You don't have to spend more than a couple minutes on any band-related web forum to notice the (more or less) yin/yang dividing line that seems to run down the middle of the music community, and any band will have to decide which side of that line it will fall on, or whether it wants to try to straddle the line. But the dichotomy cannot be ignored. I'm talking, of course, about the eternal debate: COVERS vs. ORIGINALS.
A cover band is a band that plays songs by other people. An originals band plays songs written by the band members, or one or some subset of them. Yes, I know there are some bands that mix it up (remember the No Consistency Rule) but in general, for the most part, bands are either cover bands or originals bands. A big reason for the dichotomy is that they operate in two entirely different markets. Some audiences want covers, and have little patience for originals, and other audiences want originals, and have little patience for covers. (There is a hybrid that can sort of cheat the categories, which I'll discuss below.)
What sort of band any given group of people form will depend, as discussed in my earlier post, on motivations. The two feed different needs. Let's think about how the various motivations discussed in that post come into play regarding the covers/originals question:
Creative Art: a musician motivated by a desire to create art and share art with the world, to get his/her message across through his/her art, will do that through original music.
Interpretive Art: Interpretive art has a role in both kinds of bands. Interpretive art encompasses multiple sub-categories, which may or may not come into play in different kinds of bands. It is sometimes said that everybody except the songwriter in an original band is really playing in a cover band, because they are playing somebody else's songs. But in many original bands, the other players contribute to arrangements (usually, by coming up with their own parts within the context of the song). Arrangement is an interpretive art and is not, technically, songwriting, but many people get satisfaction from contributing to the creation of new original music even if they don't write the songs themselves. So an original band can provide what motivates them. Another form of interpretive art, however, is performance. Of course performance should play a part in any original band, but performance is the artistic raison d'etre of a cover band. For people who are primarily interested in performance for their artistic outlet, cover bands provide a number of advantages, such as not needing to find a creative artist to work with, being able to draw from the works of the greatest songwriters of all time, ease in finding a receptive audience, and...
Money: Cover bands win this one, hands down. Unless and until you reach the high levels of the industry, cover bands have a much much easier time finding paying gigs and those gigs also tend to pay relatively more. At the highest levels, original artists make more money. But getting to that point is like winning the lottery---you can't plan on it (although, you should prepare for it if that's a direction you want to go, just in case). Suffice to say, nobody in their right mind forms an originals band and plans to make good money at it.
Ego and Libido: Cover bands have an easier time finding a larger audience than originals bands, so (again, unless and until you reach a high level in the industry) you will have more people clapping and cheering for you (and, potentially, lusting after you) playing in a cover band. However, if what you want is to be appreciated for your artistic genius, that will come from being in an originals band. And, playing in an originals band can still provide adulation and help you out with whoever you're trying to attract; it's just that audiences and the pool of candidates will be smaller. It's not an either/or; it's a matter of degree.
Cover bands tend to do better at low- to mid-levels. It is much easier to get paying gigs and find audiences as a cover band, and a good cover band can become a regional phenomenon and make a pretty good income, but there is a limit to how far that can go. The most successful cover bands tend to hit a plateau at regional success, and there's only so much they can charge.
Note that it was not always like that: in the early days of rock, people who were essentially cover artists became big stars, including most prominently the King of Rock 'n' Roll, Elvis Presley. Early on, the charts were full of artists who were mainly performers, who sang other people's songs---often, when one person would have a hit, within a year or two a bunch of other people would put out the same song as a single, and sometimes do better than the original artist. But all that changed in the 60s, as the Beatles set a new pattern, and from then on for many years artists (at least, rock bands) were expected to write their own music. There's no law of the universe that says that a great songwriter will also be a great arranger will also be a great performer, but fans wanted artists who did their own material, so that's what they got, and to a big extent still get.
Of course, singers who did songs by professional songwriters never went away, and in recent years that model seems to be making a bit of a comeback---it's fashionable to deride pretty-boy or -girl singing groups that are created by management companies to sing pop songs, but they are part of a long and well-established tradition that predated rock and will probably still be around when it's gone. But the bands that are formed to support those kinds of singers are a whole different paradigm compared to bands formed cooperatively by groups of like-minded musicians. And they are mainly formed of proven pros---if you're in the running to get those kinds of gigs, you're probably not reading this.
An originals band is usually a gamble. At the lower levels, playing originals is a pretty much thankless endeavor, requiring lots of work for little or no money. There always exists the possibility, however, albeit very remote, that one's original music will catch on: that the industry will get behind it and turn on the star-making machinery; that the public will hear and love it; and that the artist will ultimately be rewarded with, as Queen says, "fame and fortune and everything that goes with it". But it is, indeed, "no bed of roses, no pleasure cruise." What an originals band does offer at levels below stardom is an artistic outlet---the chance to reach people with one's art. It is just important to realize that that may be the ONLY benefit one gets from an originals band, for a long time if not ever. There are plenty of originals bands enjoying only small scale success but as long as expectations are realistic and the members artistic motivations are being allowed sufficient scope, it is entirely possible for such a band to be stable and happy indefinitely.
