The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Posts 76 to 100 of 160
  1. #76

    User Info Menu

    Actually Pat's story should serve as a lesson to all.

    It's unlikely you are as talented as sometime wunderkind Pat.

    So don't moan about having no gigs. Go out and get them.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #77

    User Info Menu

    The gigs that annoy me are the ones where the band, or maybe some members of the band, are not getting anything out of the gig, whilst others are, and those others are taking advantage of the fact that musicians like to play, like to play live, and in the absence of anything else on will take such gigs. I've found it's not just pub owners, club owners, restaurateurs, (etc) but also other musicians who have this expectation that musicians will be happy to do freebies because they're doing what they love.

    There's a restaurant I know that gets a lot of bands and solo artists to play for nothing (because, of course, it's good for their exposure), and those artists bring in customers and the restaurant makes money.

    I know a songwriter who puts a band together and goes out for nothing quite often. He's happy doing so as he's retired and songwriting is his hobby and he loves to get his songs "out there". It's not a very good gig for his band members who have to go to rehearsals and learn all his songs and then for every paying gig, end up doing a free, or very low paying, one. They do so, because by then they're part of the band.

    There are numerous festivals put on every summer round these parts where the security company gets paid, the PA company gets paid, the advertisers, the car-parking stewards, the lighting team, the company that printed the posters and the tickers, all of them get paid. But the organisers can't afford to pay the musicians.

    There's a chap who plays in several bands who puts on a monthly "showcase" gig for his own bands (a good paying gig), and will pay a support act £10. Sure, that £10 means it's a paying gig for the support... until you buy a couple of beers and the petrol to get there. Now you're playing to pay. But it's good for your exposure...

    I've been in all of those situations over the last few years. But like DB, who started the thread, I've reached an age where I've chosen not to do them anymore. It means less gigs. But if I want to go out and play for free I can pick and choose - I can go to an Open Mic every day of the week, if I want, and play for free. Sometimes I do, if I have some new songs to try out.

    None of this is about making a living, or even about jazz - it's endemic in all genres - it's about being fair. If someone is making something from a musician, give them a little back. If no-one's being taken advantage of, then great, get out and play and have some fun.

  4. #78

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Indeed - but I think you are conflating the need to sell tickets with musical merit.

    A venue is most interested in whether or not they are going to lose money. In Greenwich Village jazz clubs I think audiences are more or less guaranteed so it’s the clubs who make the call, and I actually think it’s a bit more of a meritocracy (bearing in mind how problematic a concept that is lol) but in most cases here it’s, can you draw an audience? (Less so Ronnies cos it’s famous.)

    Furthermore, Peter Bernstein generally plays smaller venues than Pat Metheny.

    Imo it seems silly to compare them. Metheny has just got a bigger audience, for various reasons.
    I think there is a strong, but far from perfect, correlation between quality and the ability to draw an audience.

    The jazz players I know who make the most money are pretty much the best players. They are also aware that they are entertainers, so that they try to make a show appealing. I can think of at least one player who is respected by other musicians and can't draw or hold an audience -- so the correlation isn't perfect, but it's there.

    The last few times I was in the Zinc Bar to see Strings Attached (five great guitarists, including the guest artist) it wasn't full - and it's a small room. Audience guaranteed?

  5. #79

    User Info Menu

    Around here, I don't often hear anybody playing a standards gig. I know one group which does, but it's backing a vocalist for a clearly older crowd. And, their tunes are fully arranged (the kb player has an electronic kb adding parts, so it isn't even an entirely live gig). You might not call that jazz, but they do solo and that band has very good players.

    But, more often, the standards gigs are by more intermediate players. I don't think any of them really can draw an audience. And, from that, you might think there's no younger audience for standards.

    But, there's a local exception. There's a long standing Sunday evening jam, run by a jazz player who has a Grammy. Anyone can play, apparently, but the leader moves things along and does have the house band play a few tunes by themselves. They play jazz standards, they sound amazing and the youthful crowd responds enthusiastically. The difference is that the rhythm section is terrific and they take the music in unexpected directions that just work.

  6. #80

    User Info Menu

    I don't believe that jazz's problem is that recorded versions are easy to access.

    Yes, the fact that recorded music is just a click away has devalued recorded music. But ticket prices to see popular musicians are massively higher than they used to be. People are more willing than ever to pay for live performance. Maybe spending some of the money they have in their pockets from not buying CDs.

    Artists used to use tours as a loss leader to sell their album. Now the album is a loss leader and they make their money touring it.

    Jazz's problem isn't technology, it's an over-supply of musicians wanting to play it and an under-supply of people who like it enough to buy tickets.

