Why Is Rock Still Dead?

"Pay to play" is already here. Smaller city symphony tickets only cover venue costs and the conductor's salary. Everything the musicians spend comes out of their pockets. Playing in a pit orchestra for community theater is worse. During auditions, you get "extra points" if you made a significant cash donation to the theater group. Usually the donation comes from the same rich dad who paid for all those music lessons.

I also know of some local bar owners who say to bands, "I can't afford to pay you anything, but you can keep all the tips and whatever you earn from CD sales." Take it or leave it. If you don't perform live and you're not on the radio or in music stores, you can't sell your CD.

It wouldn't be so sad if we were only talking about tone-deaf idiots like the ones who make fools of themselves on American Idol and in karaoke bars, but some of these individuals have ridiculous amounts of talent.

 

I really dug the Tibetan throat singing part! :-b

 

I'm doubting that last sentence is entirely correct. The symphony has most likely decided to play such stuff to keep them in business so they can actually continue their usual clasical stuff. You make it sound like 'the public' (which is not a uniform group or some monstrous entity ) demands only or mainly cheesy pop arrangements and those poor musicians have to comply or will never play worthy music again.
But even though it is a valid example of how hard it can be in the music industry it is an entirely different kind of music (branch, audience, songwriting etc.) as the one we're talking about.

 

What a lot of people don't realize is most of these upstart international touring and festival bands are financed the same way.
Someone in the band has daddys gold-pressed latinum card to cover those 'unseen' expenses.
And if a person digs deeper, they'll find when it comes to success in the industry these days, nepotism practically rules. Cousin runs a recording studio? great! Uncle's a movie producer? fantastic! Yer mom is head of PR at Sony? Now you've got your foot in the door! LOL

 

The 'ticket buying' public is who she's talking about.

 

You mean if you have connections you have more chance of getting (a chance of) success. 'It's not just what you know, but also who you know'. Seems something of all times. It sucks of course. Unless you have someone like that in the band

 

And what/who do you think i was talking about?

 

Do you not understand that when ticket sales wane that means people aren't getting paid? Orchestras have to play cheezy pop to increase ticket sales. Recently they are resorting to booze too.

Tonight at Symphony hall; Orchestral pop favorites! Beatles and Radiohead medleys!
(also Igor Stravinsky's 'Rite of spring' and Modest Mussorskys 'Pictures at an exhibition')
Free wine tasting compliments of 'Bucketswill Winery'

[SIZE=medium]"Wine Down" your week on Thursday evenings at 5:30pm [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]right here at Miller Symphony Hall. Come out for an evening of mixing, mingling, music, and of course, wine!

Hear some of the best musicians in the Lehigh Valley [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]at the best listening venue in downtown Allentown. Meet and mingle with the musicians too! [/SIZE]​

 

It's fucking sad...Even in my early band days we would negotiate for a percentage of booze sales. Standard dive bar pay (depending on the size of the venue)was usually 100-300$ performance fee plus 50% of the door and 10% of booze sales. If the band didn't keep people on the dance floor and sell enough booze, you didn't get asked back.

 

Yes. I just dared to say it could be there own initiative to keep the orchestra running and not as draconian as they are obliged to cater to every demand of the public.

But i also think playing in a classical orchestra is a slightly different game as being a rock musician in a band that aims to produce their own sound. Even when they're both part of and subject to the music industry.

 

I said "paying public". Nobody in any musical genre can ignore the tastes of people who are willing to pay. Somebody has to pay the bills for maintaining the venue, even when musicians play for free.

Americans have become very spoiled, expecting all music to be free or at least paid for by somebody other than themselves, then complain when big corporations make decisions about style and taste. You can't have it both ways. Power and money are connected.

The music situation is better here and now than it was in the town where I went to high school, where live music was performed only in church. Once someone became the principal soloist or piano player for a choir, everyone else interested in either job had to wait for that person to die of old age. Your wait might be 40 years. Even then, there was no guarantee that the job wouldn't pass to someone from a wealthier family.