And it is of course possible for a cover band to NOT partake of the advantages available to cover bands: it is entirely possible to play covers that nobody wants to hear. But assuming a reasonable business plan and marketing effort, a cover band has a potential to get money-making gigs for bigger audiences than an originals band, all other things being equal.
So, there you have some of the main factors differentiating cover bands and originals bands. I mentioned earlier a hybrid that straddles the line, and that is the cover band that does its own different arrangements of songs, sometimes referred to as "doing it our own way" or "making the song our own". There's a continuum of artistic expression that goes something like this: performance = cover band; performance + arrangement = hybrid cover band; performance + arrangement + songwriting = originals band. (You could take this to amusing but ridiculous extremes: performance + songwriting = singer/songwriter; arrangement + songwriting (without performance) = nihilist shoegazer band (just kidding, nihilist shoegazer bands!).) A hybrid cover band uses familiar songs to tap into the cover band market but is really selling a performance more than the traditional cover band experience. They also face the same ultimate limitations as cover bands.
There are also of course bands that start out playing covers or play mainly covers but also throw in the occasional original. Unless and until originals constitute a substantial portion of the show, such bands are still cover bands, since that's how they're marketing themselves, and to have that luxury the bands have to establish themselves as cover bands first. Like hybrid bands, they may be able to transition into predominantly selling their performance rather than the specific songs they play, and ultimately they may be able to morph into originals bands. That's an interesting phenomenon, but probably for a different post.
So, that's all well and good. Unfortunately, out there in the cruel world of the interwebs, there is a lot of sniping back and forth between originals band people and cover band people. I think it is mainly due to neither group understanding, or at least not appreciating, the different motivations of the other group. Original players seem to take great pride in not compromising their artistic integrity for filthy lucre, and cover band players smirk all the way to the bank. Similarly, original players seem to often resent the ease with which cover bands (coincidentally, cover bands playing music they don't like) are able to get gigs, especially paying gigs, when the universe fails to recognize their own genius. But it's vital to recognize that for the most part, the markets for cover band music and original band music are completely separate. A gig that a cover band gets is almost certainly not a gig that an original band lost. Neither is in the running for the other's gigs. It's like a truck manufacturer resenting sales of sports cars.
Something else that goes on, and this is absolutely not everybody or even most people, but it does go on: "Art" is used as an excuse for a lack of mastery of craft. There are bands out there that play really bad versions of songs and justify it with "We do our own version." Sometimes, that just means that the band doesn't have the skill or talent to play the original arrangement. For your own sake and the happiness of everyone around you, don't kid yourself on this. Coming up with a good arrangement for a song takes skill and it takes a LOT of skill to come up with an all-new arrangement of a song that's already popular, and have it be good enough that people want to hear it instead of the arrangement they know. If you can do it, great, but I see lots of people on music forums give as general advice, "Do your own version!" and I think that a lot of bands are not really qualified to do that. That is not good advice for everybody. Working with limits in instrumentation is one thing---if a song has a prominent keyboard part and your band doesn't have a keyboard player, well, that's something you need to deal with. But I think that changing arrangements is often an attempt at short-cutting, and as such it rarely works. If you can't play a proven popular arrangement of a song, unless you know with a high degree of confidence that you can put together an alternate arrangement that is going to have wide appeal, the answer is not, I think, to plow ahead with your own inferior arrangement; the answer is to work harder on your playing, and in the mean time pick songs you can play. Which is not to say not to work on arrangements, but never let arrangements be a crutch to support a lack of technical ability.
Often the people giving the "Do your own version!" advice are original band musicians who are not even really among the target market for cover bands---they place a high value on artistic content and want to see other people put more of it into their shows, but they are not likely to buy tickets or pay cover to come see those shows. It's only natural that musicians interact a lot with other musicians, but that can give you a very skewed view of the world, since nobody can succeed playing only for other musicians, and the "civilian" audience has very different ideas about what it likes. So take advice from other musicians (besides me :-P) with a grain or two of salt, and make sure the person giving the advice is approaching the issue from a perspective that is helpful for your own situation.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Art vs. Craft
If you want to be in a good, successful band (or do anything in the world of music, really), it is vital to always keep clear in your mind the distinction between art and craft, and the role each plays.
We seem to be going through a period in which "art" (or "Art") is hip, popular stuff. Everybody likes to think they are artistic. Everybody likes for their kids to be artistic. It seems like now, more than at any other time in recent history, EVERYBODY is in a band, and lots of the people in bands like to talk about their Art. For Art is a Good Thing, and artists are cool.
But the thing that often gets glossed over is, behind every art and every great artist is CRAFT. Craft is the nuts and bolts of how things actually get done. Art informs WHAT. Craft is HOW.
