Making a Living as a Guitarist/Musician: Is a Career in Music Just a Crapshoot?
Making a Living as a Guitarist/Musician: Is a Career in Music Just a Crapshoot?
As every musician knows, it is not the best musicians that end up playing the largest venues (in this area Fenway, the Fleet Center, or the Comcast Center). Granted, most of these musicians that play these venues are better than average. I’m not knocking say The Dave Matthews Band, Santana, Van Halen, The Allman Brothers Band, Slayer, Metallica, Phish, and many other bands. The members in these bands aren’t fooled. They themselves will probably say that if you want to see better music it is probably at your local jazz bar. The way they ended up famous was that some people took a chance on them by buying their album, and then they rode the roller coaster to stardom. However, not everybody gets that break of being able to sell a few albums that are good. Not everyone who records an album gets it listened to.
I know of several local bands that I think have what it takes to make it. The local jazz guitarist Pat Ryan is as good as those whom you might find at the local record store in the jazz section, such as George Benson, Pat Metheny, and John Scoffield. Tripping Lilly is as good as Bela Fleck, Medeski Martin Wood, or Soulive. Funktapuss is as good as the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Jane’s Addiction, or Pearl Jam. The question is: Is the market saturated? The three bands I mentioned certainly aren’t comprehensive, but these people certainly aren’t rich. One observation of mine is that if a musician or band plays good music, then it is almost certain that they will have enough money to put food on the table, but very little beyond that. Additionally, though I’m not certain of it, of the bands and players I mentioned, they all have jobs (usually in music. For example, when I was in high school I got lessons from Pat Ryan) outside of their jobs as musicians. The question is: Can locals earn a living play the music scene?
The baby boomer generation truly got to see America in its heyday. Many of the bands that are what I’d term as over-popular are from the baby boomer generation. If a band was only slightly above mediocre, then if one came from the baby boomer generation that band would be playing stadiums. In fact, most of the bands that do play stadiums are from that generation. Their livelihood was handed to them on a silver platter. Okay, this is only partly true because this was also the generation where jazz fell out of popularity. No longer would music the music of Miles Davis, Thelonious Monk, Louis Armstrong, John Coltrane, or Benny Goodman be cool. There isn’t much good 70s and jazz, the prime for this generation, most of that music was hangovers acts from previous generations like the late Charlie Byrd, Grant Green, Wes Montgomery or Kenny Burrel though eventually some of them came around like Al di Meola, John McLaughlin, and Chick Corea. The baby boomers were too busy going gaga over crap like Jimmy Buffet. Likewise, the local mid-size venue is constantly clogged with expensive shows performed by bands that completely suck. Of course, not all of them suck, but a good amount of them do. Most of them didn’t deserve the superstar popularity that they had in their heyday, and they don’t even deserve to be popular enough to play the Melody Tent now. There are vast amounts of musicians that are better than these but get dill.
The late Jerry Garcia did have a point when he said that in the end to have some staying power; people want to hear music with some substance. This leads into an observation I’ve had that either may or may not be true. I have observed that when it comes to being famous as a musician (the blockbusters) then getting there is pretty much a crap shoot. The Rolling Stones are only average. One could expect to go to their local band and hear the equivalent of The Rolling Stones in their prime playing for a much smaller audience and going almost completely unrecognized. However, for those that aren’t trying to become famous, or who have at least chosen to make good music instead of fluff, the world seemed to have a way of making a way for those people to at least have enough money to put food on the table. I myself remember one of the members of Slayer commenting on their landmark album in metal, Reign in Blood, which some people practically worship, saying that he was certain that heavier albums have been made since.
However, the true test is if the virtuosos can keep doing what they are doing, that is keep practicing and have enough money to eat and afford their instruments. I’m not one of those snobs that say if it is not in the jazz section, it can’t be any good. In my time, I have found my way to several bands that are really good that would not be found in the jazz section. In fact, I have no idea what section of the record store they would go in. I guess you could say that they go in the section that is behind the counter, as it is only if you special order them that you have a chance of finding them in the record store. No matter how big record stores are, they just can’t have room to carry everything. If I went to Boston, I might be able to find some of them on the shelves at Tower Records perhaps. All I know is that these musicians keep putting out albums. I don’t know if they make any money at it. I’m talking about people like Mike Stern, Tony MacAlpine, Eric Johnson, Greg Howe, Vinnie Moore, Derek Sherinian, Virgil Donati, Ring of Fire, Dennis Chambers, James Murphy, Fates Warning, Savatage, Bozzio Levin Stevens, Jason Becker, and many, many others. The question is: When the economy goes south do these people have the ability to tour? That is, the names I have mentioned are international acts. They are very good musicians, if not virtuosos and these folks play small clubs if they are even able to tour at all.
