people who want to sing and maybe dunk out some
chords on an acoustic to accompany themselves?
>new Male Singer feels like an odd man out in the group and would prefer to be a front man somewhere
This is a bit off topic but it's something I've been wondering about
for awhile. In today's music, the singer is now emphasised to the
point where usually the band is named after him. In most cases the
other musicians are merely hired guns to back up the singer. Here's
my question:
In such a climate, doesn't this encourage everyone to want to be a
front man (especially if they have some talent singing)? Why be a
part of the whole when you can be the big name and take the biggest
chunk for yourself? Why would someone aspire to play a particular
instrument if they're just going to be interchangeable and replaceable
cogs in a machine? Do you think we could be headed toward a situation
where we might end up with a shortage of actual musicians, with most
people coming up being people who want to sing and maybe dunk out some
chords on an acoustic to accompany themselves?
Re: Scaling Back the Band
On Apr 23, 7:24 am, iarwain <iarwai...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> >new Male Singer feels like an odd man out in the group and would prefer to be a front man somewhere
>
> This is a bit off topic but it's something I've been wondering about
> for awhile. In today's music, the singer is now emphasised to the
> point where usually the band is named after him. In most cases the
> other musicians are merely hired guns to back up the singer. Here's
> my question:
>
> In such a climate, doesn't this encourage everyone to want to be a
> front man (especially if they have some talent singing)? Why be a
> part of the whole when you can be the big name and take the biggest
> chunk for yourself? Why would someone aspire to play a particular
> instrument if they're just going to be interchangeable and replaceable
> cogs in a machine? Do you think we could be headed toward a situation
> where we might end up with a shortage of actual musicians, with most
> people coming up being people who want to sing and maybe dunk out some
> chords on an acoustic to accompany themselves?
Being a side man or "gun for hire" is a completely different mind-
set. In a million years I wouldn't want to be the front man. Love
hanging in the shadows and knowing that without the band, the singer
would sink like a rock. Further, if the front man/woman knows
ANYTHING, they'll tell you (in either words or action) that they
couldn't have done it without you. And by the way, being
"interchangeable" is an advantage because it gives you flexibility,
and if you're excellent at what you do, you're first call anyway.
A good side man is worth his/her weight in gold, and those "fronters"
that matter know it.
On Apr 23, 7:24 am, iarwain <iarwai...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> >new Male Singer feels like an odd man out in the group and would prefer to be a front man somewhere
>
> This is a bit off topic but it's something I've been wondering about
> for awhile. In today's music, the singer is now emphasised to the
> point where usually the band is named after him. In most cases the
> other musicians are merely hired guns to back up the singer. Here's
> my question:
>
> In such a climate, doesn't this encourage everyone to want to be a
> front man (especially if they have some talent singing)? Why be a
> part of the whole when you can be the big name and take the biggest
> chunk for yourself? Why would someone aspire to play a particular
> instrument if they're just going to be interchangeable and replaceable
> cogs in a machine? Do you think we could be headed toward a situation
> where we might end up with a shortage of actual musicians, with most
> people coming up being people who want to sing and maybe dunk out some
> chords on an acoustic to accompany themselves?
Being a side man or "gun for hire" is a completely different mind-
set. In a million years I wouldn't want to be the front man. Love
hanging in the shadows and knowing that without the band, the singer
would sink like a rock. Further, if the front man/woman knows
ANYTHING, they'll tell you (in either words or action) that they
couldn't have done it without you. And by the way, being
"interchangeable" is an advantage because it gives you flexibility,
and if you're excellent at what you do, you're first call anyway.
A good side man is worth his/her weight in gold, and those "fronters"
that matter know it.
Re: Scaling Back the Band
> if the front man/woman knows ANYTHING, they'll tell you (in either words or action) that they couldn't have done it without you.
I saw something on TV the other day that said Kenny Chesney gives
members of his band a cut of the merchandising on t-shirts, etc. I
thought that was pretty cool, although it didn't say what the
percentage was. Regardless, he doesn't have to do it. But it sounds
like he wants them to feel part of the team and thus motivated to put
on a good show.
