What does the future look like for weekend warriors?

[Gaolee]

Point missed.

If good old fashioned rock and roll, recorded analog, can still win a Grammy then musicians playing good old fashioned rock and roll covering those "who already have a global audience", means the future is not as bleak as one might assume. Certainly it does not mean we all have to throw our basses away and learn to play a computer.

I have had more opportunities to play in front of an audience since relearning to play the upright. If that's a step backwards, so be it. The audiences the band plays for is often a wide range of ages, from people in their 20s to people in their 70s. We play for a number of small children, too. This was not by design. We play what we want to play and work at getting better individually and tighter as a band.

I think there will always be a market for decent musicianship, and I honestly believe that the pendulum has swung as far as it's going to go toward artificial intelligence music. It's going to swing back to real humans playing real instruments made out of wood and metal.

 

[scottbass]

I think there will always be a market for decent musicianship, and I honestly believe that the pendulum has swung as far as it's going to go toward artificial intelligence music. It's going to swing back to real humans playing real instruments made out of wood and metal.

I REALLY REALLY REALLY hope your crystal ball is right on this, Gaolee. This is not sarcasm, just hope!

 

[Sundogue]

Actually, point not missed. That song was not exceptional, in my humble opinion. If anyone other than some of the most famous musicians in the world had released that song, i doubt it would have gotten many clicks on Spotify or Pandora. Same old same old. Same problem faced by weekend warriors who play old tired songs over and over without fundamental variation. They are invisible, and barely worth the $50 or $100 a person they manage to squeeze out of a cynical bar owner. Sorry for the bleak assessment, but ignoring reality won't change it any more than slapping lipstick on a pig will make that animal something other than a blubbery oinker.

I feel you are still missing the point. Whether YOU like the song that won a Grammy or not, the public does and if you are covering popular music, music that won Grammy awards no less, than you as a musician are going to be playing for people who want to hear you play it.

I'm not saying the music is great or not. I'm saying it's popular and it wasn't "played" and recorded on a computer...meaning there is hope for musicians that actually play musical instruments for real people out in an audience. This is mainly in response to those that may feel a sense of hopelessness in needing to learn new electronica that is not as appealing to them, just to be able to gig.

On an aside, I'm noticing the degrees of bleakness being regional.

 

[Session1969]

I can add something that may or may not be relevant but it's been on my mind. I see ads on c/l for opportunities to be in bands in the sf/bay area. There are alot of bands, if not all, that claim to have drive and desire to be great but only rehearse once a week. To me, that's more along the lines of weekend warrior status. If that seems to be the norm these days then I feel that attributes to the decline. There's more to being a good act then just rehearsing music. There's segways, practicing backups ,dialogue to the audience that should be rehearsed and eliminating dead time between songs, building stamina,etc. Alot of small things that add up can easily be forgotten when there's only 4 rehearsals a month. Sound quality is another area that seems to be lacking for alot of bar bands in comparison to what DJ's provide. Imo, most bar bands should rehearse twice a week and aspiring pro bands, more.

 

[Sundogue]

I can add something that may or may not be relevant but it's been on my mind. I see ads on c/l for opportunities to be in bands in the sf/bay area. There are alot of bands, if not all, that claim to have drive and desire to be great but only rehearse once a week. To me, that's more along the lines of weekend warrior status. If that seems to be the norm these days then I feel that attributes to the decline. There's more to being a good act then just rehearsing music. There's segways, practicing backups ,dialogue to the audience that should be rehearsed and eliminating dead time between songs, building stamina,etc. Alot of small things that add up can easily be forgotten when there's only 4 rehearsals a month. Sound quality is another area that seems to be lacking for alot of bar bands in comparison to what DJ's provide. Imo, most bar bands should rehearse twice a week and aspiring pro bands, more.

In general I agree with you, although specifically I think a band only need rehearse as often as necessary to maintain/grow.

