OK. I'll admit it. There's a musician friend of whom I'm jealous. I'm not talking simple, "Wow! I wish I could play like that!" but a terrible emotional pang that skews and twists my perceptions. No juicy name-dropping here because his/her identity is irrelevant. What's on my mind is the nature of this complex and ugly beast we call "Jealousy."
At its core, I think jealousy stems from insecurity. It's not about the person of whom one's envious rather what that person embodies that is unfulfilled in the jealous person's life. The musician is great at his/her craft, successful, and an absolutely delightful human being. I have absolutely no reason to bear resentment. However, when I see a performance of said musician, I yearn to be in a similar place in life, to have done things differently to be there, and to be as wonderful of a person.
This evening, I came to terms with my feelings but decided to do something about it. While I can't change the way I naturally react to the world around me, I can take steps to address the core of what's bothering me. I don't work hard enough at my craft. I practice several hours a day but certainly don't practice in the most efficient ways. I can be more pro-active in setting and achieving short and long term goals to get to where I want to be. Basically, I can give life my all and leave myself no room for excuses and regrets.
And as far as my becoming a better person, the best I can do is to make life as pleasant for the people around me as possible and hope that my actions bring them happiness and fulfillment.
I'm blessed with an awesome brother whose wisdom and judgement I trust. A little while ago, I had talked to him about a student who was a difficult nut to crack: every activity I tried to make music lessons creative, multifaceted, and relevant only seemed to dig the student (henceforth referred to as "Putney" as a tribute to a college professor who had to put-up with my own frustrating antics as a student) deeper into frustration and boredom.
By day two of lessons with Putney, I knew I had a student was, as cliche as it sounds, talented but unmotivated. I also recognized that I needed to completely change my approach. Some of my teacher friends deduced that Putney was a lost cause, that I should do what I can and just take the money until the parents eventually gave-up. However, something about that didn't satisfy me, and it wasn't until I talked to my brother that the reason became clear.
Through our conversation, I came to realize that students like Putney are exactly the type of students that need the full attention of teachers. I feel that the greatest failing of the education system comes from teachers dismissing difficult students too quickly and defaulting the path of least resistance. To paraphrase my brother, "Sometimes, people who are more mature than their age feel demeaned to be treated like children. Treat [Putney] with integrity and respect for the intelligence you say you recognize within," (although my brother's true words didn't sound like a stale fortune cookie on steroids). Lessons with Putney continue to be difficult, but by increasing the challenge in spite of increased resistance and treating Putney with mature dignity has put us on a path to progress rather than prolonged resistance.
OK. I'm guilty of bashing DJs. Venues tend to pay them more than live bands (I'm talking about your standard fare bar/club), and on the surface, it seems that all DJs do is play other people's music through a fancy speaker system. Easy work, right? Heck of a lot easier than spending a bunch of time learning an instrument, memorizing lyrics, and coming up with an engaging act, no?
Well, from a venue's standpoint, DJs are prone to make far fewer mistakes than a live band (oh, but man does it hurt when a DJ makes a mistake). They can take requests more reliably than the average cover band, play to the vibe of the room, and have finger on the pulse of the current hits.
But perhaps I'm being unfair to DJs and what it takes to be a good DJ. A good DJ has to have an ear not dissimilar from an arranger or musical director needs to have. This includes the ability to find rhythms, time signatures, key signatures, etc., that mesh well together. Timing is everything. Do you "keep the party going" or do you tactfully use silence to build suspense and anticipation?
Ultimately, bands can learn a lot from how DJs construct musical performances. Yes, the average DJ does not "compose" any music, but neither does a cover band. People love hearing familiar songs, but DJs and cover bands can also slip-in some of their own, perhaps lesser-known musical preferences. It helps keep the industry going and allow the music of past and present to stay in people's minds.
What's your take? What's your position on DJs vs live bands?
Last week, I wrote a post in response to the degrading relationship between musicians and venues (read it here).
While it's one thing to complain about the way things are, it's another matter entirely to try and devise solutions. This could easily segue into a rant about politics, but that's a discussion for another time.
Let's face it. Both venues and musicians want to make money. The common model for original acts has the venue making money from food and drink sales and the musicians making money from tip, CD/merch sales, and/or the cover charge. At its core, the model is not terribly unlike way large headlining acts work, only on a smaller scale. The venue provides a place to play, the act provides the fans, and money is made.
Venues have to:
... pay the rent and bills
... buy the food and drinks to sell
... pay the employees
... buy and maintain the lighting, PA system, and any house instruments
All of that's pretty expensive and, like most businesses, completely dependent on how many people patronize your spot. As a venue, you want live music to attract more customers and keep them there longer.
Musicians want:
... to play in front of a decently-sized, appreciative audience
... turn patrons into dedicated fans
... be compensated for their efforts
It's on that last bit where things get hairy. Sometimes, musicians are content performing for free food and drinks. Often, those tend to be weekend warrior musicians who have a career and see music as a hobby. But who doesn't mind making some money? Let's try looking at it another way.
