Rate This Opportunity

[LiquidMidnight]

The material selection would also turn me off, unless I were looking for a hobby band that only occasionally gigged. I actually really like the artists they're covering, but a band that does a full night of nothing but blues isn't going to work much unless A). They're touring, or B). They live in a very blues-friendly environment like New Orleans.

IME, if you want to play blues in a cover band situation, to be successful, you have to pepper your repertoire with another style, such as classic rock, R&B, or the more energetic side of country.

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by fdeck

I was thinking it seemed similar to your band: Blues cover band, day jobbers, ready to gig. Of course your band is actually gigging, and this one isn't.

Got it. Yes very similar except we have a female lead guitarist.

We learned a long time ago that you have to ad some of the harder rock stuff with some classics. For example we stay within our 70s style with 2 Robin Trower songs.

BlueAttachment 317530

[SunnBass]

Hmm... artists listed is definitely a turn-off. Kinda gross even. Just my opinion.

[bass81800]

OK ad, but I would like to see some idea of how much they plan to play out. I recently saw a Craigslist ad about an 'established band' that had been together for years that got my interest. But, looking further at the ad, they only have, at most, a gig a month. The members of that band must be OK with that, but I personally would want to be playing out more than that.

[jungleheat]

Every band has to start somewhere. Or do some of you think fully formed bands (minus a bassist of course) just appear from the ether in the form of bassist wanted ads on craigslist? Guess what, bands that aren't start ups HAVE bassists (until they don't). Now maybe they don't have a bassist because the previous guy couldn't hack it and they fired him. OR maybe they are a bunch of nutjobs and he ran to the hills. Or it could be any number of other reasons. Point is, you can't really tell quality and potential just by whether or not a band is just starting. What if George Harrison had balked at playing in a "start up" band with Lennon & McCartney?

Not saying cover bands are the same thing, but whether an opportunity is a start up or not is about the last thing that should really be considered. Musician ability, personalities, repertoire/style, etc... should ALL come first.

And maybe so many start ups wouldn't fail if so many mercenary musician snobs didn't turn their noses up at them. I've joined bands and I've formed bands. Neither is really a surefire recipe for success or disaster, it really depends on the people involved and the circumstances. I do know that especially earlier on in my musical life, there were some projects that could have done great things, but it seemed like we were always missing a bassist, drummer, etc... Maybe if some of those mercenaries had bothered to try out, things might have taken off?

Originally Posted by Bert Slide

They lost me at "female singer".

Yeah, definitely. When you got a bar full of drunk dudes, there's nothing they like more than to stare at another dude on stage.

Seriously dude? If you play in a bar cover band, if you have a reasonably attractive, reasonably talented female singer, you might as well have a license to print your own money. Meanwhile, if you have a guy singer, he's still got to look reasonably attractive, but he's also got to sing the hell out the songs a lot more to sell it.

Anyway, I think the ad is fine. Not really sure what the debate is about. The only issue is whether you personally want to be in a cover band that plays that style of music. If you do, try for an audition. If you don't, go on to the next ad. Not exactly the riddle of the Sphinx.

[BayStateBass]

Female singer would not be a red flag to me.

Jungleheat is right......attractive female singers almost give a band a license to steal.

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by bass81800

OK ad, but I would like to see some idea of how much they plan to play out. I recently saw a Craigslist ad about an 'established band' that had been together for years that got my interest. But, looking further at the ad, they only have, at most, a gig a month. The members of that band must be OK with that, but I personally would want to be playing out more than that.

Good point, something we should all research before getting too involved in an opportunity.

Like you said gigging once a month is heaven for some guys for me it's unaceptable.

Blue

[jaywa]

Originally Posted by bassbully

BTW and not to hi-jack this thread. The bandleader from the country band I was in almost 5 years ago called and wants me back. I am going to sit in with the boy's and see where we are at tonight. It goes to show not all bands use media when looking for players allot is word of mouth and who you know.

It also speaks to the importance of not burning bridges when you leave a band. I know that sometimes despite one's best efforts, things end badly when you leave a band but I know from first-hand experience that leaving past doors open just a crack can turn out to be pretty profitable.

[RustyAxe]

Originally Posted by jungleheat

And maybe so many start ups wouldn't fail if so many mercenary musician snobs didn't turn their noses up at them.