My main band only rehearses one day a week. But we all work on our own material and ideas on our own time throughout the week. It isn't as much about how much a band rehearses as it is about being efficient with ones time when you do. I've been in bands that rehearse a lot, but accomplish little. I don't have time for that crap.

My other band rehearses maybe once a month or less. But we still bring in new material every time. What each member does on their own time has a HUGE impact on the band overall.

 

[HolmeBass]

I'm a weekend warrior, and I gigged 49 times last year. That's about as much as I can manage, really. The only thing now is to increase my pay per gig. Practice, practice, practice. How well you play is everything. Playing live is like a secret weapon, really. If you execute as a band live, and have good energy, people will like it, a lot. Maybe not everyone, but plenty of people will. They'll enjoy the live performance much more than a moderately good bootleg recording of that same performance. Just my experience there.

As far as modern pop music, and playing it or letting it influence your originals, I feel that even electronic music is being played more and more these days by bands playing actual instruments, like St. Vincent, who was recently on Colbert. Sure, there was no bassist, and the bass track was a sequence kicked off by one of the keyboardists (or the drummer?) but she played guitar, and there was a real live drummer- with headphones on, to hear the click - as well as two keyboardists, who were playing stuff in addition to possibly triggering sequences/samples. But they were playing the music in a way that classic electronica, like Daft Punk or Girl Talk, don't really play live.

Bands like The Hip Abduction and Alt J use "real" instruments in an electronica-influenced way. To me *thats* what is cutting edge right now, and something any of us can do, if we become familiar with the grooves and sounds of modern electronic music. Daft Punk, possibly the biggest electronica act of all time, had live studio musicians record many of the songs on their seminal Random Access Memories album from last summer - some of the best songs on that record have zero samples or sequences in them. So I don't feel despair at all, I think those that do need only to arm themselves with knowledge of what is really new and good right now to see that updating your sound may be easier than you think, and on the other hand that good music is always good, and thus always in demand.

 

[bucephylus]

I feel you are still missing the point. Whether YOU like the song that won a Grammy or not, the public does and if you are covering popular music, music that won Grammy awards no less, than you as a musician are going to be playing for people who want to hear you play it.

I'm not saying the music is great or not. I'm saying it's popular and it wasn't "played" and recorded on a computer...meaning there is hope for musicians that actually play musical instruments for real people out in an audience. This is mainly in response to those that may feel a sense of hopelessness in needing to learn new electronica that is not as appealing to them, just to be able to gig.

On an aside, I'm noticing the degrees of bleakness being regional.

Just one thing to keep in mind: I never even heard that tune before the Grammies. I mean, where do you go to hear it? And if I never heard of it, why do you think "the Public" knows about it? I mean obviously some people do. But, that is a whole different thing from "everyone" hearing it. Worth pondering that in today's environment, Hey Jude, just to pick a tune, could never become ingrained in the public psyche for the simple reason that there is no radio station or Top 40 playlist to hammer it into people. Fundamental change. Nothing right or wrong with the new music. The music isn't the issue. The players aren't the issue. The way we cover these tunes isn't the issue. It isn't even anything related to the practice of the music per se. There is no longer a focal point to create any concept of popular music any more. The whole scene has become fractionally silo'd. Vertically disintegrated. Many realities all in parallel, but no center. What's left in the clubs in the neighborhoods is the remnants of the old order, an increasingly inactive community. IMO.

Possibly Europe is a bit different. They have a culture of going out to the clubs, mass transit to get around the alcohol issues, and an appreciation of art as part of the social interaction. I think if I were serious about performance, I would go to Europe. We are in the middle of an identity crisis in the US. YMMV

 

[DWBass]

On an aside, I'm noticing the degrees of bleakness being regional.

I agree. There is no lack of gigs here nor amount of bands! And new bands pop up all the time. If one lives in an area where you have bands playing for peanuts or free, that doesn't say much for the music scene. Is the band even good? That in itself can kill a music scene.