I agree that being a sideman is a different mindset (as we all should
know since this is a bass newsgroup). But I still wonder what is
going to motivate the generation growing up now to want to be
sidemen? When I was growing up (in the 60s and 70s) fans valued the
instrumentalists in a band. They were considered an important part of
the mix. Honestly, I don't see that value being placed there today.
The focus is almost totally on the singer now, and not on the
instrumental track. To some extent you can just program an
instrumental track on a computer or synthesizer now, you don't even
need the musicians. In my day the players got some recognition.
Where's the motivation for kids today to grow up to be sidemen?
> if the front man/woman knows ANYTHING, they'll tell you (in either words or action) that they couldn't have done it without you.
I saw something on TV the other day that said Kenny Chesney gives
members of his band a cut of the merchandising on t-shirts, etc. I
thought that was pretty cool, although it didn't say what the
percentage was. Regardless, he doesn't have to do it. But it sounds
like he wants them to feel part of the team and thus motivated to put
on a good show.
I agree that being a sideman is a different mindset (as we all should
know since this is a bass newsgroup). But I still wonder what is
going to motivate the generation growing up now to want to be
sidemen? When I was growing up (in the 60s and 70s) fans valued the
instrumentalists in a band. They were considered an important part of
the mix. Honestly, I don't see that value being placed there today.
The focus is almost totally on the singer now, and not on the
instrumental track. To some extent you can just program an
instrumental track on a computer or synthesizer now, you don't even
need the musicians. In my day the players got some recognition.
Where's the motivation for kids today to grow up to be sidemen?
Re: Scaling Back the Band
"iarwain" <iarwain_8@hotmail . com > wrote in message
news:7f12c4dd-3f41-40c2-8e86-5932e20e66d1@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
>> if the front man/woman knows ANYTHING, they'll tell you (in either words
>> or action) that they couldn't have done it without you.
>
> I saw something on TV the other day that said Kenny Chesney gives
> members of his band a cut of the merchandising on t-shirts, etc. I
> thought that was pretty cool, although it didn't say what the
> percentage was. Regardless, he doesn't have to do it. But it sounds
> like he wants them to feel part of the team and thus motivated to put
> on a good show.
>
> I agree that being a sideman is a different mindset (as we all should
> know since this is a bass newsgroup). But I still wonder what is
> going to motivate the generation growing up now to want to be
> sidemen? When I was growing up (in the 60s and 70s) fans valued the
> instrumentalists in a band. They were considered an important part of
> the mix. Honestly, I don't see that value being placed there today.
> The focus is almost totally on the singer now, and not on the
> instrumental track. To some extent you can just program an
> instrumental track on a computer or synthesizer now, you don't even
> need the musicians. In my day the players got some recognition.
> Where's the motivation for kids today to grow up to be sidemen?
Interesting conjecture. I was a solo act (piano) for many many years which
is the same as any frontman except less personnel issues to deal with. I
can tell you that there is MUCH less stress being a sideman as well as more
work. You don't have to hustle for gigs, and you don't have to carry the
weight of the show. I suspect a lot of folks who start out as front men
happily slide into the background as they mature. Frontmen generally are
flashy and short lived (as a performer) but sidemen just go on and on. If
you take a look at many bands nowadays, the frontman is young and flashy but
the real players are beat up and gray haired. (Including yours truly) I
have also seen some folks who start out up front and have their talent
noticed by a "big name" band. They often happily give up the front spot in
a no money local band for a backup spot in a real touring road band. (Yes,
I have someone in mind)
Gerry
"iarwain" <iarwain_8@hotmail . com > wrote in message
news:7f12c4dd-3f41-40c2-8e86-5932e20e66d1@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
>> if the front man/woman knows ANYTHING, they'll tell you (in either words
>> or action) that they couldn't have done it without you.
>
> I saw something on TV the other day that said Kenny Chesney gives
> members of his band a cut of the merchandising on t-shirts, etc. I
> thought that was pretty cool, although it didn't say what the
> percentage was. Regardless, he doesn't have to do it. But it sounds
> like he wants them to feel part of the team and thus motivated to put
> on a good show.
