• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Great Young Players Get Noticed Fast!

Absolutely correct... MTV & 'the video' made things worse in this regard (no doubt, it was always part of the equation before...especially in POP music). Back in MTV's early hey-day...I do recall hearing how band so & so would not have made it if MTV was around in the '60s/'70s (manily 'cause the band members were not so "photogenic").

;)

I remember seeing Seals and Crofts play live and they had some beautiful tunes - but certainly wouldn't have fitted into the MTV "mould"....;)

But as you say - it is a rock/pop phenomenon and another reason to support Jazz, where it doesn't happen! :)
 
One of my bands is a New Country parody band. We open for a lot of the 'name' bands. Many times, the road band is full of younger guys (not so much for the really big/established 'stars'...seasoned vets + an appetite for gunslinger bassists like Keith Horne & Anthony Joyner).
My girlfriend used to always ask me why I wasn't doing that...fact is, after my mid-20s, my price would be too high. My late teens/early 20s...I woulda played for free!
So, it's business. Why pay someone x-amount of cash when you can find someone else that can play the same parts for a lot less.

Off Topic:


I remember Anthony Joyner from when I used to hang out in Nashville alot. Anthony was just starting with Faith Hill, he used to work at Rock Block Guitars also. The man sold my GAS-y butt more than a few guitars! He encouraged me to get into six strings, and frankly I was happy with how a six worked for a player of my modest skills since it allowed me to play alot without shifting positions.:)

What struck me the most about Anthony Joyner, however, was his sheer tone. On more than one occassion, I would play a bass and then he would pick up the bass and simply play one note that sounded better than any complete song I ever knew.:cool:
 
How about the rough around the edges '60s/'70s bands that got a video make-over?
J.Geils Band...the Jefferson Airplane...the Rolling Stones, etc.

J. Geils died after their 'video friendly' period (remember Freeze Frame?). Proof that they weren't pretty enough for the Thompson Twins and Kajagoogoo crowd of the 80's.

Jefferson Airplane became Starship, which was essentially safe muzak for horrendously bad movies from the 80's.

The Rolling Stones just became something to fill up empty arenas during the NFL off-season.

I'm digging Jazz 10 times more since I read Bruce Lindfield's post. Time for this almost 40 year old to start his Jazz career. The way I figure, I still have 30 years to go in that genre.

I think we should encourage the youth to excel at their chosen instrument, but we should emphasize that there is no final destination (e.g. getting signed), only a long great journey into music.
 
J. Geils died after their 'video friendly' period (remember Freeze Frame?). Proof that they weren't pretty enough for the Thompson Twins and Kajagoogoo crowd of the 80's.

The way I remember it-
J. Geils had a resurrection w/ MTV. They manage to squeeze out 2 albums of popularity with MTV (Love Stinks & Freeze Frame).
Not sure why they fizzled.
Speculation: Not sure if it had anything to do with their 'looks' (OK, true, they were no Duran Duran or Japan). ;)
...J. Geils' videos are still MTV Classics; I think they were getting away from their roots (Blues/Rock/gritty band to an over-produced Pop band)...I'm assuming Peter Wolf liked the latter & thus went solo...while the rest of the band didn't like the new direction.
 
One of my bands is a New Country parody band. We open for a lot of the 'name' bands. Many times, the road band is full of younger guys (not so much for the really big/established 'stars'...seasoned vets + an appetite for gunslinger bassists like Keith Horne & Anthony Joyner).
My girlfriend used to always ask me why I wasn't doing that...fact is, after my mid-20s, my price would be too high. My late teens/early 20s...I woulda played for free!
So, it's business. Why pay someone x-amount of cash when you can find someone else that can play the same parts for a lot less.


Speaking for myself and other friends who are looking at 40 or there already there comes a time where you price yourself out of certain gigs. I just turned down a tour gig because the money and the accommodations didn't add up for me,10 yrs ago I would have took it just to do it and have that experience but I have already paid those dues.

But what really kills me these days is the sense of entitlement that many young players have,they are straight out of church and complaining like their 10 or 15yr vets. Not that I never complained when I was younger but I didn't start out that way,I was just happy to be there.
 
I'm assuming Peter Wolf liked the latter & thus went solo...while the rest of the band didn't like the new direction.

That band made the very unwise career move to fire one of the best ever front-men, Wolf, who went on to make some really good solo albums that nobody bought.
 
I'm digging Jazz 10 times more since I read Bruce Lindfield's post. Time for this almost 40 year old to start his Jazz career. The way I figure, I still have 30 years to go in that genre.