 

[Altitude]

Things are way different now.

In the late 70's I played in a succession of bands that worked the club circuit and also some hotel gigs. We played about 75% covers and 25% originals. We averaged 4 gigs per week. We averaged $125 per person per gig. Multiply it out for 50 weeks and that was gross earnings of $25K per year. In the late 70's that was very good money...a first-year high school teacher in the late 70's made $9K for 9 months work. A first-year engineer made $16K for 12 months work.

There were probably 30 rock bands in the Twin Cities metro area that worked that much (or more) at any given time and made that much money (or more)...maybe there were more than that because I wasn't familiar with the country music niche.

There are nowhere near that many opportunities now. I know no working bands in the Twin Cities who play 4 nights a week or more for full pay. Assuming money values should be multiplied by a factor of about 4x to compare today to then, I know of only a handful of musicians in the Twin Cities who make $100K per year or more from gigging.

Exactly. People keep saying "I play as much as I want, even several times per month sometimes!" and they don't understand that 25 years ago it was realistic to gig enough to call it a full-time job. It wasn't just bars, either. Weddings, corporate events, store grand openings, frat parties, and all these functions that now have DJs - used to use live bands. These translated into gig opportunities that no longer exist.

I don't know anybody in Denver or Austin who makes their whole living from gigs at this point. At the least, people run a full schedule of music lessons too. Most people have day jobs.

I can add something that may or may not be relevant but it's been on my mind. I see ads on c/l for opportunities to be in bands in the sf/bay area. There are alot of bands, if not all, that claim to have drive and desire to be great but only rehearse once a week. To me, that's more along the lines of weekend warrior status. If that seems to be the norm these days then I feel that attributes to the decline. There's more to being a good act then just rehearsing music. There's segways, practicing backups ,dialogue to the audience that should be rehearsed and eliminating dead time between songs, building stamina,etc. Alot of small things that add up can easily be forgotten when there's only 4 rehearsals a month. Sound quality is another area that seems to be lacking for alot of bar bands in comparison to what DJ's provide. Imo, most bar bands should rehearse twice a week and aspiring pro bands, more.

I don't disagree with your premise, but if you get far enough along the professionalism continuum it begins to swing the other way. I've played several big band gigs, for example, where I got the sheet music a week in advance, flew in for a Friday rehearsal, played the gig on Saturday night, and left on Sunday.

At a level, we need to be able to perform well with minimal rehearsal time. And if you are in a band that plays 4-5 nights a week, you may only rehearse when you need to add new material.

But - to your point, a garage band that rehearses twice a month, and nobody fully knows the book, is usually going to sound like crap.

 

[Gaolee]

I REALLY REALLY REALLY hope your crystal ball is right on this, Gaolee. This is not sarcasm, just hope!

I might be a pathological optimist. But, fashions change. All the old blues guys who were forgotten became popular again in the 1950s. Folk music, blues, and early rock and roll took over from Jazz, which had become very refined. Jazz itself morphed into bebop and then free jazz. It's morphing back toward more accessible forms and there's a revival of more traditional jazz as well.

In the 1970s, rock music devolved into big arena shows and hair farmers. Punk and hip-hop brought it back to the streets and did away with the 20 minute solos that arena rock featured. In the 1990s, grunge came along and flushed out a lot of electronic stuff that had its roots in the early 1980s.

My point is that nothing ever goes completely away, and popular tastes swing back and forth. There's a thread about disco (which I don't care for) and how it is still with us. This is true. We still have disco derived elements, especially in electronic dance music. I don't like it, but enough people do that it will stick around. It won't be as overwhelmingly common soon enough.

The people I'm around who are in their 20s now are more interested in jazz, classic rock, punk, blues, Motown, Memphis soul, and the like than in autotuned, computer music. They will be the audiences that musicians play live for over the next 30 or 40 years, along with their children. Sure, they watch sports, spend money on other stuff, and all that. But, going to see a baseball game costs a lot more than going to see a live band. Some are more interested in seeing live music than others. That's nothing new.