Let's say, hypothetically, that you as a venue were going to pay musicians minimum wage (what Chris Rock refers to as, "I'd pay you less, but it's against the law"). You hire a four-piece band for four hours of music. The minimum wage in my state at the time of writing is $7.25/hr. Multiply that by 4 people and you get $29/hr for the band. Multiply that by the four hours you want them and you come-up with a $116 total. Ah, but when you pay your employees, the clock starts ticking once they begin providing services (I'm thinking food prep and cleanup for a restaurant/bar). Let's add another hour for set-up and break-down because you decided that band can bring their own PA, amps, and drums. The total is $142 to pay a 4-piece cover band at minimum wage for four hours of music.
As a restaurant, you'd have to sell fourteen $10 dishes (and some change) or nearly thirty $5 drinks to just to pay the band (again at minimum wage), and that's not taking taxes or your own expenses to make the food/drinks into account.
So then there's the question: what's live music worth? What's it worth to the venue? What's it worth to the musicians? What's it worth to the people who listen to it? There's a lot of doom and gloom about the abysmal state of the music industry. We hear terms like "fall of the record labels," "flooded market," and the constant tearing down of the Justin Biebers that emerge.
My generation is a product of the self-esteem movement. We grew up being told that we're all inherently special and unique (a logical fallacy) and deserve nothing but good things. However, does that mean that all musicians deserve to be able to make a full-time living? Of course not. The default answer is, "The good ones should be able to." Well, who are the good ones?
Take a look at any prestigious music conservatory. Those are full of some of the most refined, highly trained, highly skilled musicians, yet, the classical music world has its struggles. Walk into a local open mic (here's a great resource to find one near you) and you're likely to see a mix of incredible, homebrew talent and people who just do it for fun. Each generation manages to find their stars. Those stars will make a lot of money. They might not be the best in their instrument or songwriting or live performance, but they are the best at capturing popular attention.
This is all a round-about discussion to explore the idea of what musicians are worth financially. The easy answer can be boiled down to simple supply and demand. The more demand for a musician, the more that musician is worth. For a growing, independent artist, the main career move is finding out how to create a demand for his or her music. To a venue, a musician is only worth what he or she can draw. A crappy band that can bring out 100 people is a heck of a lot more valuable for a business than a really good band that has no fans.
With the constant media blitz, it sometimes feels insurmountable to break through the clutter and get people's attention. People can carry days worth of music in their pocket and taylor what they listen to at a whim. Anyone who is Facebook friends with a musician probably gets show invites that he/she has trained himself/herself to immediately ignore.
So, one more time, what are musicians worth? Ask their fans. Ask the people that hire them. Musicians can't hide behind the current state of the industry for being unable to reach people. Every artist is a product of the times in which they are living. Venues, do your research to attract good, interesting musicians. Be straight with your expectations. If you find the entertainment to be valuable, pay for it. Just the same, musicians, do your research about venues and be realistic with your expectations and needs. If your local venues simply aren't doing it for you, innovate and find/create your own! (It's certainly something we should have done in the events described in last week's post.)
The Solo Musician Network of the Philadelphia and Delaware Valley (here's their Facebook page) posted this snarky response that mirrors disgruntled sentiments shared by many independent musicians:
Every performing artist has faced a situation like this. Venues love to use words like "exposure" and "networking" as if it's something they can guarantee in lieu of any tangible compensation. Just recently, I played at a venue (that will remain unnamed) that was run as if they decided to tack-on music in the hopes of making a profit.
Tell me if this seems like a familiar situation: It was a restaurant with good food and a decently sized bar. My band, the Way Home, were coming from out of town and were tasked with the responsibility for filling out the bill, bringing four mics and stands, providing the entire back line (drums, bass amp, etc), and, of course, drawing a good-sized crowd. Thankfully, we'd be compensated with free food and drinks. No, wait ... we weren't. What a deal, right? Because we had a show the next night in the relative area, we foolishly accepted.
As the opening act was finishing up, we were happy with the crowd that had filled the venue. We then realized, to our horror, that no one was taking cover from the door! When we brought this to the attention to the venue, they responded, "Oh, I thought you guys were going to handle that." As one of my astute bandmates pointed out, that's an incredibly flawed assumption, especially from a legal standpoint. If you're a business owner, do you really want a non-employee, someone whose income is based on how many people he/she admits, to be the gatekeeper for a 21+ venue? Is that really a risk worth taking?
But I digress. This is a symptom of the crumbling relationship between musicians and venues. As a musician, it's easy to point the finger in frustration and make everyone else out to be the bad guy, but the fact of the matter is that venues are hurting too. I feel that venues are shooting themselves in the foot if they're relying on bands, most of whom have little to no draw, as their primary source for patrons. Both parties have habits of trying to exploit each other for whatever they're worth. Venues want bands with big draws (big draws = more $$$). Bands want to play at venues with a big draw in hopes of finding new fans. If both places are constantly taking, neither benefit.
Now I'm not one to be able to speak intelligently about running a music venue, but I would think that running a successful venue is not terribly dissimilar to running a successful band. Both need to reach out to press, media, blogs, etc., to get "exposure" and good reviews. Both need to treat everyone with respect and dignity. Ultimately, both need to have good, compelling content and have a clear idea about their expectations.
What I would love to see is an open dialog between venues and musicians. Both have needs and concerns about which the other side might not be fully aware. So I ask venues, what do you wish musicians knew about your side of the business? Musicians: what do you wish venues realized about the services you provide?
Next week, I'll be writing a post that explores profit margins between musicians and venues.