So, someone who is an accomplished musician and doesn't want to join a start-up is a "mercenary snob"? Maybe more start-ups wouldn't fail if they actually had something to offer ... like talent. The vast majority of start-ups one finds on CL are going nowhere, ever.

I do know that especially earlier on in my musical life, there were some projects that could have done great things, but it seemed like we were always missing a bassist, drummer, etc... Maybe if some of those mercenaries had bothered to try out, things might have taken off?

Maybe if the band had more talent and brighter prospects finding good musicians wouldn't have been so difficult? Sounds like you're blaming people who weren't there for the failings of the people who were. I don't get it.

If you play in a bar cover band, if you have a reasonably attractive, reasonably talented female singer, you might as well have a license to print your own money. Meanwhile, if you have a guy singer, he's still got to look reasonably attractive, but he's also got to sing the hell out the songs a lot more to sell it.

I disagree. Male or female if the vocals suck, the band sucks. Same goes for every spot in the band. The "band" can only be as good as its weakest link.

[jaywa]

WIth regard to the ad:

•We currently have Guitar, drum, Keys, and Female singer. We are looking for a bass player.

Good way to lead off, you know what the lineup is and you also know right up front about the chick singer (which can either be a huge plus or a big minus, depending).

•We are a start up group, but we have been practicing together for a while and have 3 sets worth of music.

"Start-up" puts me off right away, but the rest of the line indicates they're not really a start-up. This would need clarification as it sounds like they're a band that is ready to gig but doesn't have dates on the books or has put bookings on-hold till they complete their lineup.

•We were real close to being ready to get out and start gigging, and our bass player had to quit for personal reasons.

Possible red flag here if the bassist's "personal reasons" for quitting had to do with the band. More clarification DEFINITELY needed. First question I always ask if I'm replacing a departing/fired bassist is what happened with the last one and whenever possible I also contact the ex-bassist to see if the two stories line up.

•We are looking for someone to come in and work hard at the songs to minimize the delay. Vocals a plus but not a must.

OK I guess. Just be aware that bands tend not to be forthcoming about the importance of vox. They'll make it sound like vocals are optional but when it comes down to it it's actually a "must" -- to the point they'll hire a "bass holder" who's a good singer over an accomplished bassist whose vocals come up short. Especially if you're replacing a bassist who sang, you had better be able to cover those parts or you're not getting the spot even if you're a better bassist than the former one was. I've gotten burned on this point before so whenever I see anything about vocals I assume they're gonna expect me to sing no matter how they decide to verbalize that.

•We have a great group of people that all have day jobs, get along well, and have a good time.

So, they may or may not be in this for the money. I.e., if they all have great-paying day jobs then this is just a hobby band for some beer money vs. really trying to get top dollar. Again, something that could go both ways, especially if the day jobs interfere with good paying gig opportunities.

•We have a great practice place . We don't do a lot of standards. Some of the artists covered are Stevie Ray , Clapton, Susan Tedeschi and more.

Red flag here. Are they doing obscure blues/classic rock "deep cuts" to get their rocks off but aren't marketable? Based on those artists this definitely wouldn't be the band for me but at least they put that out there so I know. Also, since they mention practice space the logical follow-up questions are how much of a commute it is to that location, and how often they practice.

Bottom line, it's a better than average ad in terms of outlining opportunities and expectations. It raises questions but those could be addressed with a phone conversation or in person. It spells out a lot more things than a lot of ads do. Not a band that would personally appeal to me but the ad is decent.

[rubbadubdub]

I think this would be good for the right person. They are honest and open about their day jobs but I am amazed that they have 3 sets of material. Either they are very talented, have too many songs half together , have been practicing for months or are about to get divorced or lose their jobs through lack of concentration or commitment lol..
I would not want to commit to learning and practicing that much material for a band that won't be gigging often.
It wouldn't be for me unless I were in a similiar situation but It may be perfect for a hobbiest with similiar taste in music. Good luck to them.

[jaywa]

The band in question is in a classic Catch-22. They can't confidently book gigs till they have a bassist on board and up to speed -- and they have no idea how long that might take -- but the accomplished bassist that could get up to speed quickly probably won't be interested if they don't have gigs on the books.

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by jaywa

WIth regard to the ad:




•We have a great group of people that all have day jobs, get along well, and have a good time.

So, they may or may not be in this for the money. I.e., if they all have great-paying day jobs then this is just a hobby band for some beer money vs. really trying to get top dollar. Again, something that could go both ways, especially if the day jobs interfere with good paying gig opportunities.

