# so,,are YOU getting enough gigs??



## CocoTone

Its getting tougher and tougher to get decent gigs these days. We've discussed at length, the smoking legislation, and how it has put a hurtin' on our fave pastime. Are you guys getting enough gigs to scratch that itch??
I know I'm not.

CT.


----------



## Milkman

CocoTone said:


> Its getting tougher and tougher to get decent gigs these days. We've discussed at length, the smoking legislation, and how it has put a hurtin' on our fave pastime. Are you guys getting enough gigs to scratch that itch??
> I know I'm not.
> 
> CT.


Yup, I don't want to play more than one or two weekends a month. That plus the occasional sound gig and I'm fine.


I turn down more gigs than I accept every month.


----------



## droptop88

Yes, right now 6 - 10 per month, but theres been lots of dry spells when the band wasn't happening, personnel changes, and other commitments. And this probably wont last forever either, so I might as well take the gigs while they're here......


----------



## CocoTone

droptop88 said:


> Yes, right now 6 - 10 per month, but theres been lots of dry spells when the band wasn't happening, personnel changes, and other commitments. And this probably wont last forever either, so I might as well take the gigs while they're here......


Your the exception then. I don't know anyone who is getting the gigs like they used to. To top that off, the venue owners are getting so cheap, its forcing some good players to compromise what they like, to do duos and the like. Yuck.

CT.


----------



## Ripper

getting more offers than we are taking for sure and it's increasing. We were just talking last night that we should maybe take a few more especially for the silly season bookings etc. I admit that the cash isn't what it was 20 years ago, but we also aren't trying to pay the mortgage and car with the gig money either. Ain't doing it for the cash.


----------



## Milkman

jroberts said:


> Yep. One every 4 to 6 weeks is plenty for us. We play original material. If we were a "party band", we could easily do more, but then we wouldn't have time for writing, rehearsing and recording.



How would you define a "party band"?


----------



## james on bass

Yes. I gig two weekends a month, which is plenty. The bar we just played at is pretty much a hole, but they love us and have asked us to be their house band - to play once a month. I am however, getting quite bored.


----------



## hush

> The bar we just played at is pretty much a hole, but they love us and have asked us to be their house band


Which bar James?


----------



## james on bass

hush said:


> Which bar James?


The St.Regis Tavern in London. They absolutely love us! :confused-smiley-010 The best thing about the place is it is completely dead by midnight. They usually close around 11:30-12:00 most nights. The last 2 times we've been there we played until 1:00am but could have quit an hour earlier - we just wanted to play our third set.


----------



## Milkman

jroberts said:


> A band that plays parties.



Ah, I see.

Your statement "We play original material. If we were a "party band", we could easily do more, but then we wouldn't have time for writing, rehearsing and recording." almost seemed to imply that any band that doesn't play exclusively original material was a "party band".


I guess I misinterpreted.


Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Milkman

jroberts said:


> Touchy, touchy.
> 
> It wasn't directed at you, and it wasn't intended to denigrate cover bands (personally, I think "party band" is a more appropriate term for what I am talking about than "cover band"). The simple fact is that if you gear your setlist towards songs people know and songs that people want to dance to, you will: (a) be playing a lot of cover songs; (b) have more opportunities to play shows than bands who don't do that. If, like my band, you play dark, moody country music that you have written yourself, you're not going to be able to play shows twice a week (unless you're touring). It's just not possible. Nobody is going to hire Will Oldham to play a wedding, a hall party or a corporate gig or to be their "house band". That's all I'm saying.



Touchy? Maybe. We've had this discussion once before as you may recall.

Not everything is black and white. There are many shades of grey. A "party band" to me is a bunch of guys who play at parties. Nothing wrong witrh that but cover bands or bands who are able to play both originals AND covers are not deserving of such a label any more than an original and such as yours is deserving of be referred to as say, amateurs, because you don't make a living from the band. Technically it would be accurate but just a wee bit derogetory, right? It implies that you are sonmehow inferior.



Oh, and for the record, nobody is going to hire us to play a wedding or a hall party either. Corporate gigs or house band gigs are another story. If you're a house band you're likely a heck of a good band.


----------



## Milkman

jroberts said:


> I'm not concerned about someone thinking I'm "inferior" because I don't do music full time. I'm also not concerned that someone thinks I'm a hack or a "typical punker" simply because I prefer to play my own music (which, incidentally, is a really strange assumption to make, especially when you've never heard me play).
> 
> On the other hand, you're obviously very concerned that people might think less of you because of the music your band plays. My advice to you is to do what you want, let others do what they want, and just don't sweat it.


You say things that imply otherwise. Whether or not you want to admit it, you have a condescending attitude toward those who play covers.



