A Message to Club Owners

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by mellowinman

I have cousins in Australia. They are in Adelaide, so I guess that's pretty far away.

Nevertheless, if I ever make it there, I think we could hang out.

I get down to Adelaide a couple of times a year (beautiful city). So if you're ever visiting, give me a yell!

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by JohnMCA72

I can't help what anybody else does, but I can strongly recommend to everybody that they up their game from wherever it is, to something better! You're never so good that you can't improve, & the minute you let yourself think you're "good enough" some DJ, KJ, etc. is going to come in & do it better, where it counts (to those who are paying).

I agree. Do you think the quality of bands is as good as it used to be?

[modulusman]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

I agree. Do you think the quality of bands is as good as it used to be?

No at least not with cover bands. Back when I first started gigging in the late 70s you had clubs that ran music 5-6 nights a week. Bands could make a living playing every day. Because of this they would get good. Now days the average band probably plays 3-4 nights a month.

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by modulusman

No at least not with cover bands. Back when I first started gigging in the late 70s you had clubs that ran music 5-6 nights a week. Bands could make a living playing every day. Because of this they would get good. Now days the average band probably plays 3-4 nights a month.

True, last summer my band had a stretch where we played out 8-9 nights in a row. Really helped tighten us up.

Blue

[drpepper]

Yeah, bands were better in the 70's. They weren't spoiled like the kids today…tougher, leaner, hungrier, and clearly more talented. They had to walk to gigs, carrying their gear…uphill both ways…and it always snowed. They carried a boiled potatoes in their pockets to keep their hands warm and so they'd have something to eat on the single 2 minute break they got during 9 to 10 hour gigs...two, sometimes three per day...a 30 hour day was a long one. They all had to share one amp, but made them more cohesive than today's bands because they were forced to actually pay attention to each other. Many were made to juggle eels for the entertainment of sadistic venue owners, but this was good because is kept them alert…if they weren't already alert enough from performing with rabid badgers in their pants…

It's called nostalgia

[modulusman]

Originally Posted by drpepper

Yeah, bands were better in the 70's. They weren't spoiled like the kids today…tougher, leaner, hungrier, and clearly more talented. They had to walk to gigs, carrying their gear…uphill both ways…and it always snowed. They carried a boiled potatoes in their pockets to keep their hands warm and so they'd have something to eat on the single 2 minute break they got during 9 to 10 hour gigs...two, sometimes three per day...a 30 hour day was a long one. They all had to share one amp, but made them more cohesive than today's bands because they were forced to actually pay attention to each other. Many were made to juggle eels for the entertainment of sadistic venue owners, but this was good because is kept them alert…if they weren't already alert enough from performing with rabid badgers in their pants…

It's called nostalgia

I assume your joking. Seriously though the average cover band these days is no where near as good as they were back when bars had music all week long. In 82 I went to Alaska and played full time 6 nights a week from 10PM-4AM. We would usually rehearse 3-4 days a week in the afternoon.

[MarkMgibson]

My first band was in 1981, and there was a hell of a lot a good bands getting around. If you weren't good enough, you didn't work. If you were good enough, you could work 5 nights a week, no problems - that doesn't really happen these days. How many clubs play live music from Wednesday to Sunday night these days? It's not just nostalgia, a pub without live music would have gone broke very quickly in those days - live music was the single biggest draw back then.

[JohnMCA72]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

I agree. Do you think the quality of bands is as good as it used to be?

In some ways yes, & in other ways - especially in certain ways that are relevant to this topic - no.

For some perspective: I started playing bass in 1970 & started gigging in '73. I got out in the mid '80s & just got back in a few years ago so I may have some benefit of being able to see contrasts that I might not have, if I'd been right in the middle of it all along.

I know it's fashionable to long for "the good old days", when everything was better in all respects than today. I also know that our current times will be somebody else's "good old days" in the future.

It seems to me that musicians worked harder in the '70 than today. Back then, I and the people I worked with expected to play 5-6 times a week. If not gigging, we'd be rehearsing. Once a week, let along once a month, wouldn't cut it & nobody who played that seldom was just a hobbyist & had no expectation of getting paid. This is what we did, & it was a full time occupation. I remember someone saying something once, to the effect: "If you want to be a ditch-digger, you spend all your time digging ditches. If you want to be a race car driver, you spend all your time driving race cars. If you want to be a musician, you spend all your time playing music." Being a musician isn't just something you do, it's something you are.

I don't see that sort of work ethic anymore, even among old friends who were there "back then". I sense a lot of satisfaction with being "good enough" rather than a drive to improve. I find myself playing gigs nowadays with as little as zero rehearsal beforehand. Getting by with the least effort seems to be the norm now.

Funny thing is, I know that those at the very top of the pyramid still work as hard as ever.

So, my evasive answer to the question, "Do [i] think the quality of bands is as good as it used to be?". I think the quality, as well as quantity, of mediocre bands is a lot greater. The "less-than-great" bands are a lot better, & there are a lot more of them. I think technology has a lot to do with that. It's a lot easier to get away with mediocrity when you can throw money into gear & a lot of stuff is available now at a relative cost that would have been unheard of 30 years ago.

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by JohnMCA72

In some ways yes, & in other ways - especially in certain ways that are relevant to this topic - no.

For some perspective: I started playing bass in 1970 & started gigging in '73. I got out in the mid '80s & just got back in a few years ago so I may have some benefit of being able to see contrasts that I might not have, if I'd been right in the middle of it all along.