Now, because Art is a Good Thing and artists are cool, people tend to focus more when they talk on Art than Craft. And in many, many cases, what should be considered Craft gets lumped into Art. This makes it easier for the purported artist. Art is something that springs from inside a person, and it's subjective. The most someone can say about an artistic offering is that it doesn't speak to them or they don't find it inspiring/impressive/attractive/interesting. So a purported artist can (and many do) toss out anything and call it art, and claim a certain amount of moral high ground and insulation from criticism: how can you denigrate my ART?!?! Craft, on the other hand, takes a lot of work and is objective. If you can't draw, can't write, can't play: it's obvious and everybody knows it, and the only way to get better is to work hard.
Unfortunately, the popular view of artists doesn't involve much hard work---thanks largely to melodramatic movies and TV shows and commercials, people have this vision of artists spending a lot of time sitting around, dressed on the cutting edge of fashion, thinking deep thoughts in their garrets and lofts (if urban) or on the porch of their stylishly-renovated farm house (if rural), or sitting in sidewalk cafes or on riverbanks with their pads or notebooks, sketching or writing lyrics or poetry with their coffee, after which they head out to the hippest clubs with their vaguely European boyfriends and girlfriends to drink resurrected 19th-century cocktails or absinthe. Actually, maybe they don't drink absinthe anymore, since it's legal to buy now.
Spending hours and days and years working and working and working to master a craft doesn't fit into that vision. Nobody would get excited about a life grinding away at the technical aspects of [art form X] in some dingy rathole while living on ramen noodles, or (worse yet!) working some soul-crushing (and unfashionable) day job, but something like that preceded, I think you will find, just about every deep-thoughts-in-the-garret scenario. Even then, I suspect that for the real artists, life continues to be working and working and working at the technical aspects of [art form X], even if it is done in the loft or farmhouse.
The thing to always remember is, any great ARTIST is also a master of his or her CRAFT. Mastering the craft of whatever medium one works in is how an artist effectively communicates his or her artistic vision to his or her audience. The greater the mastery of the craft, the larger the artistic vocabulary, and the more effectively, subtly, and/or powerfully one can put forth one's message.
There is a craft to everything you do to be a good musician and to be a good band. Playing the guitar/bass/drums/keyboards/etc. is a craft. Songwriting is a craft---this is one area that most often gets conflated into Art, but make no mistake, there is definitely a craft to songwriting---it's something you can work at and even get good at even if there is no bubbling fountain of Art inside you. Performing is also a craft. Recording is a craft. All these things can also rise to the level of Art, but, in each of these cases, through study and practice you can master the technical sides.
In my previous post, I drew a distinction between creative art and interpretive art. Creative art, based on my experiences, is something that just comes from inside you (or, if you prefer, through you) that an artist has to let out. Even staid, stolid people may occasionally have creative bursts, but certainly the really artistic people I've known and worked with just had it in them and they couldn't turn it off. For people like that, as noted, mastery of their craft makes it easier for them to more effectively communicate their artistic vision to their audience.
Interpretive art, on the other hand, requires a starting point, a place from which the interpretive artist can set off to make something new or better. Craft is absolutely indispensible to the interpretive artist. A creative artist may have an idea with enough merit that it can shine through weak implementation, and may get cut slack on that account, but an interpretive artist without the tools to effectively interpret brings nothing to the party.
Craft always serves art. There is no true art that won't benefit from improvements in craftsmanship. It is never an either/or, and it is never appropriate to excuse a lack of craft on the basis of art. Be aware of this tendency, be leery of those who do it, and try not to ever do it yourself. In the band context, it often comes in the form of "putting our own stamp on it" or "playing it our own way". A cover band is the classic example of interpretive art in music. Issues surrounding the philosophy of cover bands could (and probably will) provide multiple posts on their own, but for now, I'll just cite the tendency of some cover bands who deviate from the original or most popular arrangements of songs to claim that they do so as an exercise of interpretive artistic vision. In some cases, I readily acknowledge, this is true. But in many cases, this is an excuse for not having mastered their craft to the point of being able to play the original arrangement. Obviously, not everybody can play everything, particularly when just starting out, but it is a mistake verging on dishonesty to try to justify a lack of craft on the basis of "Art".
So, work to master your craft. Even if you don't have a strong artistic vision yourself, mastering the crafts of playing your instrument and performing will make you useful and desirable to other people putting bands together. If you do have an artistic vision, the greater your mastery of the crafts involved, the more effectively you will realize your vision and connect with your audience. Don't get bogged down with Art. Art will take care of itself. You can't control art, and you can't control an audience's reaction to art, but you can control your craft and you can improve at your craft. A useful general point to keep in mind in building and running a band (and, indeed, in life in general) is to work on what you can control. This is a good place to start.