  7. #81

    User Info Menu

    I think this thread has it all upside down. It's professionals who are "stealing" gigs from serious amateurs not the other way around. That is if we adopt a meaningful definition for these terms:

    Serious amateur: Has mastered common repertoire in a limited range of styles in at least one instrument. Can perform these at a high level. At the very least at a level that's enjoyable to listeners. May not be qualified to teach advance musicians as there may be gaps in musical knowledge.

    Professional: There are 2 types:
    1- (Sidemen) Well versed in many musical styles. Is hirable for large variety of gigs/recording sessions. Is an excellent reader. Perhaps a multi instrumentalist. Can learn new repertoire very quickly or on the fly and not waste studio time or time of other highly paid personnel on short notice gigs. Can teach music at a high level. Difference between this type of professional and a serious amateur is the breadth, not depth so much. That wide skill set is key to constant stream of opportunities required to make a living in music without a day job.
    2- (Front-men) Naturally great musician. Either a charismatic performer or a brilliant musical talent that transcends common standards and magical in the way his or her music can capture the audience.

    Listeners buy tickets to see type 2 professionals in good music venues. Type 1 professionals are hired by type 2 professionals both for performance and recording needs.

    Serious amateurs take dive bar, restaurant/cafe gigs, occasional barmitzvahs, weddings etc. They provide affordable access to quality live music in styles that they specialize.

    Well. That's how it used to be at least. Now that the music scene has dried and session musicians replaced by computers, professionals are lowballing themselves to get gigs serious amateur bands used to get. Those are gigs offered at wages pros would laugh at 20-30 years ago. So I hear from older pros.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 02-25-2019 at 04:34 PM.

  8. #82

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ozymandias
    I don't believe that jazz's problem is that recorded versions are easy to access.

    Yes, the fact that recorded music is just a click away has devalued recorded music. But ticket prices to see popular musicians are massively higher than they used to be. People are more willing than ever to pay for live performance. Maybe spending some of the money they have in their pockets from not buying CDs.

    Artists used to use tours as a loss leader to sell their album. Now the album is a loss leader and they make their money touring it.

    Jazz's problem isn't technology, it's an over-supply of musicians wanting to play it and an under-supply of people who like it enough to buy tickets.
    It's certainly an issue for musicians who used to rely on an income stream from selling recorded music.

    From personal experience selling CD's is tricky when much of your audience doesn't even own a CD player.

    If you rely on the fees from gigs for your income you are essentially living hand to mouth.

    But in terms of the live experience I think you are right.

  9. #83

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    The last few times I was in the Zinc Bar to see Strings Attached (five great guitarists, including the guest artist) it wasn't full - and it's a small room. Audience guaranteed?
    My experience is that there's, at any given time, a few clubs where you're gonna have a guaranteed audience in jazz: right now, that seems to be Smalls, which is always packed, Mezzrow, which takes overflow from smalls, and probably a few more places (I never go to the blue note and rarely to Dizzy's but in the past these places have always been packed). Additionally, there are always a few musicians that will be such a draw as to fill any place they play: when I moved to NYC in the early 00s, Brian Blade was most definitely in this category, as was Brad Mehldau.

    As for the rest of the places, even in the west village I think you are right that it is hit or miss, in my experience, anyways. Even the Vanguard is not always packed, particularly the late set on weeknights.

  10. #84

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pcsanwald
    My experience is that there's, at any given time, a few clubs where you're gonna have a guaranteed audience in jazz: right now, that seems to be Smalls, which is always packed, Mezzrow, which takes overflow from smalls, and probably a few more places (I never go to the blue note and rarely to Dizzy's but in the past these places have always been packed). Additionally, there are always a few musicians that will be such a draw as to fill any place they play: when I moved to NYC in the early 00s, Brian Blade was most definitely in this category, as was Brad Mehldau.

    As for the rest of the places, even in the west village I think you are right that it is hit or miss, in my experience, anyways. Even the Vanguard is not always packed, particularly the late set on weeknights.
    I attended NYU in the mid 70's. Back then I could go to Stryker's, a small bar on the west side and on Tuesday nights see Chet Baker, on Wednesday nights it was Lee konitz and on Thursday nights it was the guitar duo of Chuck Wayne and Joe Puma. No cover, all you had to do was buy a cocktail ($2-3) and sit and enjoy the music. Or on Wednesday you could go up to the West End café and see Tiny Grimes (same deal). It was never crowded to see any of these legendary musicians. I often saw Joe Pass and Jim Hall perform at places like the Vanguard or Sweet Basil or the Bottom Line for a modest cover and again, never a big crowd. Not far from my apartment/dorm room in the Village was Bradley's where Barry Harris and Ahmad Jamal held court. No cover, never a crowd.