I DON'T in fact look down on guys who play all originals. Good for you and good luck with it. I was trying to demonstrate how statements such as yours could be a bit insulting.


----------



## CocoTone

I think guys that play'only origional' tunes, sometimes may be hiding behind the fact that they can't cop the right feel, or haven't found the right groove, or band, or whatever, to play a cover convincingly. Let me be more specific. I think I'm a pretty good player, but I know my limitations. I always feel a bit funny playing Hendrix covers. Don't know why, but I just do. I can play anything else, and put my own spin on it, but everyone recognizes it as a popular tune. I love jamming at the drop of a hat, with people that I've never played with before, and always have a good time, and learn something new. Some guys can't do that, so they hide behide the origional band concept. When a loose jam formulates, they're gone." Oh, I only do origional tunes."
Christ, even Rush does covers!!!

CT.


----------



## Milkman

CocoTone said:


> I think guys that play'only origional' tunes, sometimes may be hiding behind the fact that they can't cop the right feel, or haven't found the right groove, or band, or whatever, to play a cover convincingly. Let me be more specific. I think I'm a pretty good player, but I know my limitations. I always feel a bit funny playing Hendrix covers. Don't know why, but I just do. I can play anything else, and put my own spin on it, but everyone recognizes it as a popular tune. I love jamming at the drop of a hat, with people that I've never played with before, and always have a good time, and learn something new. Some guys can't do that, so they hide behide the origional band concept. When a loose jam formulates, they're gone." Oh, I only do origional tunes."
> Christ, even Rush does covers!!!
> 
> CT.


So it's not just me?


Like I said, I really don't have a problem with guys who want to take the original route, but for too may years I've been listening to that crap. 

I love hearing a band doing their own tunes, but a well interpreted cover is also great. Just because you're doing covers doesn't mean you're playing "Yellow Bird" at Simon's Barmitzvah.


----------



## Milkman

jroberts said:


> Congratulations, Milkman! You've managed to turn this into another covers vs. originals thread.


Nonsense.

Wake up and realize that you have a condescending attitude towards those who can and do play covers.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step toward curing it.:tongue: 

"Charge against original music"?

Dude, I was probably playing and releasing original music when you were in diapers.


----------



## CocoTone

jroberts said:


> Who cares, though? You either like what they are playing or not. Why does it matter how well or how poorly someone can play a Hendrix tune if that's not what he's playing?


Its one thing to take a classic tune, and a/ruin it, or b/put your own spin on it, and come up with something unique. Its an entirely other thing to subject people to what you think is great 'Origional' music, that in reality is utter crap. No wonder most 'origional' bands play for nothing.The good ones have record deals.

CT.


----------



## Milkman

jroberts said:


> Wake up and realize that you're paranoid.
> 
> 
> 
> Who's the one with the condescending attitude here?



I thought I explained that. (you are).


----------



## Milkman

jroberts said:


> Who's "subjecting" anybody to anything? Maybe it's just me, but you guys have the strangest attitude to people making music that I've ever encountered. You do realize that every "cover" song started out as an "original", right? Somebody had to write it. I've been writing songs since I started playing guitar. I've written some songs that I think are pretty decent, and I've written some stinkers too. Like playing, songwriting is a skill that can be learned, but to learn it you have to do it. And I do it because I find it rewarding. Writing gives me a certain sense of satisfaction that is quite different from the satisfaction of playing. I like them both.
> 
> If you think my songs are "crap", so be it. If you want to look down on me because I write my own music, so be it. I just don't understand why it seems to bother you guys much.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly mean that? The only good bands are ones with record deals? Unless you're joking, we're obviously coming from different places musically.
> 
> Who would have thought this would be such a controversial issue?



You know, I honestly believe that you don't realize the little subtle inuendos in many of your posts are derogetory. You don't even know you're doing it.


You always make binary comparisons that effectively amount to: 

original bands vs crap


It's ok. I've heard it many times before. I just don't put up with bull$hit like this anymore.


----------



## Milkman

jroberts said:


> Finding "subtle derogatory innuendos" in posts that are in no way either intended to be, or in any way on their face, derogatory is a pretty clear sign of paranoia.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where I've done that. I haven't. I wouldn't because that's not what I think. On the other hand, _you_ made several express posts that state clearly that "original bands = crap". Then you accuse me of being condescending and derogatory.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch out behind you, Milkman! The world is out to get you!
> 
> :zzz:



Sorry but the more you post the more you demonstrate how full of crap you are.


You see, the difference is, I AM in an original only band and also in a cover band.

You're either a poor communicator or you really have no clue as to how you really feel about this.


Either is ample cause for remedial action.