We seem to be going through a period in which "art" (or "Art") is hip, popular stuff. Everybody likes to think they are artistic. Everybody likes for their kids to be artistic. It seems like now, more than at any other time in recent history, EVERYBODY is in a band, and lots of the people in bands like to talk about their Art. For Art is a Good Thing, and artists are cool.
But the thing that often gets glossed over is, behind every art and every great artist is CRAFT. Craft is the nuts and bolts of how things actually get done. Art informs WHAT. Craft is HOW.
Now, because Art is a Good Thing and artists are cool, people tend to focus more when they talk on Art than Craft. And in many, many cases, what should be considered Craft gets lumped into Art. This makes it easier for the purported artist. Art is something that springs from inside a person, and it's subjective. The most someone can say about an artistic offering is that it doesn't speak to them or they don't find it inspiring/impressive/attractive/interesting. So a purported artist can (and many do) toss out anything and call it art, and claim a certain amount of moral high ground and insulation from criticism: how can you denigrate my ART?!?! Craft, on the other hand, takes a lot of work and is objective. If you can't draw, can't write, can't play: it's obvious and everybody knows it, and the only way to get better is to work hard.
Unfortunately, the popular view of artists doesn't involve much hard work---thanks largely to melodramatic movies and TV shows and commercials, people have this vision of artists spending a lot of time sitting around, dressed on the cutting edge of fashion, thinking deep thoughts in their garrets and lofts (if urban) or on the porch of their stylishly-renovated farm house (if rural), or sitting in sidewalk cafes or on riverbanks with their pads or notebooks, sketching or writing lyrics or poetry with their coffee, after which they head out to the hippest clubs with their vaguely European boyfriends and girlfriends to drink resurrected 19th-century cocktails or absinthe. Actually, maybe they don't drink absinthe anymore, since it's legal to buy now.
Spending hours and days and years working and working and working to master a craft doesn't fit into that vision. Nobody would get excited about a life grinding away at the technical aspects of [art form X] in some dingy rathole while living on ramen noodles, or (worse yet!) working some soul-crushing (and unfashionable) day job, but something like that preceded, I think you will find, just about every deep-thoughts-in-the-garret scenario. Even then, I suspect that for the real artists, life continues to be working and working and working at the technical aspects of [art form X], even if it is done in the loft or farmhouse.
The thing to always remember is, any great ARTIST is also a master of his or her CRAFT. Mastering the craft of whatever medium one works in is how an artist effectively communicates his or her artistic vision to his or her audience. The greater the mastery of the craft, the larger the artistic vocabulary, and the more effectively, subtly, and/or powerfully one can put forth one's message.
There is a craft to everything you do to be a good musician and to be a good band. Playing the guitar/bass/drums/keyboards/etc. is a craft. Songwriting is a craft---this is one area that most often gets conflated into Art, but make no mistake, there is definitely a craft to songwriting---it's something you can work at and even get good at even if there is no bubbling fountain of Art inside you. Performing is also a craft. Recording is a craft. All these things can also rise to the level of Art, but, in each of these cases, through study and practice you can master the technical sides.
In my previous post, I drew a distinction between creative art and interpretive art. Creative art, based on my experiences, is something that just comes from inside you (or, if you prefer, through you) that an artist has to let out. Even staid, stolid people may occasionally have creative bursts, but certainly the really artistic people I've known and worked with just had it in them and they couldn't turn it off. For people like that, as noted, mastery of their craft makes it easier for them to more effectively communicate their artistic vision to their audience.
Interpretive art, on the other hand, requires a starting point, a place from which the interpretive artist can set off to make something new or better. Craft is absolutely indispensible to the interpretive artist. A creative artist may have an idea with enough merit that it can shine through weak implementation, and may get cut slack on that account, but an interpretive artist without the tools to effectively interpret brings nothing to the party.
Craft always serves art. There is no true art that won't benefit from improvements in craftsmanship. It is never an either/or, and it is never appropriate to excuse a lack of craft on the basis of art. Be aware of this tendency, be leery of those who do it, and try not to ever do it yourself. In the band context, it often comes in the form of "putting our own stamp on it" or "playing it our own way". A cover band is the classic example of interpretive art in music. Issues surrounding the philosophy of cover bands could (and probably will) provide multiple posts on their own, but for now, I'll just cite the tendency of some cover bands who deviate from the original or most popular arrangements of songs to claim that they do so as an exercise of interpretive artistic vision. In some cases, I readily acknowledge, this is true. But in many cases, this is an excuse for not having mastered their craft to the point of being able to play the original arrangement. Obviously, not everybody can play everything, particularly when just starting out, but it is a mistake verging on dishonesty to try to justify a lack of craft on the basis of "Art".