    Jazz has been dead (and a dead end money wise) for jazz musicians for a long, long time. Let's not act like the musical chairs just ended.

    All of that said, back in the late 70's and early 80's, I was making about the same pay for gigs as I am now with todays dollars being worth about 25% of what it used to be. The supply of willing (and sometimes able) musicians has increased while the demand has gone down (and it hasn't been great in the 46 years that I have been playing jazz in any case). I accept the free market, but I do not accept those who break the law (playing for free is illegal) nor do I accept those who publicly perform who are not competent to do so (in the old days, venue owners could tell who was competent and the incompetent were restrained from public performance, today ignorance about the music prevails).

  11. #85

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    I think there is a strong, but far from perfect, correlation between quality and the ability to draw an audience.
    Ask David B about this hah. Suffice to say it's not quite so simple.

    True, there are famous jazz musicians, and there are indeed those with star quality.

    Also, those musicians tend to hail from a time when instrumentalists were a bigger deal culturally.... Jarrett is big because every boomer music obsessive had a copy of the Koln concert, not just the jazz fans... Metheny had PMG, and so on... I'm not those musicians could have the same career now.

    But the outliers like Metheny aside, jazz guitar is so.... marginal.... I mean the quality of the playing is obvious ridiculously high, but how do we evaluate it as an artform?

    I mean there's jazz that does well with the young people in London, it's a big cult thing, my students rave about it and then I listen to it.... It's OK. A bit bland. I don't really care for it, but what I know?

  12. #86

    User Info Menu

    In my corner of the world, the better players get the bigger audiences.

    The groups that have audiences have a few things in common.

    The rhythm sections kick a**.

    The arrangements are varied and interesting.

    The true jazz players create great variations of the tunes, on the fly.

    They don't have mediocre soloists taking long solos

    Somebody personable fronts the band.

    The music is a mixture of accessible and challenging.

    For all but the concert attractions, the seating is at tables, not rows of seats like a theater.

    The successful groups have build a following over time by playing a lot of good music.

    And, first, last and not least, the rhythm sections kick a**.

    The bands that don't do well have a few things in common too.

    The rhythm sections aren't tight.

    Mediocre soloists play for too long.

    The tunes aren't arranged well, or at all.

    There is little group interaction/creativity.

    Some groups play overly challenging music all night.

    Etc..

    And, I've learned from some of the major concert groups which fill halls:

    1. They aren't afraid to play a familiar standard, but they don't do it all the time.

    2. They aren't afraid to get a groove on and vamp a few chords. They don't do that all the time either.

    3. They understand that a jazz show should be entertaining, so they front the band pleasantly, pace the show, sing something (even if they don't have a singer) feature different combinations of band members and so forth.

    For example, last time I saw Eliane Elias, she played Jobim standards, took off her shoes and danced the samba, and had an extended vamp on a 3625, among other things. She played with Steps Ahead. She can play. If it's good enough for her, it ought to be good enough for most people.

  13. #87

    User Info Menu

    Actually I believe amateurship is getting more and more essential in general in today's world in marginal genres like jazz or early music.
    More important to keep some artistic movement living.

    I mean good kind of amateurship when people do something for love first of all but they have some skills and talent.

    t is very important in music.

    The thing is that real dedication to this music is getting possible mostly this way.

    It is very seldom that someone sets for jazz, medeival or renaissance music to earn lots of money, mostly people just really love this.

    Besides I know a lot of formal professionals who actually are very bad musicians, much worse than some amateurs.

    After all let us not forget that music essentially has nothing to do with money - it is all for love.

    We never say: oh Kafka, Faulkner and Proust were an amateurs! John Grisham is real pro! One should be pro!

    It works the same way in music. Just music has different social enviroment than literature but essentially it is the same thing.


    It is never-ending sorty though... of course amateurs - even very advanced - usually just do not have time to to bring up their skills and ideas to perfection.
    On the other hand proffesional often drown in routine, trying to convince themselves that this forced circumstances give them some invaluable skills (well it is true when you 20... but whne you are already 50 and still the same BS for money... I am not sure)

    Besides I know quite a few good professional players who say that they like to play at least occasional gigs with advanced amateurs because it is more interesting for them musically.

    For me the idea situation would be to have a nice daytime job that is not killing me and to play a couple of gigs per week preferably with the same group. And I think at least 2 rehearsals per week.

    For jazz it would be better to be in teh same style

    For early music I would prefer to have more or less the same program

    I really enjoy things when I hav epossibility to develope something but only stars can afford to rehearse a program and than tour with it for a year.... most pros I met play Vivaldi in the morning, country in evening... and next day some BS called 'Vivaldi-jazz' and the a catholic mass and then whatever they are paid for.