Where music seems like it is headed is to a place of where people only listen to albums, and not live music. Album sound quality is so high that it can be higher than the quality of sound in a live setting. Likewise, loud and high quality stereos are generally able to be purchased for a relatively low price. I, myself, though I would like to be going to the wine bar for weekly jazz gigs in Hyannis (about 15min away), simply do not have the money to go. International virtuoso acts sometimes come through Boston (maybe more frequently than I am aware of). For example, I remember Wayne Shorter recently played Boston, and I recently missed Blackfield. I would have liked to see Blackfield. Speaking of Blackfield, Steve Wilson happens to be a member of Porcupine Tree, which is one of the really good progressive bands that recently got popular (so it still is possible to get popular if you play good music). However, if Porcupine Tree came out in the seventies, then they would probably be as popular as Jethro Tull, Rush, or the Allman Brothers. So, there is evidence that times have changed. The idea remains, are the musicians that only have their albums available for special order (especially the virtuosos) able to make any money? Okay, I can hear the rebukes in my head from anyone if they read this: I thought virtuosos by their very nature are supposed to be very rare. Well, that has changed. With the hundreds of millions of people that inhabit the USA there is bound to be several virtuosos and not just a handful at any given instrument. And, that I have mentioned so many on guitarists is that it is possibly the most popular instrument right now. Investigating, one need only visit music stores and ask a question: Which occupies more space in music stores, the guitar section or the keyboard section (it certainly isn’t pianos)? For every store I know of that sells both keyboards and guitars, there is far more space devoted to the guitar section. And, not only that, but there are far more guitar only stores than piano stores. I can’t be sure though if my observations could be applied to the world over, but I imagine that this at least holds true in the United States. Of course there is probably the guitar player or music listener that is saying, “But excuse me, isn’t Eric Clapton the best guitar player in the world.” My response can only be that if you truly believe that then you either suck at guitar or are a misinformed music listener. Eric Clapton is one of those better than average players that would play a stadium, but really he is over-popular, which of course is not to his credit.
The idea of the three, four, five member electrified band is a relatively new historical development. It used to be that if you wanted more volume, then you had to add more members to your band. Hence, the old way was concert halls full of non-amplified musicians. However, when there are fewer musicians, the money does not need to be split as many ways. This allows for there to be more bands. This allows for the chance of making more money than previously thought possible. This allows for bands to play venues that are so large that even the largest orchestra could not provide high quality sound for the seats in the back row; in fact, you would be lucky to be loud enough to be just barely audible. One drawback of the electrified band is that it means that it makes a lot more music available. Thus, it draws people to lowest common denominator music that is overly simple, and this is why mediocre bands now have a chance of getting popular. There are very few people that are actually able to benefit from being able to maximize technology in order to help them absorb more music (though I happen to be one of them). Thus, for some people you could argue that it is beneficial. I don’t think symphony orchestras are inherently better than four member electrified bands. Many people think such thoughts. However, most of them don’t listen to the orchestras. They just shrug their shoulders and find it strange that they seem to prefer the modern cds to the so called sophistication of the old symphony orchestra. Thus, one could think of the rock band/jazz band format versus the symphony orchestra format and think that symphony orchestras are better because they create more jobs. For me personally, I am not into just creating more work for more people. If people play music, then they should play because they want to play, not because they are in it for the money. However, I like the idea of having every person that wants to be a musician, and practices to the point where they are good to be able to find a job within the music business. Most musicians would probably prefer to be playing more gigs than fewer gigs. So, the amount of available work becomes a real issue. If you are worried about this, then I recommend going to see a symphony orchestra. I have seen the Boston Symphony Orchestra play, and I learned that such concerts are not any better than a lot of the other available live music, but if we go to see shows where more musicians play then we can be more assured that common folk get enough live playing time. This is one reason why we should be supporting things such as symphony orchestras, local musicians, and international musicians that don’t have enough of a following in a particular area to play a large club. That is that though a group of say 4 might be able to play a small club with amplification, truly they aren’t eating into the amount of available work the way a band like say U2 would. However, I myself am no zealot for seeing small acts. Sure I have been much more acts at small and mid size venues, but everyone should be able to see an act that plays for several thousand people perhaps a few times in their lifetime.
No comments:
Post a Comment