So, work to master your craft. Even if you don't have a strong artistic vision yourself, mastering the crafts of playing your instrument and performing will make you useful and desirable to other people putting bands together. If you do have an artistic vision, the greater your mastery of the crafts involved, the more effectively you will realize your vision and connect with your audience. Don't get bogged down with Art. Art will take care of itself. You can't control art, and you can't control an audience's reaction to art, but you can control your craft and you can improve at your craft. A useful general point to keep in mind in building and running a band (and, indeed, in life in general) is to work on what you can control. This is a good place to start.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The No Consistency Rule
Web forums are full of posts by people looking for answers to life's persistent questions about forming and running bands, and equally full of answers to those questions posited by people with more or less knowledge or experience. But if you read a bunch of them, it quickly becomes apparent that there is nowhere near a consensus on . . . well . . . anything. People have been forming rock bands and playing music in them for over fifty years at this point---you'd think by now Darwinism would have raised certain practices and procedures to prominence and stomped out other non-productive approaches. But there's almost no question you can ask that won't get at least two and maybe more contradictory answers, each backed up with anecdotal evidence establishing that it works.
When confronted with that kind of inconsistent advice, it is important to keep in mind a characteristic of the music world/industry/community. I had long had the idea drifting around sort of unformed in my head but musician Eugene Chadbourne, in his book I Hate the Man Who Runs This Bar, put it into words most succinctly: he calls it the No Consistency Rule.
The way the No Consistency Rule works is this: in the world of performing and recording music, there is an exception to EVERYTHING. You want to be a star? Pick just about any example of a route to stardom you can think of, and no matter how good it looks, I assure you there is somebody out there who achieved equal or greater success by doing things completely differently. Study diligently how to make a great recording, what equipment to use, how to use it, etc., and once you know (you think) what you need, some clown will point to a better record made using other equipment and other recording techniques---indeed, probably the "wrong" equipment and the "wrong" methods. No matter what you may want to do, somebody has failed at it using the "best" methods, and somebody has succeeded wildly using "bad" methods. There is NO CONSISTENCY. No one way/approach/piece of gear/strategy works for everybody, and what works for others may not work for you, and what works for you may not work for them.
This phenomenon, coupled with a lack of really good statistical data about the music business, especially at its lower levels where most of us toil, has several effects. Most obviously, it fuels pages and pages of internet maunderings in which zealots argue about the right way to [whatever]. It also can facilitate laziness on the part of musicians, because whenever the most likely path to success presents annoying and tedious work, they can cite somebody who achieved success by some other path, which does not require said annoying tedious work. E.g.: "Why should we pay for recording and play gigs? [Joe Schmoe] recorded his album on Garage Band in his bedroom and just posted it on his MySpace site and he became a big star." This type of reasoning tends to ignore the myriad substantive differences between the speaker and Joe Schmoe, first of all, but also ignores the numbers game aspect of things. The existence of one person who got successful through approach X means only that approach X worked for ONE PERSON. Could it also work for you? Not impossible. But is it likely? Probably not. Is following that approach the most productive use of your time and energy? Again, probably not.
So, as you seek information and knowledge about the music business, never forget the No Consistency Rule. There will always be somebody who did things a different way and succeeded. There will always be somebody who did everything the "right" way and failed.
There's lots of luck involved in doing well in music---even if you're not trying to become a pop star, which is very much about being in the right place at the right time, luck will still affect you: did you just happen to post an ad for a bass player at the very time that a great bass player found himself between bands? Did you just happen to call the booking guy from a top club right after somebody canceled on him? So the best thing you can do is get all your ducks in a row and be ready so that if/when opportunity knocks, you can open the door and invite it in. So when you're trying to figure out what to do, don't ask, "What did my favorite star do?" It is entirely possible that whatever worked for your favorite star would only work for him or her---that he/she is the one person in a billion who could have done it that way. Rather, figure out what course is the most likely to position you for success. It may not be as exciting and it may require more work, but the only thing worse than never getting a break is getting the break but not being able to follow through on it.
When confronted with that kind of inconsistent advice, it is important to keep in mind a characteristic of the music world/industry/community. I had long had the idea drifting around sort of unformed in my head but musician Eugene Chadbourne, in his book I Hate the Man Who Runs This Bar, put it into words most succinctly: he calls it the No Consistency Rule.
The way the No Consistency Rule works is this: in the world of performing and recording music, there is an exception to EVERYTHING. You want to be a star? Pick just about any example of a route to stardom you can think of, and no matter how good it looks, I assure you there is somebody out there who achieved equal or greater success by doing things completely differently. Study diligently how to make a great recording, what equipment to use, how to use it, etc., and once you know (you think) what you need, some clown will point to a better record made using other equipment and other recording techniques---indeed, probably the "wrong" equipment and the "wrong" methods. No matter what you may want to do, somebody has failed at it using the "best" methods, and somebody has succeeded wildly using "bad" methods. There is NO CONSISTENCY. No one way/approach/piece of gear/strategy works for everybody, and what works for others may not work for you, and what works for you may not work for them.