    I played for a year in classical group, theu met only before rare concerts - just ran through it all and that was it.
    I stayed there just for the sake to get to know some people and get used to classical stage feeling.

    But as a result it is not what the music for at least for me. It is not worth it.

  14. #88

    User Info Menu

    My understanding is that modern jazz came from pit musicians jamming on show tunes in bars late night after their paying gigs.

    The man pays you for the show gig. The late night jam session music pays you with a different currency.

    “Jazz is the music of the unemployed.” Frank Zappa

  15. #89

    User Info Menu

    Helps to bear in mind the primary form of jazz expression - the improvised solo - does not legally exist.

  16. #90

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by DB's Jazz Guitar Blog
    A Blog entry from March last year:

    Dutchbopper's Jazz Guitar Blog: No more free gigs

    The market for jazz (guitar) gigs over here is so small that most actually play for change or for nothing at all. Especially amateurs.

    Return On Investment wise, I could not think of a worse occupation than that of gigging jazz musician. There is simply no significant market for it.

    Still, I refuse to play for free. A dilemma for sure ...

    DB

    Even Jesse Von Ruller plays free ? Gotta be in top 20 Jazz Guitarists today or top 40 ...

  17. #91

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Helps to bear in mind the primary form of jazz expression - the improvised solo - does not legally exist.
    My lawyer never told me that!

  18. #92

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Robertkoa
    Even Jesse Von Ruller plays free ? Gotta be in top 20 Jazz Guitarists today or top 40 ...
    No, not JVR, MVI and some other name players and pros at the top. But below that people are playing for change and sometimes even for free. Even if they have a degree in music ...

    DB

  19. #93

    User Info Menu

    Club owners don't care if someone has a degree, ( ! ) they care about Performer being able to draw customers into the Club primarily as they should...

  20. #94

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
    My lawyer never told me that!
    Well if you could copyright solos, imagine....

    Would also get rid of those stupid videos where someone plays along with a solo to impress their mates

    OTOH would be a problem for jazz education textbooks - which is also a plus I suppose

  21. #95

    User Info Menu

    There's always busking.

  22. #96

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Vinnie
    There's always busking.
    sometimes it seems like there's ONLY busking...

    everywehre in the street (real busking), in the cafes and bars (play for donations), in the interent (please, support me, if you want to support it is just a price of a cup of coffe)

  23. #97

    User Info Menu

    If ‘everyone is teaching’ where are the students at these gigs?

  24. #98

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rictroll
    If ‘everyone is teaching’ where are the students at these gigs?
    They teach too.

  25. #99

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Vinnie
    There's always busking.
    Busking is cool by me.

    Summer in Central Park is a beautiful thing. With a right people you can make good $ and get booked for private events.

  26. #100

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pcsanwald
    Couldn't agree more with this, this is my fundamental problem with disparaging "free" gigs. I don't think gigs that pay $20-$50 are that much different than "free" gigs. And we can disparage cheap gigs all we want, but, ultimately, the market for high quality jazz just isn't there in most places.
    There are a few jazz venues in town here. To go there and buy two tickets plus food and beverage I'll spend about $200 in an evening for two people in that venue. At that kind of economics playing jazz is an almost viable business proposition, if even still a bit sketchy. chatting with some of the national caliber musicians that play there after sets indicated to me that these are "destinations" venues for musicians from the east and west coast as they travel through flyover country here because they can get that kind of money. Let's face it, if you're touring with a trio you probably need to be getting a minimum of $1000 a show or more to make it a viable prospect- so it costs maybe 50 or 70 bucks a set to see someone like John Scofield. I paid $80 per ticket for my wife and I to see Bob Weir and the Wolf Brothers, $50 per to see Jorma 'n' Jack, $45 to see Jonathan Kreisberg, etc. Money well spent by the end of the evening but not sustainable as a weekly or frequent thing.

    For musicians to make a living, they have to be able to play steadily enough while earning enough money to make ends meet. Getting one $500 gig a month is not going to achieve that. And quite frankly those gigs are rare around here. Most places where people are playing jazz, however, are places like coffee shops and pizza parlors. They cannot afford to pay musicians a living wage for playing because there's just not enough money coming in. The value proposition for musicians is that their presence will attract an audience whose spending will exceed the additional costs associated with having music (PRO licensing which is not cheap, building a stage, providing a PA and lighting if the venue is such that it needs it, whatever marketing costs might be involved, surrendering floorspace for the stage they could otherwise be occupied by paying customers, etc.).

    For probably 1000 years or more being a professional musician is a chancey profession at best and one that is actually not viable for most people who try to achieve it. The relative affluence of some popular musicians in the last 60 or so years is a fluke from a historical perspective.