You are at the age to do it! ;)

But you will end up buying a Double Bass - I'm telling you, no matter how hard you fight it!! :p
 
I don't think it is purely about younger players being more "cost effective" & I disagree that it doesn't happen in Jazz, perhaps though it should happen more often and breath a bit of new life into the genre.
Tal Wilkenfield is an example of a young talented person being noticed fast in Jazz, I don't think saving a few sheckles would have been predominant in Chick Coreas mind when he booked her for a tour. The previous examples in this thread of Miles Davis using young talent spring to mind as examples of using young talent in Jazz, I don't think that saving cash was the predominant reason for him doing this. Being an innovator, he could see the advantages of using musicians whose playing styles had not yet been set in stone & would be more flexible and open to different approaches.

As an old codger currently playing in a young band, they're all half my age ! I would say the main joy of playing with younger people is their unbounded & unblemished enthusiasm, which is infectious, even to a cynical ol' diehard like me. If they also happen to be technically good players then you've got the best of both worlds.

They are not too stuck in their ways & are enthusiastic to try new ways of doing things, as you get older you tend to get stuck in habit patterns, which can be very boring for both player and listener.

There is also the passing of the knowledge ;)

Bring on & enjoy the new talent :bassist:
 
Before Buddy Guy became a celebrity blues guitarist he used to tour small clubs/bars, places that held around 100 people, 200 max. I saw a few of these gigs in the Northeast in late 1980s. His backing band on these tours were always made up of younger players, they looked like they were just out of high school and played like it. The backing band music wasn't the best, but I guess it is what he could afford given the veunes he was playing.
 
I don't think it is purely about younger players being more "cost effective" & I disagree that it doesn't happen in Jazz, perhaps though it should happen more often and breath a bit of new life into the genre.

I agree with your disagreement. While I'm sure Zappa enjoyed the savings he may have encountered by holding auditions and bringing in new, young players every few years, it was more about getting more hunger and less attitude from his musicians that made him go through the process all the time. Established players have a style, and a bit of an attitude about their style, good or bad. Established band leaders want a player to come in and play what THEY had in mind and not always how the hired player interprets it.
 
The previous examples in this thread of Miles Davis using young talent spring to mind as examples of using young talent in Jazz, I don't think that saving cash was the predominant reason for him doing this. Being an innovator, he could see the advantages of using musicians whose playing styles had not yet been set in stone & would be more flexible and open to different approaches.

I wouldn't put it past Miles - he was a wily character and even when they were making "Kind of Blue" they didn't get much money!! :hmm:

I think in Miles' case, it was more a question of his regular band members falling by the wayside due to drink/drugs or leaving to lead their own bands; so he had to constantly find new players, who would do what he wanted and go along with his "vision".

So - Coltrane, for example, had his own vision and a definite direction that was different from Miles - then later, Wayne Shorter and Joe Zawinul left to form their own band - so Miles was constantly in the position of starting again...?
 
I agree with your disagreement. While I'm sure Zappa enjoyed the savings he may have encountered by holding auditions and bringing in new, young players every few years, it was more about getting more hunger and less attitude from his musicians that made him go through the process all the time. Established players have a style, and a bit of an attitude about their style, good or bad. Established band leaders want a player to come in and play what THEY had in mind and not always how the hired player interprets it.

Yeah, Zappa would probably have used any savings to finance his classical work ;) In Zappas case it probably took a lot of stamina and absolute dedication from his musicians to stay for any length of time, hence another reason for a lot of changing personnel.

I read an interview with George Duke, who told a tale about a heavy jazz solo that he had to do during his early work with Zappa. Apparently Zappa told him "That's great George, but could you try to get a bit more humour into it" :eyebrow:

Jazz is not dead, it just .........

Bruce Lindfield said:
I wouldn't put it past Miles - he was a wily character and even when they were making "Kind of Blue" they didn't get much money!!

I think in Miles' case, it was more a question of his regular band members falling by the wayside due to drink/drugs or leaving to lead their own bands; so he had to constantly find new players, who would do what he wanted and go along with his "vision".

So - Coltrane, for example, had his own vision and a definite direction that was different from Miles - then later, Wayne Shorter and Joe Zawinul left to form their own band - so Miles was constantly in the position of starting again...?

I guess to some extent money would be a consideration, especially in those days, but I still think that this would not be the main reason for using younger, fresher players, I wouldn't imagine that Chick Corea is short of a few squid.

I like your last point, I think this was also true in Zappa's case, they would use the best young, "undiscovered" talent as they would go along with the vision. However being very capable & strong willed characters themselves they would probably see the opportunity to launch their own solo careers on the back of it. Of course working for someone like Miles or Zappa would be a very useful learning experience in how to go about doing this and would give them the kudos to attract the initial sponsorship to do their own thing, Tal being the original example in this thread.

So it works both ways. I still think that music is the real winner here, things can easily get too staid & comfortable, young blood brings in new ideas, approaches, enthusiasm etc, if it's guided by experience then all the better.

The next generation always goes that one step further, their starting point is the previous generations one step further.