Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Scaling Back the Band
Re: Scaling Back the Band
On Apr 23, 12:40 pm, iarwain <iarwai...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> Here's the point though. You're an older guy like me if you've been
> playing for 40 years. What started you playing?
I've been playing guitar and bass for 40 years but I started on other
instruments.
My parents were both professional musicians and there was always some
sort of live music going on.
I started on piano at 5, trumpet at 8, precussion at 10 the guitar and
upright around 11 or 12.
I never had a favorite player or guitar hero.
There were not many solo guitar players in those days.
Les Paul and Mary Ford, Link Wrey, Duane Eddy were people I admired.
I started taking jazz guitar lessons mostly because in those days not
many teachers taught rock.
It was quite a few years before I tried to emulate other guitar
players.
And even these days when I play rock, blues, country, funk etc there
is still a hint of jazz in what I play.
Pt
.
On Apr 23, 12:40 pm, iarwain <iarwai...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> Here's the point though. You're an older guy like me if you've been
> playing for 40 years. What started you playing?
I've been playing guitar and bass for 40 years but I started on other
instruments.
My parents were both professional musicians and there was always some
sort of live music going on.
I started on piano at 5, trumpet at 8, precussion at 10 the guitar and
upright around 11 or 12.
I never had a favorite player or guitar hero.
There were not many solo guitar players in those days.
Les Paul and Mary Ford, Link Wrey, Duane Eddy were people I admired.
I started taking jazz guitar lessons mostly because in those days not
many teachers taught rock.
It was quite a few years before I tried to emulate other guitar
players.
And even these days when I play rock, blues, country, funk etc there
is still a hint of jazz in what I play.
Pt
.
Re: Scaling Back the Band
> Les Paul and Mary Ford, Link Wrey, Duane Eddy were people I admired.
You brought up family as being one way music is passed down, that's a
good point. Another strike on the negative side is the way music
classes are being cut more these days due to economic reasons - it's
considered expendable.
So who are the Les Paul and Mary Fords of today (or the Duane Eddy for
that matter)? Chances are Les Paul wouldn't even get billing in
today's climate, it would just be Mary Ford.
> Les Paul and Mary Ford, Link Wrey, Duane Eddy were people I admired.
You brought up family as being one way music is passed down, that's a
good point. Another strike on the negative side is the way music
classes are being cut more these days due to economic reasons - it's
considered expendable.
So who are the Les Paul and Mary Fords of today (or the Duane Eddy for
that matter)? Chances are Les Paul wouldn't even get billing in
today's climate, it would just be Mary Ford.
Re: Scaling Back the Band
I don't think a lot of players ever started out thinking "Hey I want to be a
sideman and spend my life backing up someone famous". Most start out wanting
to be superstars, or at least be a part of a band. It's just that if you
want to be a WORKING musician, you quickly find out that accompanying
"stars" is where 90% of the work is at.
As far as the charts the trend in major labels for at least the last 20
years has been to find a great act, sign the singer only, and ditch the
band. Remember Miami Sound Machine? then it became 'Gloria Estefan AND Miami
Sound Machine" ", then just Gloria Estefan". Now, they don't even bother
with those niceties.
From the label perspective, there's less upfront expense, less of a cut to
payout, less politics, no "bad" songs to weed through and fight over, and
they can focus their marketing on one person rather than a collective band.
Not saying it's right, just that it is.
Where singers almost always make the mistake is in BELIEVING they hype that
is showered upon them in order to get them to do something - whether it's
sign a contract or jump in the sack. The truth is, singers are generally
insecure by nature, know little or nothing ABOUT music, and need other
musicians they can trust to help them create.
Behind every "star" is an indispensable musician who makes it possible for
them to BE a star. It's just a question of billing.
As far as where the next generation of sideman are going to come from,
damned if I know. The music situation among the kids has improved somewhat -
they have finally stopped tuning to drop C - but between Nirvana and Green
Day, they are missing a lot of the essential elements (feel, swing/shuffle,
etc). I'm sure there will always be guys who can do the job, but that pool
will be considerably smaller in 20 years.
"iarwain" <iarwain_8@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:58e64c74-64ff-4350-911d-aad1718455d3@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
> >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?
I don't think a lot of players ever started out thinking "Hey I want to be a
sideman and spend my life backing up someone famous". Most start out wanting
to be superstars, or at least be a part of a band. It's just that if you
want to be a WORKING musician, you quickly find out that accompanying
"stars" is where 90% of the work is at.
As far as the charts the trend in major labels for at least the last 20
years has been to find a great act, sign the singer only, and ditch the
band. Remember Miami Sound Machine? then it became 'Gloria Estefan AND Miami
Sound Machine" ", then just Gloria Estefan". Now, they don't even bother
with those niceties.