Bottom line, it's a better than average ad in terms of outlining opportunities and expectations. It raises questions but those could be addressed with a phone conversation or in person. It spells out a lot more things than a lot of ads do. Not a band that would personally appeal to me but the ad is decent.

I get your point regarding their day jobs, however I sort of like it, it could mean "we can all afford to be in a band" we all have good transportation and money for gear and anything else we need to support the band.

Just a thought.

Blue

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by jaywa

The band in question is in a classic Catch-22. They can't confidently book gigs till they have a bassist on board and up to speed -- and they have no idea how long that might take -- but the accomplished bassist that could get up to speed quickly probably won't be interested if they don't have gigs on the books.

Good point, I agree.

Plus any veteran bass guitarist looking for work is going to ask them about their booking model.

How often they want to gig, where and how are they going to get these bookings and how are they going to compete with the local established blues bands?

Blue

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by rubbadubdub

I think this would be good for the right person. They are honest and open about their day jobs but I am amazed that they have 3 sets of material. Either they are very talented, have too many songs half together , have been practicing for months or are about to get divorced or lose their jobs through lack of concentration or commitment lol..
I would not want to commit to learning and practicing that much material for a band that won't be gigging often.
It wouldn't be for me unless I were in a similiar situation but It may be perfect for a hobbiest with similiar taste in music. Good luck to them.

Yes, it's a good study.

The ad is ok but after reading everyone's take on it, we have discovered a few unknowns.

Blue

[jaywa]

I get your point regarding their day jobs, however I sort of like it, it could mean "we can all afford to be in a band" we all have good transportation and money for gear and anything else we need to support the band.

Exactly, that's why I said the day job thing goes both ways.

The last thing you want is to be in a band where one member is freeloading off everyone else cause he/she doesn't have the means to pull their own weight. I've managed to avoid bands like that throughout the years but I've heard plenty of stories from others.

[jungleheat]

Originally Posted by RustyAxe

So, someone who is an accomplished musician and doesn't want to join a start-up is a "mercenary snob"? Maybe more start-ups wouldn't fail if they actually had something to offer ... like talent. The vast majority of start-ups one finds on CL are going nowhere, ever.

So just because a band is just starting that means they have no talent? EVERY band has to start somewhere. So you're saying you would have not pursued playing with Yes, Genesis, Metallica, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, etc...? Those were all "start ups" at one point. Hell, Genesis were a bunch of high school kids when they started, and might not have gone anywhere if Jonathan King hadn't produced them and gotten them to the point of making their second album whcih is really where they got their footing. Now they are one of the best selling groups of all time. Maybe Phil Collins would have said, "nah, these guys only have 2 albums neither of which sold very well, they're not going anywhere", and then not become Phil Collins. Not saying deciding to join or not join a cover band will make the difference between being one of the most successful and well known musicians of all time.

How are start ups supposed to become "not start ups" if musicians don't join?

Maybe if the band had more talent and brighter prospects finding good musicians wouldn't have been so difficult? Sounds like you're blaming people who weren't there for the failings of the people who were. I don't get it.

The bands I was talking about had plenty of talent. Prospects come from having a full lineup. How do you get out there and make a name for yourself and get gigs if you don't have a band?

And your statements have NOTHING to do with how much talent a prospective band has, all you apparently care about is if they've been around for a while so you can be lazy and walk right in to an already successful machine. But SOMEBODY has to get that machine to the point of being successful.

So basically your whole career with that mindset is going to be predicated on someone else screwing up or otherwise dropping out. But here's the thing, a lot of the best bands never run into those problems. Rush changed drummers ONE TIME and it was 40 years ago. So if you arbitrarily set those limitations on what you'll try out, you might end up missing out on some of the best opportunities.

As far as my own talent is concerned, I highly doubt that's the issue. I've always been able to find at least SOME great musicians to play with, it's just a matter of finding ALL the right pieces to fit a given puzzle that's often been difficult. In DC, it used to be bassists and drummers that were difficult to find. Now it's singers (and bassists to some extent). Back 10-12 years ago, I was in one project that basically consisted of me and a singer. Now, I COULD have done everything besides the singing and lyrics myself, but playing guitar, bass, keys, drums (and/or sequencing), PLUS writing all the music, PLUS doing all the recording is a LOT of damn work. I could have done it, and it would have been very good, but having specialists for some of those roles would have given the project more life, and we would still need those additional people to play live. And at this point, I usually get asked to do more stuff than I can even find time for. 3 out of the 4 bands I'm in right now, I was requested to be in because of my reputation in the circle of musicians I know. So I highly doubt that my talent is the issue.