Being a musician has always been a difficult way to make a living, and it may be that being a musician alone is not going to be a viable career choice in the future. But, I will stick to my prediction that people playing instruments will stay in demand at some level for as long as there are humans who like to be entertained, dance, and go out for an evening. Computers don't do passion and emotion. At least not yet. And, computers don't do spontaneous. People do all of those things, and other people respond to it.

 

[bluesblaster]

Things are way different now.

In the late 70's I played in a succession of bands that worked the club circuit and also some hotel gigs. We played about 75% covers and 25% originals. We averaged 4 gigs per week. We averaged $125 per person per gig. Multiply it out for 50 weeks and that was gross earnings of $25K per year. In the late 70's that was very good money...a first-year high school teacher in the late 70's made $9K for 9 months work. A first-year engineer made $16K for 12 months work.

There were probably 30 rock bands in the Twin Cities metro area that worked that much (or more) at any given time and made that much money (or more)...maybe there were more than that because I wasn't familiar with the country music niche.

There are nowhere near that many opportunities now. I know no working bands in the Twin Cities who play 4 nights a week or more for full pay. Assuming money values should be multiplied by a factor of about 4x to compare today to then, I know of only a handful of musicians in the Twin Cities who make $100K per year or more from gigging.

I am in total agreement with Sundogue about those of us who became weekend-only performing musicians over the past 20 to 30 years due to the decreasing opportunities to earn adequate money from performing only.

I only play in "good" bands, not collections of hacks. We are actually better musicians and performers now than we have ever been, because we never stopped practicing, learning and growing as musical performers.

lfmn16, I assume since you've "never been in a good band with members whose primary goal is to please the audience that had problems getting work", you are playing 4+ nights per week, every week, and making $100K+ per year?

coming up in the twin cities music scene in the 70's, 80's and 90's I would agree, I have a one of the best bands I've ever been in right now but we gig very little as a result of the contracting live scene. I'd like to know whose makin 100K around here, unless your last name is Petersen, Johnson or Steele.

 

[pklima]

This is a really good point. Does the future of us playing hinge upon our ability to let go of our old favorite tools? Putting down our favorite bass to pick up an electronic noise maker?

Honestly, I think the answer is "naaaah". I just really like this music thing and still want to be doing it in 30 years. I figure the longer I can keep my skills and tastes current, the less out of date I'll be in 30 years.

And even if you do decide to start using new tools, it's not throwing away your old skills. Theory, knowledge of signal processing, knowing mids from treble, familiarity with different styles, a decent ear, it all adds up and makes doing all kinds of things easier.

Even the ability to physically play notes on "real" instruments is useful - I've made that sample set of myself playing my DB. I've also resynthesized some of those samples and even made plucked sounds out of bowed double bass notes that way. Pointless but fun. Next I want to make kick drums out of samples recorded on a seriously detuned EUB. I also helped out with the fingering algorithm in a recently released guitar VST instrument.

As far as modern pop music, and playing it or letting it influence your originals, I feel that even electronic music is being played more and more these days by bands playing actual instruments

Disclosure are a very successful example of this. I think "White Noise" hit #2 on the UK charts and won some kind of British or Euro award for best song of 2013 a few weeks back, dunno how prestigious it really is, but anyway. Live they play that one with "real" bass, but the bassist doesn't always play bass. It's really worth seeing how they do this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UvQYvDshLE

I cover that one too. Also "F For You", the version with Mary J. Blige. Though it's not really modern, it's actually very 90s retro.

Possibly Europe is a bit different. They have a culture of going out to the clubs, mass transit to get around the alcohol issues, and an appreciation of art as part of the social interaction. I think if I were serious about performance, I would go to Europe. We are in the middle of an identity crisis in the US. YMMV

Europe is different - broadly generalizing much more electronic than the US in our tastes, especially the going out to clubs culture. We don't have new country here. Instead we have Martin Garrix and Fly Project.