I know it's fashionable to long for "the good old days", when everything was better in all respects than today. I also know that our current times will be somebody else's "good old days" in the future.

It seems to me that musicians worked harder in the '70 than today. Back then, I and the people I worked with expected to play 5-6 times a week. If not gigging, we'd be rehearsing. Once a week, let along once a month, wouldn't cut it & nobody who played that seldom was just a hobbyist & had no expectation of getting paid. This is what we did, & it was a full time occupation. I remember someone saying something once, to the effect: "If you want to be a ditch-digger, you spend all your time digging ditches. If you want to be a race car driver, you spend all your time driving race cars. If you want to be a musician, you spend all your time playing music." Being a musician isn't just something you do, it's something you are.

I don't see that sort of work ethic anymore, even among old friends who were there "back then". I sense a lot of satisfaction with being "good enough" rather than a drive to improve. I find myself playing gigs nowadays with as little as zero rehearsal beforehand. Getting by with the least effort seems to be the norm now.

Funny thing is, I know that those at the very top of the pyramid still work as hard as ever.

So, my evasive answer to the question, "Do [i] think the quality of bands is as good as it used to be?". I think the quality, as well as quantity, of mediocre bands is a lot greater. The "less-than-great" bands are a lot better, & there are a lot more of them. I think technology has a lot to do with that. It's a lot easier to get away with mediocrity when you can throw money into gear & a lot of stuff is available now at a relative cost that would have been unheard of 30 years ago.

I agree with you, especially when it comes to rehearsal.
The first band I was in used to rehearse 5 nights a week, and that was very typical for many years. Not only that, we often hung out together and played music in our spare time.

Of course, I was a youngster then, so I would be curious to know how often young bands rehearse these days? I'd be surprised if they put in that sort of time, simply because it doesn't come across in the music. Very well rehearsed bands really do stand out, no matter what type of music they play, and I just don't hear it that often these days. Perhaps though, I'm just not going to the right venues?

[mellowinman]

In the seventies and eighties there were a lot LESS bands, and there were certainly a lot less CRAPPY bands. That doesn't mean that bands then were "better" overall than bands today. There are some bands today that are incredible.

But if you want to talk about the cover bands at local bars, then I would say ON AVERAGE, bands were a LOT better back in the day. Nowadays, any putz who can buy an instrument is in a band.

[JohnMCA72]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

I agree with you, especially when it comes to rehearsal.
The first band I was in used to rehearse 5 nights a week, and that was very typical for many years. Not only that, we often hung out together and played music in our spare time.

Of course, I was a youngster then, so I would be curious to know how often young bands rehearse these days? I'd be surprised if they put in that sort of time, simply because it doesn't come across in the music. Very well rehearsed bands really do stand out, no matter what type of music they play, and I just don't hear it that often these days. Perhaps though, I'm just not going to the right venues?

Not just youngsters, but my own contemporaries. I have a really hard time finding other people who want to work as hard as I do. I understand families & other commitments, but most of said contemporaries have put such things behind them, one way or another. Getting anybody to work more than the minimum needed to be "good enough" is nearly impossible. I have no doubt that going the extra mile(s) would work in live music, because it definitely works everywhere else! The business is such a sea of mediocrity that anybody who's hungry & willing to work hard should be able to do well. Nothing worth having is easy to get.

[JohnMCA72]

Originally Posted by mellowinman

...
Nowadays, any putz who can buy an instrument is in a band.

... or a PA system, or a recording setup, or...

The fact that any putz can do it means that, in a lot of cases, that's exactly who does. Used to be, the high cost of entry screened 'em out.

I don't begrudge somebody for investing a pile of money into something & working hard to make something happen with it. Working hard & (to keep on the topic) paying attention to what your customers want, are essential for any business.

[ACalbass]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

I agree with you, especially when it comes to rehearsal.
The first band I was in used to rehearse 5 nights a week, and that was very typical for many years. Not only that, we often hung out together and played music in our spare time.

Of course, I was a youngster then, so I would be curious to know how often young bands rehearse these days? I'd be surprised if they put in that sort of time, simply because it doesn't come across in the music. Very well rehearsed bands really do stand out, no matter what type of music they play, and I just don't hear it that often these days. Perhaps though, I'm just not going to the right venues?

You think putting time in rehearsal is what makes the band good?
What about becoming better musicians and shorten a LOT on rehearsals??
I mean,you expend your own time in playing better,which in turn needs a lot less of rehearsal time to produce better music.
Think about it : if you were to pay for rehearsals,for space and musicians,how much would you be willing to expend?

I think the idea goes in a different direction ; you make yourself a better musician,your bandmates do the same,result = less rehearsal time needed.

If you ever worked at a professional level,your rehearsal time is only to adjust things according to the director's guidance,and doesn't go beyond that.
You suppose to know everything already,or at least read good enough to follow without big mistakes.

Putting time in rehearsal is ALWAYS a good thing,but doesn't compare to being ready for rehearsal.
Believe me,nobody needs 5 days a week rehearsal,specially if you are a working musician with a lot of things going on during the week (students,gigs,studio,and so on)

The sense that I have from your post is that the band was never ready to play out,or indeed needed that amount of time to be ready,which by today's standards makes little sense.
No disrespect,is that I find no way to value a band by knowing how much rehearsal time they put on.
I can value the stage quality time.

[drpepper]

Originally Posted by ACalbass

The sense that I have from your post is that the band was never ready to play out,or indeed needed that amount of time to be ready,which by today's standards makes little sense.

Ummm...