>
> I agree that being a sideman is a different mindset (as we all should
> know since this is a bass newsgroup). But I still wonder what is
> going to motivate the generation growing up now to want to be
> sidemen? When I was growing up (in the 60s and 70s) fans valued the
> instrumentalists in a band. They were considered an important part of
> the mix. Honestly, I don't see that value being placed there today.
> The focus is almost totally on the singer now, and not on the
> instrumental track. To some extent you can just program an
> instrumental track on a computer or synthesizer now, you don't even
> need the musicians. In my day the players got some recognition.
> Where's the motivation for kids today to grow up to be sidemen?
Interesting conjecture. I was a solo act (piano) for many many years which
is the same as any frontman except less personnel issues to deal with. I
can tell you that there is MUCH less stress being a sideman as well as more
work. You don't have to hustle for gigs, and you don't have to carry the
weight of the show. I suspect a lot of folks who start out as front men
happily slide into the background as they mature. Frontmen generally are
flashy and short lived (as a performer) but sidemen just go on and on. If
you take a look at many bands nowadays, the frontman is young and flashy but
the real players are beat up and gray haired. (Including yours truly) I
have also seen some folks who start out up front and have their talent
noticed by a "big name" band. They often happily give up the front spot in
a no money local band for a backup spot in a real touring road band. (Yes,
I have someone in mind)
Gerry
Re: Scaling Back the Band
>there is MUCH less stress being a sideman as well as more work
I'm guessing you mean less work. Anyway, good point about there being
less stress. In fact, when playing bass I've generally felt no stress
at all, while the lead vocalists were subject to butterflies. But
again, I'm thinking about kids starting out. Are they going to say
"hey, when I grow up I want to play bass so I won't be under any
stress"?
Look at who the role models are that they're being exposed to now. At
the very least I'm thinking we're gong to have a lot more people
growing up wanting to be singers now as opposed to a bandmember
because that's where the spotlight is. The main focus has always been
the singer (hence the term front man) but not to the extent that it is
now. Look at the current charts, almost all the acts are named after
the singer now. There used to be more bands.
>there is MUCH less stress being a sideman as well as more work
I'm guessing you mean less work. Anyway, good point about there being
less stress. In fact, when playing bass I've generally felt no stress
at all, while the lead vocalists were subject to butterflies. But
again, I'm thinking about kids starting out. Are they going to say
"hey, when I grow up I want to play bass so I won't be under any
stress"?
Look at who the role models are that they're being exposed to now. At
the very least I'm thinking we're gong to have a lot more people
growing up wanting to be singers now as opposed to a bandmember
because that's where the spotlight is. The main focus has always been
the singer (hence the term front man) but not to the extent that it is
now. Look at the current charts, almost all the acts are named after
the singer now. There used to be more bands.
Re: Scaling Back the Band
"iarwain" <iarwain_8@hotmail . com > wrote in message
news:ee21d82d-51fa-44c3-8ddc-291c406de58d@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups . com ...
> >there is MUCH less stress being a sideman as well as more work
>
> I'm guessing you mean less work.
No, I mean more work in that there is lots more work available for a good
sideman than there is for a front man. As a sideman I play with several
different bands in several different genres. Since I don't have to rehearse
or plan shows, then all the work is productive and pays.
Anyway, good point about there being
> less stress. In fact, when playing bass I've generally felt no stress
> at all, while the lead vocalists were subject to butterflies. But
> again, I'm thinking about kids starting out. Are they going to say
> "hey, when I grow up I want to play bass so I won't be under any
> stress"?
>
> Look at who the role models are that they're being exposed to now. At
> the very least I'm thinking we're gong to have a lot more people
> growing up wanting to be singers now as opposed to a bandmember
> because that's where the spotlight is. The main focus has always been
> the singer (hence the term front man) but not to the extent that it is
> now. Look at the current charts, almost all the acts are named after
> the singer now. There used to be more bands.
I totally agree with all of that. The huge increase in solo acts is in
large part a result of that. As a corollary, I'm in rehearsal for a new
jazz trio where I'm fronting on keyboard and vocal. After a while you get
the urge to be out front again. ;-)
Gerry
"iarwain" <iarwain_8@hotmail . com > wrote in message
news:ee21d82d-51fa-44c3-8ddc-291c406de58d@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups . com ...