From the label perspective, there's less upfront expense, less of a cut to
payout, less politics, no "bad" songs to weed through and fight over, and
they can focus their marketing on one person rather than a collective band.
Not saying it's right, just that it is.
Where singers almost always make the mistake is in BELIEVING they hype that
is showered upon them in order to get them to do something - whether it's
sign a contract or jump in the sack. The truth is, singers are generally
insecure by nature, know little or nothing ABOUT music, and need other
musicians they can trust to help them create.
Behind every "star" is an indispensable musician who makes it possible for
them to BE a star. It's just a question of billing.
As far as where the next generation of sideman are going to come from,
damned if I know. The music situation among the kids has improved somewhat -
they have finally stopped tuning to drop C - but between Nirvana and Green
Day, they are missing a lot of the essential elements (feel, swing/shuffle,
etc). I'm sure there will always be guys who can do the job, but that pool
will be considerably smaller in 20 years.
"iarwain" <iarwain_8@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:58e64c74-64ff-4350-911d-aad1718455d3@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
> >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
>Remember Miami Sound Machine? then it became 'Gloria Estefan AND Miami Sound Machine" ", then just Gloria Estefan".
********
Remember when Gwen Stefani was in No Doubt?
> Where singers almost always make the mistake is in BELIEVING they hype that
> is showered upon them in order to get them to do something
********
It's probaby easier for the labels to control one person who sings
than a whole band who have artistic aspirations.
> Behind every "star" is an indispensable musician who makes it possible forthem to BE a star. It's just a question of billing.
********
Seems like the trend today is for that indespensible musician to be
the producer.
> I'm sure there will always be guys who can do the job, but that pool will be considerably smaller in 20 years.
********
Hmm, maybe all this focus on the singer now is actually a good thing
for the future. Maybe all the kids growing up now will want to be
singers, there will be a glut of front men, and a shortage of
musicians to back them up. Then maybe the players will start getting
some of their due again. Right now there's probably a surplus of
sidemen, with all the boomers and early post-boomers who have grown up
to play the instruments.
>Remember Miami Sound Machine? then it became 'Gloria Estefan AND Miami Sound Machine" ", then just Gloria Estefan".
********
Remember when Gwen Stefani was in No Doubt?
> Where singers almost always make the mistake is in BELIEVING they hype that
> is showered upon them in order to get them to do something
********
It's probaby easier for the labels to control one person who sings
than a whole band who have artistic aspirations.
> Behind every "star" is an indispensable musician who makes it possible forthem to BE a star. It's just a question of billing.
********
Seems like the trend today is for that indespensible musician to be
the producer.
> I'm sure there will always be guys who can do the job, but that pool will be considerably smaller in 20 years.
********
Hmm, maybe all this focus on the singer now is actually a good thing
for the future. Maybe all the kids growing up now will want to be
singers, there will be a glut of front men, and a shortage of
musicians to back them up. Then maybe the players will start getting
some of their due again. Right now there's probably a surplus of
sidemen, with all the boomers and early post-boomers who have grown up
to play the instruments.
Re: Scaling Back the Band
iarwain <iarwain_8@hotmail,com > wrote:
>> Remember Miami Sound Machine? then it became 'Gloria Estefan AND
>> Miami Sound Machine" ", then just Gloria Estefan".
>
> ********
>
> Remember when Gwen Stefani was in No Doubt?
>
>> Where singers almost always make the mistake is in BELIEVING they
>> hype that
>> is showered upon them in order to get them to do something
>
> ********
>
> It's probaby easier for the labels to control one person who sings
> than a whole band who have artistic aspirations.
>
>> Behind every "star" is an indispensable musician who makes it
>> possible forthem to BE a star. It's just a question of billing.
>
> ********
>
> Seems like the trend today is for that indespensible musician to be
> the producer.
>
>> I'm sure there will always be guys who can do the job, but that pool
>> will be considerably smaller in 20 years.
>
> ********
>
> Hmm, maybe all this focus on the singer now is actually a good thing
> for the future. Maybe all the kids growing up now will want to be
> singers, there will be a glut of front men, and a shortage of
> musicians to back them up. Then maybe the players will start getting
> some of their due again. Right now there's probably a surplus of
> sidemen, with all the boomers and early post-boomers who have grown up
> to play the instruments.
And the pendulum continues to swing. As I said in response to your post
in rec.music.beatles, I agree that the musicians got more attention in
1966 than now, but not necessarily in 1961!
iarwain <iarwain_8@hotmail,com > wrote:
>> Remember Miami Sound Machine? then it became 'Gloria Estefan AND
>> Miami Sound Machine" ", then just Gloria Estefan".