This phenomenon, coupled with a lack of really good statistical data about the music business, especially at its lower levels where most of us toil, has several effects. Most obviously, it fuels pages and pages of internet maunderings in which zealots argue about the right way to [whatever]. It also can facilitate laziness on the part of musicians, because whenever the most likely path to success presents annoying and tedious work, they can cite somebody who achieved success by some other path, which does not require said annoying tedious work. E.g.: "Why should we pay for recording and play gigs? [Joe Schmoe] recorded his album on Garage Band in his bedroom and just posted it on his MySpace site and he became a big star." This type of reasoning tends to ignore the myriad substantive differences between the speaker and Joe Schmoe, first of all, but also ignores the numbers game aspect of things. The existence of one person who got successful through approach X means only that approach X worked for ONE PERSON. Could it also work for you? Not impossible. But is it likely? Probably not. Is following that approach the most productive use of your time and energy? Again, probably not.
So, as you seek information and knowledge about the music business, never forget the No Consistency Rule. There will always be somebody who did things a different way and succeeded. There will always be somebody who did everything the "right" way and failed.
There's lots of luck involved in doing well in music---even if you're not trying to become a pop star, which is very much about being in the right place at the right time, luck will still affect you: did you just happen to post an ad for a bass player at the very time that a great bass player found himself between bands? Did you just happen to call the booking guy from a top club right after somebody canceled on him? So the best thing you can do is get all your ducks in a row and be ready so that if/when opportunity knocks, you can open the door and invite it in. So when you're trying to figure out what to do, don't ask, "What did my favorite star do?" It is entirely possible that whatever worked for your favorite star would only work for him or her---that he/she is the one person in a billion who could have done it that way. Rather, figure out what course is the most likely to position you for success. It may not be as exciting and it may require more work, but the only thing worse than never getting a break is getting the break but not being able to follow through on it.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Why We Do What We Do
So, you want to be in a band? Great! Few activities are as fun and fulfilling. But now, here's a tricky question, and one that I think far too few people ask themselves: WHY?
You don't have to spend too much time perusing music forums to realize that an awful lot of people in bands find themselves in situations that are not optimal, and in many if not most cases the problems can be traced to a fundamental disconnect: the people in the band want different things out of it. In most happy, successful bands, the members know what they want and their goals are the same, or at least consistent or complementary.
You will never know whether you are working towards the same things unless you know what you yourself are after, so again, ask yourself why you want to be in a band.
There are many many reasons why people join or start bands, but in my experience most fall into a handful of categories, including:
1) Artistic creativity. A person with artistic inspiration bubbling up like a spring inside him or her may fix upon music as an outlet, and depending on the style of music, that may require putting a band together. This person's goal is to Make Art, and in many cases, present that Art to the public. "Art" is an imprecise term that can mean a lot of different things, so when used in this context, let's call it "creative art".
2) Artistic expression. This can be considered a separate category of art---let's call this kind "interpretive art", less about creating something from nothing than the artistic interpretation of something someone else has written. It includes arrangement and recording, but the biggie in band terms is usually performance. Some people just love to get up on stage in front of a crowd and put on a show. Playing in a band is one of the easiest ways to achieve that. This is related to, but not exactly the same thing as . . .
3) Ego/Narcissism. For some people, the real motivation is simply an overpowering "Look at me!" impulse. This category includes people who require being a member of a band to complete some part of their view of themselves.
4) Money. Everybody likes to have money. If you can play, there was a time when you could make pretty good money working less hard than "real jobs" tended to require. That's not so much true anymore, but if one plays one's cards right there is still money to be made playing music, and if it's not as easy to make an actual living nowadays, it can certainly provide a nice supplemental income.
5) Libido. Nobody likes to come out and say it, but the prospect of attracting potential sex partners encourages a number of people to take the stage. Again, related to ego/narcissism, but not (necessarily) the same thing.
Of course, any or all of these factors may be present in any given person, but (in my experience, anyway) most people are motivated predominantly by one or two of them.
So, if you're looking to form or join a band, it's important to be on the same page with your potential bandmates as far as why you and they are doing what you're doing. Consider what it will be like being in bands with these people. If you are a creative artist with a strong artistic vision and want to form a band to play your music for the world, then you probably don't want another person like that in the band. You may do just fine, however, with interpretive artists, as long as they get room to do what they do---how much they require varies from person to person. People concerned with the Show aspect of the band will probably want to do more rehearsal and tighten things up, and will want to get on stage in public, whereas some player are perfectly happy just playing together in the basement and don't really care if or when the band plays out. That's not going to work with many of the other motivations.