> >there is MUCH less stress being a sideman as well as more work
>
> I'm guessing you mean less work.
No, I mean more work in that there is lots more work available for a good
sideman than there is for a front man. As a sideman I play with several
different bands in several different genres. Since I don't have to rehearse
or plan shows, then all the work is productive and pays.
Anyway, good point about there being
> less stress. In fact, when playing bass I've generally felt no stress
> at all, while the lead vocalists were subject to butterflies. But
> again, I'm thinking about kids starting out. Are they going to say
> "hey, when I grow up I want to play bass so I won't be under any
> stress"?
>
> Look at who the role models are that they're being exposed to now. At
> the very least I'm thinking we're gong to have a lot more people
> growing up wanting to be singers now as opposed to a bandmember
> because that's where the spotlight is. The main focus has always been
> the singer (hence the term front man) but not to the extent that it is
> now. Look at the current charts, almost all the acts are named after
> the singer now. There used to be more bands.
I totally agree with all of that. The huge increase in solo acts is in
large part a result of that. As a corollary, I'm in rehearsal for a new
jazz trio where I'm fronting on keyboard and vocal. After a while you get
the urge to be out front again. ;-)
Gerry
Re: Scaling Back the Band
> No, I mean more work in that there is lots more work available for
a good sideman
Oh, I see, I thought you were saying there was work in that there was
more preparation involved, a harder job or whatever. Not sure if I
agreed with that anyway. Being a front man is probably harder work in
that you have to keep your energy level up to a greater extent. Not
sure about prep time, it might be about the same.
But yeah, definitely more work is available for sidemen. I guess
that's something to keep in mind. The law of supply and demand then,
would indicate that there is a surplus of sidemen, since they're being
sort of cut out of the equation. That would also suggest there is a
shortage of good front men/women. But that reasoning may not work
either, because of the Nashville model where a relatively small group
of session players are used to record for most of the singers/stars.
> No, I mean more work in that there is lots more work available for
a good sideman
Oh, I see, I thought you were saying there was work in that there was
more preparation involved, a harder job or whatever. Not sure if I
agreed with that anyway. Being a front man is probably harder work in
that you have to keep your energy level up to a greater extent. Not
sure about prep time, it might be about the same.
But yeah, definitely more work is available for sidemen. I guess
that's something to keep in mind. The law of supply and demand then,
would indicate that there is a surplus of sidemen, since they're being
sort of cut out of the equation. That would also suggest there is a
shortage of good front men/women. But that reasoning may not work
either, because of the Nashville model where a relatively small group
of session players are used to record for most of the singers/stars.
Re: Scaling Back the Band
iarwain wrote:
>> if the front man/woman knows ANYTHING, they'll tell you (in either words or action) that they couldn't have done it without you.
>
> I saw something on TV the other day that said Kenny Chesney gives
> members of his band a cut of the merchandising on t-shirts, etc. I
> thought that was pretty cool, although it didn't say what the
> percentage was. Regardless, he doesn't have to do it. But it sounds
> like he wants them to feel part of the team and thus motivated to put
> on a good show.
>
> I agree that being a sideman is a different mindset (as we all should
> know since this is a bass newsgroup). But I still wonder what is
> going to motivate the generation growing up now to want to be
> sidemen? When I was growing up (in the 60s and 70s) fans valued the
> instrumentalists in a band. They were considered an important part of
> the mix. Honestly, I don't see that value being placed there today.
> The focus is almost totally on the singer now, and not on the
> instrumental track. To some extent you can just program an
> instrumental track on a computer or synthesizer now, you don't even
> need the musicians. In my day the players got some recognition.
> Where's the motivation for kids today to grow up to be sidemen?
I honestly don't recall any special emphasis on the instrumentalists
when compared to today. Is it more singer-centric today compared to
yesteryear? It's certainly not a new concept. Off the top of my head I
can think of plenty of "faceless/nameless" bands.
Paul McCartney and Wings
George Harrison
Ringo Starr
John Lennon
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
David Bowie
Elton John
Rod Stewart
Neil Diamond
Gordon Lightfoot
It's really only a matter of degree. I'm not willing to say it's
significantly different these days. What I *know* is different is my
attitude towards bands. When I was young there was a certain fascination
(obsession at times) with the bands I liked. I took the time to learn
all about them.
