Wondering about the Nature of the Music (Page 2 of 4)

I beleive there are exceptions to all rules. I beleive Blues Festivals will be the only place blues is played. The clubs are dying with the old white people that support it. It used to be that you booked the act and you made money on the drinks. Now people drink cokes and water. They are resting their livers or worried about a DUI.
The bar business ain't what it used to be.

There are too many musical choices out there. The pie is cut way too thin for everybody. Picking a well difined piece like the blues helps give an act an identity but I don't think it gives you a leg up in any small successes you might have later. Playing covers will get you work in the club scene in Dallas quicker than calling yourself a blues act. Being a Red Dirt act will get you booked quicker than anything.

Making it in any genre' I think is tough to do but making today is less likely about gaining a record contract than ever before. It is about touring and building a following in whatever genre' you choose. Using all the tools of the internet. I do have a Pappa Chubby CD somewhere. It wasn't my thing but If somebody asked me, I don't know if I would consider him a blues act, and you know me I'm no purist. I would go see him, if I had the chance I just have never heard of him passing through here. I would of booked him, If I could just because he fit my modus operendi. Guitar player kind of guy.

I think I have lost track of the point I was trying to make. Oh yea. I don't really get your point Dino other than you think it would be better to market yourself to a younger crowd for a bigger payday later. I agree. I agree you shoudn't pigeon hole yourself in the blues. That is why the Black Keys have been successful and that is what I would suggest for BDS or any other young act. Do your thing let people call it what they will and just get to work. If it is good they will come. If the stars align just right you could be the next DMB, John Mayer or the like.

I'm just glad I don't want to be a musician when I grow up. Too many variables involved.

I think it's time for one of those "old white folks" to speak up. If a stadium full of drunk "young people", your supposed audience, is economically a better move than a Blues Festival full of us gray hairs, you would have to prove it to me. I can turn around and say there is a plethora of "Rock " Bands out there. A steady drone of 4/4 timing with screams...just MHO....Somewhere along the way there stopped being Rock & Roll bands like the Stones. But I defend my generation as a fan base. We have the most "disposable" income and are more likely to spend it on tickets, shirts, CD's, etc. I  think we tend to have a more narrowed list of favorites. (After you've listened to music for that many years you refine your personal taste). I also think that ,with age, you select Festivals because of the atmosphere, (I've never witnessed any drama at a Blues Fest or on the Cruise), the ease of seeing multiple acts over extended periods, with all kinds of goodies available.

There's no going back. Tomorrow's stars may well come from Cyberworld. Like Jim said, there's no shortage of talent out there competing for fans. If you attack the label of "Blues" player, then I think you would equally have to attack other labels like "Rock", "Pop", "BluesRock"....in fact, that may not be a bad idea. Maybe it's time for truth in advertising..But that all leads back to the essential question "How do you get people to listen to an Artist they haven't heard before without using a label?

I am all about legacy. I care very much about the future of music. It's just all more than this old brain can handle...time for some Tangerine Zinger tea...       Cathy

That is why I say i enjoy most that Joe who is talented enough to play anystyle chooese to play blues. One excuse i have heard when a no talent front man justified his existence in the blues world by calling singing out out key and blowing a shoddy harp. Well I'm authentic.

There is a misconception that the blues can't be sophisticated. That it doesn't require musical talent but passion. That out of tune is the way it was played back in the day. I heard a guy in Memphis complain that a venue was to nice for the blues. It had to be played in a small sweaty shack.

I think you have been to way to many Blues Society jams Dino and you are rebelling.

Actually Clapton struggles to sell shows outside of London, I know someone who was at his Nottingham gig in June this year and it was by no means a sell out (and he had gone to see Robert Randolph and the Family Band).   That's appears to be why he's primarily sticking to the RAH next year.

Hmm, think I'd have been on the hill too, with binoculars!  AC/DC sold out Hampden Park in Glasgow yesterday in less than four hours (50,000 seats in stadium, more on pitch) at £60 a head. i feel their renewed success is more a reaction to the Coldplay's and Take That's that are around at present. I chose not to see AC/DC, I'd rather see three or four acts in smaller venues instead (whether blues or rock, they are in the same venues up here).

Good point about the vocalists rather than bands, we are being subjected to constant X Factor type programs in which vocal ability is apparently all that counts!  Surely musical albility should be important in music!

Casino's are the exception to the rule. They will pay an artist more than the gross just to get people in the house. They make money on customers gambling not off of ticket sales.

That has really hurt the concert market where they exist. They can get acts cut ticket prices, paper the house, and still not go broke on the show.

Dino's post about BB being a 150,000 a night act might be a slight exageration but he is a 100,000 a night act.
There are always exceptions to that rule. Depending on the venue or event the price is negotiated based on routing, size of venue or festival and many other variables.

Casino's just don't have to rely on the promoter to profit to justify booking an act.

I still have no idea what we're talking about here.  We seem to have gone full circle.

I am working on a piece right now, and my theory is that bands that could play rock clubs, are seeking the safety of blues clubs.  Because they pay more, because they are easier to get booked into, and the musical aspects of it are less stringent.

I came here, because Joe is a good example of a dude who plays without boundaries.  For a while he played blues joints, then he moved to the rock clubs, and now theatres.  Which are non specific.  Making him stand on his own, and not go for a built in crowd.

I believe that half of the dudes calling themselves blues, are not bluesmen.  But rather some fearful hybrid.

If you look locally, it is really that way.