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 free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
I went and ate in Deep Ellum last night night (Tuesday) and it was thriving. People in the area. Club Dada had a line out the door for a band. Maybe not so dead.
Again, the point of the thread is if a side man can make a living gigging at this point (i.e., above poverty level).
I have a reluctant conclusion and thesis: As a popular form of entertainment, the time of local live music has passed. Society is no longer interested on any sustainable level.
Also might want to check spelling on the word "hobbiest" especially if you are going to continually throw it around in this back-handed fashion.If you are a hobbiest, happy to play a few bar gigs a month for $50 a man, nothing wrong with that, and that is still an option for 'fun'.
I understand that you came into the thread and made an attempt to turn into a discussion about how working musicians had it so good in the 70's and everyone now is screwed, but sideman pay wasn't the original point of the thread. It was about the state of local live music as entertainment.
No... it was about the state of live music and whether it was sustainable.
I'm going to argue that it isn't sustainable - there is a definite trend at work, and because that trend leads to lower pay (which leads to lower quality which leads to lower pay...) it's a positive feedback loop reinforcing the trend.
First of all, I'm supposed to be on your ignore list. Not sure why you are reading my posts. I guess I got a temporary reprieve![]()
Actually, that is not the point that the OP stated. This is what he said:
I understand that you came into the thread and made an attempt to turn into a discussion about how working musicians had it so good in the 70's and everyone now is screwed, but sideman pay wasn't the original point of the thread. It was about the state of local live music as entertainment.
Also might want to check spelling on the word "hobbiest" especially if you are going to continually throw it around in this back-handed fashion.
No... it was about the state of live music and whether it was sustainable.
I'm going to argue that it isn't sustainable - there is a definite trend at work, and because that trend leads to lower pay (which leads to lower quality which leads to lower pay...) it's a positive feedback loop reinforcing the trend.
No... it was about the state of live music and whether it was sustainable.
I'm going to argue that it isn't sustainable - there is a definite trend at work, and because that trend leads to lower pay (which leads to lower quality which leads to lower pay...) it's a positive feedback loop reinforcing the trend.
Hopefully, the gigs for "professional sidemen" will dry up. Maybe when these hired guns get off the stage real bands will take their spots, and people will remember why they ever loved live music in the first place.
onosson said:Most of us who do the former are also involved in the latter ... it's not an either/or situation.
Live music is dying in part because it does not start untile 10:00. Look around any place with a live band and you will see an older croud. Times have changed and so has your audience. Older people do not want to stay out untile 2 AM.
True but don't you find you think about it differently when you're focussing on the money? I did, and it destroyed the fun for a while. It's one of the reasons I got a day job.
I'm happy to have one of those gigs Saturday night. Probably my favorite place to play because of it.Bands should play from 8 to midnight.
I disagree strongly. Lower pay does not equal lower quality.
Or, you know, sex.Because when the money sucks the gig has to be about something else, and in most cases that something else is a love of what you're playing.
I'm happy to have one of those gigs Saturday night. Probably my favorite place to play because of it.

I caught his set at Applebee's last Tuesday. He's really letting the quality slide these days...Do you think Bach would have done the work he did if the church wasn't paying him to be a musician/composer? Or do you think having to have a fulltime non-music job to support his family might have cut into his creative output?