 

[Altitude]

coming up in the twin cities music scene in the 70's, 80's and 90's I would agree, I have a one of the best bands I've ever been in right now but we gig very little as a result of the contracting live scene. I'd like to know whose makin 100K around here, unless your last name is Petersen, Johnson or Steele.

Nelson?

 

[Session1969]

I don't disagree with your premise, but if you get far enough along the professionalism continuum it begins to swing the other way. I've played several big band gigs, for example, where I got the sheet music a week in advance, flew in for a Friday rehearsal, played the gig on Saturday night, and left on Sunday.

At a level, we need to be able to perform well with minimal rehearsal time. And if you are in a band that plays 4-5 nights a week, you may only rehearse when you need to add new material.

But - to your point, a garage band that rehearses twice a month, and nobody fully knows the book, is usually going to sound like crap.

Absolutely, a band that plays 4-5 nights a week is already playing more than 99% of most bands that I know of in my area and those that are already at a pro level should be an exception because they've already practiced successful habits to get themselves to where they are. I'm not talking about bands that are already on point through experience or an already busy schedule.

I just feel , based on what I see with alot of bar bands are long enough pauses in between songs to clear a dancefloor, guitarists tuning out loud, the singer drinking onstage, little dialogue or entertainment value, bad sound through the p.a., soundchecks right before the performance. When I played covers in the eighties, the bars we played at wouldn't allow soundchecks after about 4-5pm so that the happy hour crowd wouldn't be annoyed. Bar owners seemed more concerned. Nowadays, it seems that bands/bar owners don't care about that and you'll hear everyone say that they don't get paid enough to..... whatever. There seem to be alot of little things that people don't want to take the time improve on, imo.

 

[lfmn16]

lfmn16, I assume since you've "never been in a good band with members whose primary goal is to please the audience that had problems getting work", you are playing 4+ nights per week, every week, and making $100K+ per year?

Assume what you want. I'll assume you are incapable of having a discussion with anyone that disagrees with you. And if you took a second to think before your snarky post, you would know that 4+ nights a week, making 100K+ a year isn't a weekend warrior. since this thread is about weekend warriors I'm guessing reading comprehension isn't your strong suit either.

Feel free to sit on your condescending attitude.

Off to my ignore list you go.

 

[Altitude]

Absolutely, a band that plays 4-5 nights a week is already playing more than 99% of most bands that I know of in my area and those that are already at a pro level should be an exception because they've already practiced successful habits to get them selves to where they are. I'm not talking about bands that are already on point through experience or an already busy schedule.

I just feel , based on what I see with alot of bar bands are long enough pauses in between songs to clear a dancefloor, guitarists tuning out loud, the singer drinking onstage, little dialogue or entertainment value, bad sound through the p.a., soundchecks right before the performance. When I played covers in the eighties, the bars we played at wouldn't allow soundchecks after about 4-5pm so that the happy hour crowd wouldn't be annoyed. Bar owners seemed more concerned. Nowadays, it seems that bands/bar owners don't care about that and you'll hear everyone say that they don't get paid enough to..... whatever. There seem to be alot of little things that people don't want to take the time improve on, imo.

Agree, especially the earlier sound checks back in the day. I remember doing them no later than 4, leaving, and coming back at 8:30. We all had to work a little harder and try a little harder, but that move gave the live act more of a special feel; much better than the joint pushing aside a couple tables at 7:30 while the band schleps in.

 

[Sundogue]

Agree, especially the earlier sound checks back in the day. I remember doing them no later than 4, leaving, and coming back at 8:30. We all had to work a little harder and try a little harder, but that move gave the live act more of a special feel; much better than the joint pushing aside a couple tables at 7:30 while the band schleps in.

