• 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.

Short sets?

#41
lpcarter said:
IMO, 45 is too long of a set for an original band, especially an opener.
Click to expand...

The only thing I can really take away from this (and the other comments that have been along the same lines) is that the original bands in your area must suck?

I'm making that observation based not on how good I do or do not think *my* bands originals are, but on the entire music scene around here. We have some really good acts around here, and they're writing and playing some really good music. I'd *much* rather watch any of them play for an hour than a cover band.
 
#42
DwaynieAD said:
anyone doing this needs to quit music right now.
Click to expand...

Curious, why you say that?
Obviously, I know we all would prefer to make some money off of our efforts and we all work hard at our craft, yada-yada... but sacrificing your couple of dollars as a local act for a touring band that has to drive on to another city tomorrow night seems to me like a no-brainer. Now, if the show paid well and there was a big crowd, I'm not saying to sacrifice all your pay, but giving a slightly bigger slice to the touring act... makes a lot of sense to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tedious1
#43
I'm in an original band. Our songs are flexible: they can last three minutes or be stretched to 15.

Doesn't matter how hard you've been working ... you're an unknown entity to the venue so your choice: take it or leave it. I suggest you trim two minutes off each song and play six, with no more than 30 seconds between songs. No one in the audience will know the difference or care. You're making too big of a deal out of this.

To make this worthwhile, look into getting two or three people with videocams to shoot your act, and figure out how to get a good quality recording. Then turn them into videos for marketing. Be sure to get some audience shots and weave them in. Shoot close ups of the audience to make the crowd look bigger than it is.

Here's an example from a recent gig we played:

 
  • Like
Reactions: tedious1
#44
abbub said:
We have some really good acts around here, and they're writing and playing some really good music. I'd *much* rather watch any of them play for an hour than a cover band.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the 45 minute figure you are objecting to is the general case, not the specific case of bands local to you, that you feel write and perform well. It's about the case of band X, from three states over who you've never heard and know nothing about. Still ready to spend that hour? More to the point, that 45 minute figure doesn't really apply to you, it applies to the general unwashed public.

And personally, I'd still only want any of them to play 30 minutes, for two 45 minute sets from two bands, I could get 3 30 minute sets from three. If they are good, I want to hear as many of them as I can in the time available (within reason.) If I want more, I'll buy a CD/LP from the bands I want to hear more of.

Does no-one remember that tired old adage about leaving them wanting more? After 30 minutes, our audience is at that point where we can stop playing and they want more. We might be able to push that out to 45 minutes, but I'd rather not. You want 15 more minutes? We'll give you 30 more, at the next show...

Once a venue asked us to play for an hour, we countered with "Sure, in two 30 minute sets" which they were fine with. That worked very, very well, for everyone involved; band, audience and venue. But for my money, I'd still rather hear two bands in that hour...
 
  • Like
Reactions: marko138
#46
Keep pushing for a longer set. I find that the first three or four songs of a gig serve only to warm up the audience. If you've only got 5 songs, the crowd will only really enjoy (and you'll only loosen up) for the final song, which is a bit of a shame.
 
#50
abbub said:
The only thing I can really take away from this (and the other comments that have been along the same lines) is that the original bands in your area must suck?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even want to watch bands I absolutely love for more than 45 minutes. It gets tedious. again even with bands I absolutely love.

P-oddz said:
Curious, why you say that?
Obviously, I know we all would prefer to make some money off of our efforts and we all work hard at our craft, yada-yada... but sacrificing your couple of dollars as a local act for a touring band that has to drive on to another city tomorrow night seems to me like a no-brainer. Now, if the show paid well and there was a big crowd, I'm not saying to sacrifice all your pay, but giving a slightly bigger slice to the touring act... makes a lot of sense to me.
Click to expand...

What you're arguing is not what he said. He said to forgo all of his pay for the touring act. I don't like the idea of bands seeing no worth in their own product to me that means their music is worthless. a band that sees no value in them selves is not one I care to share a stage with. A touring band getting a bigger slice of the pie? maybe, if they earned it but that's not the situation the OP is presenting. The situation as the OP presents it would be the touring band and the promoter making money on the backs of the OP's band and I would NEVER stand for that. In fact I never did, still played plenty of shows, more shows than we wanted to in fact, and got paid. recorded several times and had tons of merch all without paying a dollar out of pocket. I was succinct and maybe even a little crass in what I posted, but I have very strong feelings that if you don't value your music then you should not be playing music. For all Taylor Swifts posturing about music being art (sorry, another thread) it is also lots and lots of hard work and I don't work for free (hell, neither does she) and neither should you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: P-oddz and marko138

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back