I should note that although it may sound perjorative, the "ego" and "libido" driven band members are not necessarily a bad thing. Running an effective, not to mention successful, band requires a lot of work, and those motivations may drive people to do work for the benefit of the band that might not get done, or not get done well, otherwise. Taken to the extreme any of the above motivations can be destructive. Someone who is pure ego or pure libido may be difficult to take in a band situation, but so is someone who is 100% pure "art". Fortunately, as I said, few people are motivated 100% by one thing. If those factors are part of what's motivating someone (or even---be honest---motivating you), that's not necessarily always bad because that energy can often be channelled into productive work for the band.
So if you're joining or forming a band, first, figure out what you are looking to get out of it, then see what the other members or potential members are looking for, and then think about whether the project will allow everyone to fulfill his or her goals. I see so many forum posts like, "I joined this band X months ago but [these guys never want to play out] [the leader is always telling me how to play my parts] [we're not making any money] [they won't play my songs] [they won't play what I tell them to] [they want to rehearse all the time] [they never want to rehearse] [etc. ad infinitum/nauseum]." Most of the time, if everybody's goals were clear from the beginning, such issues could have been avoided.
Of course, musicians being great bullshit artists, there are plenty of people who will tell you about their grand plans and goals, but if that is indeed blowing smoke, it should become apparent pretty quickly when actions do not correspond with announced intentions. But if you never define what you're trying to achieve, it can be tough to spot when you're going in the wrong direction, or at least not making progress.
One final note: it's important to keep in mind the distinction between goals and motivations. Goals are a function of motivation. Unfortunately, announced goals are often the first and maybe only superficial indicator of a person's true motivation, and they are easy to misrepresent...or, similarly, many people assert goals without the necessary drive to achieve them. Most people, all other things being equal, would like to be successful, in terms of at least being rich and in some cases being famous. So everybody can claim without completely lying that they plan to be successful, "make it" (within whatever parameters they consider making it), etc. But if their motivation is just low-level narcissism that is satisfied by them being able to say they are "in a band" (and that covers LOTS and LOTS of people out there), obviously they're never going to put in the work and sacrifice that is required for any level of real success, even on a local level. It may be impossible to avoid occasionally getting embroiled with big-talking flakes, but if you look for their motivations and keep a keen nose to the wind to detect when action deviates from talk, you can at least minimize the time wasted in such situations.
One final final note, after re-reading that paragraph: great ambition is not a prerequisite for being happy in a band. In most cases ambition seems to vastly outstrip industry and talent, but I don't want to suggest that there's anything wrong with just playing occasionally with a few guys in the garage, if that's what you want to do. The shoe fits on the other foot too: it's annoying when you join a band with grand aspirations that doesn't follow through on anything, but it can be equally annoying to put together a band for the purpose of drinking a few beers and jamming on Saturday afternoons, and then having somebody complaining about a lack of gigs and agitating to polish things up for a show. In each case, the problem is someone whose motivation is at odds with yours.
You don't have to spend too much time perusing music forums to realize that an awful lot of people in bands find themselves in situations that are not optimal, and in many if not most cases the problems can be traced to a fundamental disconnect: the people in the band want different things out of it. In most happy, successful bands, the members know what they want and their goals are the same, or at least consistent or complementary.
You will never know whether you are working towards the same things unless you know what you yourself are after, so again, ask yourself why you want to be in a band.
There are many many reasons why people join or start bands, but in my experience most fall into a handful of categories, including:
1) Artistic creativity. A person with artistic inspiration bubbling up like a spring inside him or her may fix upon music as an outlet, and depending on the style of music, that may require putting a band together. This person's goal is to Make Art, and in many cases, present that Art to the public. "Art" is an imprecise term that can mean a lot of different things, so when used in this context, let's call it "creative art".
2) Artistic expression. This can be considered a separate category of art---let's call this kind "interpretive art", less about creating something from nothing than the artistic interpretation of something someone else has written. It includes arrangement and recording, but the biggie in band terms is usually performance. Some people just love to get up on stage in front of a crowd and put on a show. Playing in a band is one of the easiest ways to achieve that. This is related to, but not exactly the same thing as . . .
3) Ego/Narcissism. For some people, the real motivation is simply an overpowering "Look at me!" impulse. This category includes people who require being a member of a band to complete some part of their view of themselves.
4) Money. Everybody likes to have money. If you can play, there was a time when you could make pretty good money working less hard than "real jobs" tended to require. That's not so much true anymore, but if one plays one's cards right there is still money to be made playing music, and if it's not as easy to make an actual living nowadays, it can certainly provide a nice supplemental income.
5) Libido. Nobody likes to come out and say it, but the prospect of attracting potential sex partners encourages a number of people to take the stage. Again, related to ego/narcissism, but not (necessarily) the same thing.
Of course, any or all of these factors may be present in any given person, but (in my experience, anyway) most people are motivated predominantly by one or two of them.