Good point. I'll give you two scenarios of bands I play in. One is an original act and the other is a cover band.

Cover band: Show up an hour or so before gig, schlep the minimal gear in, in front of everyone, set it up, do a quick sound check that everyone can hear. Go get a drink, go up onstage and tune up and play for 4 hours (last one to mostly the bar staff).

Original band: Show up earlier in the day, set up all the gear, do soundchecks, check lighting, stage props, make sure everything is as it should be for the performance. Band members leave. Hired crew stays to look after things and get music playing lighter through PA at an appropriate time. As people filter in, they notice things in the club are different. We aim to set up more of a concert type atmosphere.

Band comes back about an hour (or less) before the "concert" either already dressed like we're THE show, or go to a dressing room to get ready. At no point are we on the stage or near it or hanging around the bar. The crew has all the instruments on stage, all tuned up and ready to go. Subtle lighting is on along with music playing through the PA (at a lower volume than our gig volume).

5 minutes before we go on we show up near the stage as the owner (or radio personality, or whomever is going to announce us) gives us the green light to get up on the stage and take the place over. Which we do.

Sometimes you have to act the part. Act like you've been there before, be a showman, be an entertainer. Give people something worthwhile and worth talking about the next day.

In short...work it. Far too many bands, both cover and originals, fail to put any more effort into it than playing the music. Want a better music scene? Create it.

 

[Kragnorak]

On the other hand, there are quite a few musicians, making their living from "day jobs," who primarily play on weekends but are as gifted on their instruments and as passionate about their music as other "full-time" musicians.
And some of these "part-timers" are actually gigging more than the "full-time" players.
"Pro" is very difficult to define.
As someone who makes a living doing something other than music, but is very serious about music, and makes decent money playing two-three times a week, I prefer to think of myself as a "part-time professional."
It's way more than a hobby to me, if less than a full-time occupation.

I put it succinctly: "Music is my avocation, not my vocation." I starve when I try to play music full-time because I'm not much of a people person and don't schmooze or sell myself well. It's not a matter of qualifications... The positive side of that is that I can approach music as an artistic endeavor rather than worrying too much about money.

 

[Biggbass]

I am surprised that in a satellite city of Dallas that the OPs impression of the local music scene is what it is. Personally speaking I haven't seen much change at all in the Dallas local music scene and I've been playing it for the past 35 years. There was a shift from the old school clubs of Dallas, which had all pretty much petered out, to restaurant/grill/outside patio venues about 10 years ago and that scene is still thriving. Plus the Spring/Summer/Fall local municipalities outdoor concert series are still thriving. It does take some effort, leg work, and networking to get dialed into the opportunities but they are there. If bars is all you're looking at then you're going to need to have a cheap working blues band to get any bookings...emphasis on cheap. The competition in this part of the world is thick with a 3 or 4 pc blues band in every bar. And the majority of them are boring at best. Truth is, there's only a Stevie Ray out there for about every million blues bands that come along. And for all venues serving alcohol, if you cannot ring up sales for the venue then there's no need to even contact them. They're going to want you to bring in paying customers. If you can do that they'll have you back regularly but if you can't, one shot is all you'll get and you'll be playing for free chicken wings at the local slop shop.

 

[Sundogue]

I put it succinctly: "Music is my avocation, not my vocation." I starve when I try to play music full-time because I'm not much of a people person and don't schmooze or sell myself well. It's not a matter of qualifications... The positive side of that is that I can approach music as an artistic endeavor rather than worrying too much about money.

You're not alone. I would say that most musicians are not very good salesmen. But somebody in the band better be.

Success always has been, and always will be, more about marketing than talent. Which is why even barely adequate musicians that put on a great show and market themselves well, get more gigs than the most supreme musicians that stand there and only play music. To the public, bands that don't put on a show end up looking like 4 DJ's on stage.

The real winners are the ones with talent, a great act, and know how to market the music they play appropriately.