I disagree. Male or female if the vocals suck, the band sucks. Same goes for every spot in the band. The "band" can only be as good as its weakest link.

It's a fact that female singers have a higher level of suckitude they can achieve before people completely stop showing up. A chick singer will almost ALWAYS be an advantage, so saying that it's a "red flag" is kind of retarded and self defeating. And the guy still didn't explain WHY he said that.

Originally Posted by jaywa

The band in question is in a classic Catch-22. They can't confidently book gigs till they have a bassist on board and up to speed -- and they have no idea how long that might take -- but the accomplished bassist that could get up to speed quickly probably won't be interested if they don't have gigs on the books.

Exactly, it's retarded. EVERY BAND IS A START UP AT SOME POINT. Maybe all they need to be a great band is that final piece of the lineup. You could be that guy and ride that wave of success. But you'll never know if you don't at least audition. I mean, by all means, if there are other things about an ad that you don't like, don't bother with it and waste their time, but if it sounds like a great band but the only thing keeping you away is that it's a "start up", you might be missing out on a great opportunity.

And then yes, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, because the "too cool for school" "pros" won't bite, so maybe after 3 months they settle on a guy who might be kind of mediocre. So now there chances of advancement are more limited. So after a few more months maybe, they break up, and the musicians split up and start over, reliving the process repeatedly because too many mercenary snobs are "too good" for startups.

What I want to know is, how many of these snobs are not working at a given time that if they found each other, could "start up" a band and be very successful? But they probably don't have the balls for it to begin with, which is why they stick to turnkey bands that require no effort (or talent, besides playing) from them.

[Bert Slide]

Originally Posted by jungleheat

It's a fact that female singers have a higher level of suckitude they can achieve before people completely stop showing up. A chick singer will almost ALWAYS be an advantage, so saying that it's a "red flag" is kind of retarded and self defeating. And the guy still didn't explain WHY he said that.

HAHA, retarded guy here! You want an explanation why I prefer not to work with female singers and also male singers who play no instrument? Been there, done that, and I won't put up with the drama of a diva frontperson of either sex. If you don't play an instrument you are dead weight as far as I am concerned. You are correct that a band with a hot female front is a good draw but it's just not the kind of band I want to be in. How many bands with female fronts are really known for the quaility of the music and musicians in the band? Not many I can think of. I'm currently playing in four bands and not one of them has a member that doesn't also play an instrument. No divas to take all the credit and one less person to pay at the end of the night.

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by Bert Slide

HAHA, retarded guy here! You want an explanation why I prefer not to work with female singers and also male singers who play no instrument? Been there, done that, and I won't put up with the drama of a diva frontperson of either sex. If you don't play an instrument you are dead weight as far as I am concerned. You are correct that a band with a hot female front is a good draw but it's just not the kind of band I want to be in. How many bands with female fronts are really known for the quaility of the music and musicians in the band? Not many I can think of. I'm currently playing in four bands and not one of them has a member that doesn't also play an instrument. No divas to take all the credit and one less person to pay at the end of the night.

So you agree, that having an attractive female front that can sing gives a band a marketing edge or at least something to leverage the band against the competition?

You don't want to be in a band with a front that doesn't play an instrument because you have had bad experiences with that band configuration. You know they are all not bad people or divas, there are some good ones.

I guess I'm lucky all the female fronts I have worked with including the one I work with now have been angels.

[Bert Slide]

Originally Posted by bluewine

So you agree, that having an attractive female front that can sing gives a band a marketing edge or at least something to leverage the band against the competition?

Sure.

You don't want to be in a band with a front that doesn't play an instrument because you have had bad experiences with that band configuration. You know they are all not bad people or divas, there are some good ones.

In my experience, the more attractive/talented they are, the more psycho. Of the small talent pool of lead singers who are good enough it is very difficult to find one who is not also a head case though I am sure that like unicorns they are probably out there somewhere.

I guess I'm lucky all the female fronts I have worked with including the one I work with now have been angels.

Do they ever tell you where to stand on stage and what bass to play to match their nail polish?