So, if you're looking to form or join a band, it's important to be on the same page with your potential bandmates as far as why you and they are doing what you're doing. Consider what it will be like being in bands with these people. If you are a creative artist with a strong artistic vision and want to form a band to play your music for the world, then you probably don't want another person like that in the band. You may do just fine, however, with interpretive artists, as long as they get room to do what they do---how much they require varies from person to person. People concerned with the Show aspect of the band will probably want to do more rehearsal and tighten things up, and will want to get on stage in public, whereas some player are perfectly happy just playing together in the basement and don't really care if or when the band plays out. That's not going to work with many of the other motivations.
I should note that although it may sound perjorative, the "ego" and "libido" driven band members are not necessarily a bad thing. Running an effective, not to mention successful, band requires a lot of work, and those motivations may drive people to do work for the benefit of the band that might not get done, or not get done well, otherwise. Taken to the extreme any of the above motivations can be destructive. Someone who is pure ego or pure libido may be difficult to take in a band situation, but so is someone who is 100% pure "art". Fortunately, as I said, few people are motivated 100% by one thing. If those factors are part of what's motivating someone (or even---be honest---motivating you), that's not necessarily always bad because that energy can often be channelled into productive work for the band.
So if you're joining or forming a band, first, figure out what you are looking to get out of it, then see what the other members or potential members are looking for, and then think about whether the project will allow everyone to fulfill his or her goals. I see so many forum posts like, "I joined this band X months ago but [these guys never want to play out] [the leader is always telling me how to play my parts] [we're not making any money] [they won't play my songs] [they won't play what I tell them to] [they want to rehearse all the time] [they never want to rehearse] [etc. ad infinitum/nauseum]." Most of the time, if everybody's goals were clear from the beginning, such issues could have been avoided.
Of course, musicians being great bullshit artists, there are plenty of people who will tell you about their grand plans and goals, but if that is indeed blowing smoke, it should become apparent pretty quickly when actions do not correspond with announced intentions. But if you never define what you're trying to achieve, it can be tough to spot when you're going in the wrong direction, or at least not making progress.
One final note: it's important to keep in mind the distinction between goals and motivations. Goals are a function of motivation. Unfortunately, announced goals are often the first and maybe only superficial indicator of a person's true motivation, and they are easy to misrepresent...or, similarly, many people assert goals without the necessary drive to achieve them. Most people, all other things being equal, would like to be successful, in terms of at least being rich and in some cases being famous. So everybody can claim without completely lying that they plan to be successful, "make it" (within whatever parameters they consider making it), etc. But if their motivation is just low-level narcissism that is satisfied by them being able to say they are "in a band" (and that covers LOTS and LOTS of people out there), obviously they're never going to put in the work and sacrifice that is required for any level of real success, even on a local level. It may be impossible to avoid occasionally getting embroiled with big-talking flakes, but if you look for their motivations and keep a keen nose to the wind to detect when action deviates from talk, you can at least minimize the time wasted in such situations.
One final final note, after re-reading that paragraph: great ambition is not a prerequisite for being happy in a band. In most cases ambition seems to vastly outstrip industry and talent, but I don't want to suggest that there's anything wrong with just playing occasionally with a few guys in the garage, if that's what you want to do. The shoe fits on the other foot too: it's annoying when you join a band with grand aspirations that doesn't follow through on anything, but it can be equally annoying to put together a band for the purpose of drinking a few beers and jamming on Saturday afternoons, and then having somebody complaining about a lack of gigs and agitating to polish things up for a show. In each case, the problem is someone whose motivation is at odds with yours.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Hi and welcome!
This is my blog about being in a band. Not a day-by-day diary of my band experience, but rather, my thoughts about issues that confront people as they form bands and try to keep bands going.
What credentials do I have to talk about these subjects? Well, I've been in a bunch of bands over the years, I've studied a lot about music and the music business, and I'm a pretty keen observer of life. Although it's hardly easy, putting a band together and operating in the musical marketplace are not really all that complicated, but there's a lot of misinformation and superstition out there to mislead the unwary, some due to ignorance, some due to people's ideas and beliefs not keeping up with changes in the world, and some due to sharp customers preying on the uninformed. I'm hoping that this blog will serve to help some people focus on the right things, keep expectations realistic, and avoid the pitfalls that have taken a steep emotional and sometimes financial toll on unsuspecting musicians.
Drop me a line if you would like to see a specific topic addressed.
What credentials do I have to talk about these subjects? Well, I've been in a bunch of bands over the years, I've studied a lot about music and the music business, and I'm a pretty keen observer of life. Although it's hardly easy, putting a band together and operating in the musical marketplace are not really all that complicated, but there's a lot of misinformation and superstition out there to mislead the unwary, some due to ignorance, some due to people's ideas and beliefs not keeping up with changes in the world, and some due to sharp customers preying on the uninformed. I'm hoping that this blog will serve to help some people focus on the right things, keep expectations realistic, and avoid the pitfalls that have taken a steep emotional and sometimes financial toll on unsuspecting musicians.
Drop me a line if you would like to see a specific topic addressed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)