>
> ********
>
> Remember when Gwen Stefani was in No Doubt?
>
>> Where singers almost always make the mistake is in BELIEVING they
>> hype that
>> is showered upon them in order to get them to do something
>
> ********
>
> It's probaby easier for the labels to control one person who sings
> than a whole band who have artistic aspirations.
>
>> Behind every "star" is an indispensable musician who makes it
>> possible forthem to BE a star. It's just a question of billing.
>
> ********
>
> Seems like the trend today is for that indespensible musician to be
> the producer.
>
>> I'm sure there will always be guys who can do the job, but that pool
>> will be considerably smaller in 20 years.
>
> ********
>
> Hmm, maybe all this focus on the singer now is actually a good thing
> for the future. Maybe all the kids growing up now will want to be
> singers, there will be a glut of front men, and a shortage of
> musicians to back them up. Then maybe the players will start getting
> some of their due again. Right now there's probably a surplus of
> sidemen, with all the boomers and early post-boomers who have grown up
> to play the instruments.
And the pendulum continues to swing. As I said in response to your post
in rec.music.beatles, I agree that the musicians got more attention in
1966 than now, but not necessarily in 1961!
Re: Scaling Back the Band
> And the pendulum continues to swing. As I said in response to your post in rec.music.beatles, I agree that the musicians got more attention in 1966 than now, but not necessarily in 1961!
Hello, atheist :)
I know you know this, but in hindsight at least, the music in '61 was
considered to be in a bit of a slump. For rock and roll anyway. Just
like today.
Yeah, I've been posting too much today. Kind of tired from working
all weak and energy levels are low so I've done too much websurfing
today. I'll feel guilty tomorrow.
> And the pendulum continues to swing. As I said in response to your post in rec.music.beatles, I agree that the musicians got more attention in 1966 than now, but not necessarily in 1961!
Hello, atheist :)
I know you know this, but in hindsight at least, the music in '61 was
considered to be in a bit of a slump. For rock and roll anyway. Just
like today.
Yeah, I've been posting too much today. Kind of tired from working
all weak and energy levels are low so I've done too much websurfing
today. I'll feel guilty tomorrow.
Re: Scaling Back the Band
iarwain <iarwain_8@hotmail,com > wrote:
>> And the pendulum continues to swing. As I said in response to your
>> post in rec.music.beatles, I agree that the musicians got more
>> attention in 1966 than now, but not necessarily in 1961!
>
> Hello, atheist :)
> I know you know this, but in hindsight at least, the music in '61 was
> considered to be in a bit of a slump. For rock and roll anyway. Just
> like today.
>
> Yeah, I've been posting too much today. Kind of tired from working
> all weak and energy levels are low so I've done too much websurfing
> today. I'll feel guilty tomorrow.
I guess as an optimistic "atheist" I have to convince myself that what
we're seeing is a temporary slump as well. Gotta have hope! :-) But I
also accept that some of the change is permanent; I don't think we'll
ever have a time again where a band comes along and stirs the
imagination *universally* the way the Beatles did.
iarwain <iarwain_8@hotmail,com > wrote:
>> And the pendulum continues to swing. As I said in response to your
>> post in rec.music.beatles, I agree that the musicians got more
>> attention in 1966 than now, but not necessarily in 1961!
>
> Hello, atheist :)
> I know you know this, but in hindsight at least, the music in '61 was
> considered to be in a bit of a slump. For rock and roll anyway. Just
> like today.
>
> Yeah, I've been posting too much today. Kind of tired from working
> all weak and energy levels are low so I've done too much websurfing
> today. I'll feel guilty tomorrow.
I guess as an optimistic "atheist" I have to convince myself that what
we're seeing is a temporary slump as well. Gotta have hope! :-) But I
also accept that some of the change is permanent; I don't think we'll
ever have a time again where a band comes along and stirs the
imagination *universally* the way the Beatles did.
Re: Scaling Back the Band
RichL wrote:
> I guess as an optimistic "atheist" I have to convince myself that what
> we're seeing is a temporary slump as well. Gotta have hope! :-) But I
> also accept that some of the change is permanent; I don't think we'll
> ever have a time again where a band comes along and stirs the
> imagination *universally* the way the Beatles did.
If we did, then the whole process wouldn't be so special.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
RichL wrote:
> I guess as an optimistic "atheist" I have to convince myself that what
> we're seeing is a temporary slump as well. Gotta have hope! :-) But I
> also accept that some of the change is permanent; I don't think we'll
> ever have a time again where a band comes along and stirs the
> imagination *universally* the way the Beatles did.
If we did, then the whole process wouldn't be so special.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
Next: check out a new guitar software with over 40000 basic and advance chords its...
Previous: I just quit my band