These days I couldn't give a shit to be quite honest. I have a few songs
by Jimmy Eat World on my MP3 player I love playing "Be My Girl" by Jet
(and the audiences love it too). I dig a lot of the Sublime stuff. But
in reality I couldn't name a single band member nor would I recognize
any of the band members (including singers) if I saw them.
Judging by the Musicians Wanted ads on Craigslist (which I read every
day) I'd say the youth of today is not much different than I was. They
list all sorts of influences and name instrumentalists I've never heard
before.
Now, one thing I *have* noticed among bass players is the incredible
amount of technical skill younger players have when it comes to slap and
fast solos. Yet at the same time I've noticed a lack of fundamentals,
much like what Shaughnessy has mentioned. I think there are more bass
players but fewer sidemen these days.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
iarwain wrote:
>> if the front man/woman knows ANYTHING, they'll tell you (in either words or action) that they couldn't have done it without you.
>
> I saw something on TV the other day that said Kenny Chesney gives
> members of his band a cut of the merchandising on t-shirts, etc. I
> thought that was pretty cool, although it didn't say what the
> percentage was. Regardless, he doesn't have to do it. But it sounds
> like he wants them to feel part of the team and thus motivated to put
> on a good show.
>
> I agree that being a sideman is a different mindset (as we all should
> know since this is a bass newsgroup). But I still wonder what is
> going to motivate the generation growing up now to want to be
> sidemen? When I was growing up (in the 60s and 70s) fans valued the
> instrumentalists in a band. They were considered an important part of
> the mix. Honestly, I don't see that value being placed there today.
> The focus is almost totally on the singer now, and not on the
> instrumental track. To some extent you can just program an
> instrumental track on a computer or synthesizer now, you don't even
> need the musicians. In my day the players got some recognition.
> Where's the motivation for kids today to grow up to be sidemen?
I honestly don't recall any special emphasis on the instrumentalists
when compared to today. Is it more singer-centric today compared to
yesteryear? It's certainly not a new concept. Off the top of my head I
can think of plenty of "faceless/nameless" bands.
Paul McCartney and Wings
George Harrison
Ringo Starr
John Lennon
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
David Bowie
Elton John
Rod Stewart
Neil Diamond
Gordon Lightfoot
It's really only a matter of degree. I'm not willing to say it's
significantly different these days. What I *know* is different is my
attitude towards bands. When I was young there was a certain fascination
(obsession at times) with the bands I liked. I took the time to learn
all about them.
These days I couldn't give a shit to be quite honest. I have a few songs
by Jimmy Eat World on my MP3 player I love playing "Be My Girl" by Jet
(and the audiences love it too). I dig a lot of the Sublime stuff. But
in reality I couldn't name a single band member nor would I recognize
any of the band members (including singers) if I saw them.
Judging by the Musicians Wanted ads on Craigslist (which I read every
day) I'd say the youth of today is not much different than I was. They
list all sorts of influences and name instrumentalists I've never heard
before.
Now, one thing I *have* noticed among bass players is the incredible
amount of technical skill younger players have when it comes to slap and
fast solos. Yet at the same time I've noticed a lack of fundamentals,
much like what Shaughnessy has mentioned. I think there are more bass
players but fewer sidemen these days.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
Re: Scaling Back the Band
On Apr 23, 6:24 am, iarwain <iarwai...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> This is a bit off topic but it's something I've been wondering about
> for awhile. In today's music, the singer is now emphasised to the
> point where usually the band is named after him.
I can only speak on a semi-pro level after playing bass and guitar in
cover bands for 40 years.
I never wanted to go pro.
I don't like the life style and chances of even making a living are
minimum.
Todays music in not your fathers classic rock.
In the old days we went up there and did our thing with improvised
solos, changing tempos, and just a lot of free style.
If nothing else we had fun and audiences loved it.
It's a different story today.
Audiences are sick of hearing Mustang Sally and Roadhouse Blues.
Average audience ages are from 20-30.
What do these people want to hear?
Especially the women.
My last few bands have been modern country chick fronted rock.
Not necessarily my favorite music but I am playing for an audience,
not just myself.