Hey, that's really not a bad idea! Around here, similar combined events are always held at the winery. Obviously, it doesn't have to be that way.

Speaking of alcohol...

One time only, I had the poor judgment to sign up for playing one night every now and then in a piano bar; the ultimate suck-ass musical job; the only kind of venue where every performer is required to be boring at all times. If you play anything even remotely entertaining, it's a sure thing that the manager will yell at you after closing.

The closest I ever got to getting a positive comment there was when I asked the bartender after closing if he noticed that I added some stuff to a Billy Joel classic that made it more difficult to play than the original studio recording. He didn't even look up from what he was doing to answer me: "Nobody gave a shit. You're not Billy Joel." At least he didn't deny that I successfully added some difficulty.

I found that in such a setting, I had a lot more fun and made a lot more money bartending. My hourly pay rate was higher, I made about three times as much in tips, and nobody ever told me to be quieter. It took me fifteen years to learn to play the piano at that level, and three weeks to learn how to be a top-notch bartender.

 

Only slightly. They both need a supporting audience or they cannot be self-sustaining. Orchestras cost a lot more to sustain than a rock combo. Even less for a DJ playing EDM, and I submit that fact as one of the spears in the side of rock music, it's simply a lot cheaper to produce, and there's a huge audience. Also, why would a promoter or venue owner want to have to deal with five or six difficult and possibly unreliable personality's of a rock band when they can just hire one DJ triggering canned music?

 

I don't see desiring money with undermining art. It's all how you react to your situation and people can see you wearing it on your sleeve. There's no mistaking a cool cat for an uncool cat, no matter how many licks the uncool cat has hidden up his sleeve.

I'm not really interested in the mindset that musicians are grunt workers, slaves to a cruel and uncaring public. Musicians should set cool examples for the rest of us. They shouldn't set the example that we're all just slaves to the game, this cruel emo game of drinking beer and jacking off.

 

LOL, at least the guy was frank about his opinion... he still coulda been wrong about that.
It's one of the basic sustaining things for any musician I think, is the idea that somebody gives a shit.

 

Did somebody tell me if Billy Joel is rock or not and I missed it?

 

It's called 'paying your dues'.
For some it works out, for others it doesn't.
You can become the coolest most accomplished musician in the world and it's still a crap shoot.
It's a cruel, commercial world and getting more-so everyday.

 

Sure, why not... Billy Joel could rock. He might have tried a little hard to do so, but it paid off for him.

 

The electric guitar may be the ultimate rock instrument, but it isn't the only one. Even ZZ Top uses a keyboard sometimes. "Only the Good Die Young" is classic, bad-ass rock at its finest; all the anger, all the anti-establishment rebellion, all the everything it needs.

You want to add yet another responsibility to the job? Fuck that shit.

Reality check: If you wear sunglasses at night, you run into stuff.

...which is why I lasted exactly two performances as a piano bar performer. Life is too short to waste any of it on that.

To me, one odd thing about this thread is that nobody has brought up the weird dynamic of country music attempting (with quite a bit of success) to co-opt, combine with, and take over rock music. It's not a subject that I enjoy thinking or talking about, but it's a real thing. It started with Southern country rock (Lynyrd Skynyrd, Allman Brothers) and has siphoned off millions of rock fans since then. It drives me crazy, but I can't act like it never happened.

I didn't have a problem with the honky tonk elements Billy Powell used on classic Lynyrd Skynyrd tracks, partly because they weren't much different from things Elton John had already done, but I can't get any deeper into country style than that. All those flowery arpeggios and modulations and rolled chords with unbelievable hang time are, to me, like chocolate cake that's fifty percent icing.


If I ever decide to totally sell out and make a ton of immoral money, I'll combine all those tasteless musical fireworks with some brain-deal lyrics about God and patriotism and start preparing my acceptance speech for the hall of fame in Nashville. Lee Greenwood and Martina McBride, watch your backs!

 

How can you not see it? Sometimes I think the boundary between rock and country is so thin it has disappeared.

 

Country is definitely not dead. It's booming, and the city of Nashville is booming because of it.