This music has to be played close to right and when we get it right
the audience lets us know that they like it.
Plus this music has a lot of guitar and bass work.
Modern rock is hip hop or metal with way too much effects.
It is difficult if not impossible to recreate many newer rock songs on
stage unless you have a lot of money invested in digital gear.
So for me the modern country is the easiest way and the most
appreciated.
As for where it is going?
Things are getting way too complex.
I believe that in time new music will revert back to the simple days
of 2 guitars, bass and drums.
And of course a singer.
What is considered as a good front person is someone who can sing,
tell jokes, dance around, get audience participation and more.
I would much rather stand in the back and play my bass.
Pt
On Apr 23, 6:24 am, iarwain <iarwai...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> This is a bit off topic but it's something I've been wondering about
> for awhile. In today's music, the singer is now emphasised to the
> point where usually the band is named after him.
I can only speak on a semi-pro level after playing bass and guitar in
cover bands for 40 years.
I never wanted to go pro.
I don't like the life style and chances of even making a living are
minimum.
Todays music in not your fathers classic rock.
In the old days we went up there and did our thing with improvised
solos, changing tempos, and just a lot of free style.
If nothing else we had fun and audiences loved it.
It's a different story today.
Audiences are sick of hearing Mustang Sally and Roadhouse Blues.
Average audience ages are from 20-30.
What do these people want to hear?
Especially the women.
My last few bands have been modern country chick fronted rock.
Not necessarily my favorite music but I am playing for an audience,
not just myself.
This music has to be played close to right and when we get it right
the audience lets us know that they like it.
Plus this music has a lot of guitar and bass work.
Modern rock is hip hop or metal with way too much effects.
It is difficult if not impossible to recreate many newer rock songs on
stage unless you have a lot of money invested in digital gear.
So for me the modern country is the easiest way and the most
appreciated.
As for where it is going?
Things are getting way too complex.
I believe that in time new music will revert back to the simple days
of 2 guitars, bass and drums.
And of course a singer.
What is considered as a good front person is someone who can sing,
tell jokes, dance around, get audience participation and more.
I would much rather stand in the back and play my bass.
Pt
Re: Scaling Back the Band
> Todays music in not your fathers classic rock.
That's for sure, although I've never understood what made people want
to hear Mustang Sally 6000 times in the first place. It's cool that
you're playing in a country band, because modern country probably has
as interesting instrumentation from a musician's point of view as any
other current genre of popular music.
Here's the point though. You're an older guy like me if you've been
playing for 40 years. What started you playing? When I was growing
up you knew that the guy's name who played bass for Queen was John
Deacon, you knew John Bonham was the drummer for Led Zeppelin, you
knew the guitarist for Deep Purple was Ritchie Blackmore. You knew
the names of the guys in the bands, the big ones anyway. Now it's all
a question mark, different session guys play on a singer's different
albums, and maybe different guys go out on the road. If you're
growing up, who is it that inspires you to pick up an instrument? Who
is your role model? Or is some kid going to say, gee I want to be
that anonymous guy in the back?
The last famous bass player, the guy most people could name, is
probably Flea. I've never understood how he got so well known though.
> Todays music in not your fathers classic rock.
That's for sure, although I've never understood what made people want
to hear Mustang Sally 6000 times in the first place. It's cool that
you're playing in a country band, because modern country probably has
as interesting instrumentation from a musician's point of view as any
other current genre of popular music.
Here's the point though. You're an older guy like me if you've been
playing for 40 years. What started you playing? When I was growing
up you knew that the guy's name who played bass for Queen was John
Deacon, you knew John Bonham was the drummer for Led Zeppelin, you
knew the guitarist for Deep Purple was Ritchie Blackmore. You knew
the names of the guys in the bands, the big ones anyway. Now it's all
a question mark, different session guys play on a singer's different
albums, and maybe different guys go out on the road. If you're
growing up, who is it that inspires you to pick up an instrument? Who
is your role model? Or is some kid going to say, gee I want to be
that anonymous guy in the back?
The last famous bass player, the guy most people could name, is
probably Flea. I've never understood how he got so well known though.
Next: check out a new guitar software with over 40000 basic and advance chords its...
Previous: I just quit my band