:wave:


----------



## david henman

...what an odd subject to scrap about.

i dunno.

my horoscope this morning said that i take myself far too seriously.

i laughed and laughed...

-dh


----------



## Milkman

david henman said:


> ...what an odd subject to scrap about.
> 
> i dunno.
> 
> my horoscope this morning said that i take myself far too seriously.
> 
> i laughed and laughed...
> 
> -dh



Right


Onward.


I get enough gigs.

(bigger ones would be nice)


----------



## Milkman

LOL


:wave:


----------



## PaulS

Opens door... sticks head in and mutters....It's just my two cents but if it wasn't for original bands taking chances to get a record deal and get a hit then we'd have nothing new to cover... close door and run... :rockon:


----------



## david henman

...i'm beginning to think you two are married.

:food-smiley-004: 

-dh


----------



## elindso

PaulS said:


> Opens door... sticks head in and mutters....It's just my two cents but if it wasn't for original bands taking chances to get a record deal and get a hit then we'd have nothing new to cover... close door and run... :rockon:


Yeah but they played covers to get the money to record they original stuff. 

Or not. Also closes door and runs away :wink:


----------



## Ripper

My 2 cents,
I know it might also be hard to believe, but there are bands that aren't figuring on getting signed and making it famous and that do enjoy both playing covers because alot of those songs are fun, as well as writing their own stuff to satisfy their own creative needs. 

We write our own stuff but also play covers as well. It's about having fun playing music. It's about a release from the daily grind and letting loose. For others it's more serious, but neither is right or wrong and neither is the be all and end all.


----------



## james on bass

I already posted on this thread in regards to the original question. Yet again we get derailed into the same bullshit topic. Maybe we can start a thread specifically geared towards the cover vs. originals debate so the rest of us don't have to wade through all of this shit just to see if someone else has anything to say re: the original topic.

This forum is for Canadian musicians to shoot the shit with each other and talk gear, talk tunes etc... - am I mistaken in this? Why are we bashing each other in a debate that can never be won?!


----------



## Milkman

Ripper said:


> My 2 cents,
> I know it might also be hard to believe, but there are bands that aren't figuring on getting signed and making it famous and that do enjoy both playing covers because alot of those songs are fun, as well as writing their own stuff to satisfy their own creative needs.
> 
> We write our own stuff but also play covers as well. It's about having fun playing music. It's about a release from the daily grind and letting loose. For others it's more serious, but neither is right or wrong and neither is the be all and end all.



True, and in that spirit it's wise to have respect for cover bands, original bands and those who can and do play both.


----------



## CocoTone

jroberts said:


> Who's "subjecting" anybody to anything? Maybe it's just me, but you guys have the strangest attitude to people making music that I've ever encountered. You do realize that every "cover" song started out as an "original", right? Somebody had to write it. I've been writing songs since I started playing guitar. I've written some songs that I think are pretty decent, and I've written some stinkers too. Like playing, songwriting is a skill that can be learned, but to learn it you have to do it. And I do it because I find it rewarding. Writing gives me a certain sense of satisfaction that is quite different from the satisfaction of playing. I like them both.
> 
> If you think my songs are "crap", so be it. If you want to look down on me because I write my own music, so be it. I just don't understand why it seems to bother you guys much.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly mean that? The only good bands are ones with record deals? Unless you're joking, we're obviously coming from different places musically.
> 
> Who would have thought this would be such a controversial issue?


In the big general picture, yes I do. When someone comes up with a good hook, in a tune that, when tested out on a real live appreciative audience, the reaction speaks for itself. If the song is good, it'll sell. Just like any product. if it sucks, you end up playing endless showcase after showcase, for free, just in the hope that someone will think its good. What a waste of time,when you could be out playing, and having fun, in a cover band, and at least pay for your gas and beer.
But, in the end, it has to be at least decent and listenable, regardless if its a cover or an origional. This thread was started to discuss the lack, or diffculty in getting gigs. I couldn't give a rats ass if your origional or not. If you can't play, your not gonna play out.

CT.


----------



## hoser

jroberts said:


> This argument is incredibly stupid, and I can't believe that we are even having it. To be honest, though, the thing that amazes me the most is that so many people who call themselves musicians seem to have the attitude that _their_ way is the only way to do things; that if somebody else's chosen creative path is different than theirs, then they are "full of crap" and "wasting their time". That, to me, seems closed minded and anti-creative. It's the antithesis of what I think playing music should be about. It's a bit disheartening to see such wide acceptance of that viewpoint.


word.

deja vu.


----------



## CocoTone

Man, its only a phuekken' opinion,,,as long as we're all playin' is what I'm sayin: We're startin' to miss my point,,,me incuded.

CT.


----------



## CocoTone

hoser said:


> word.



...man yer too cool fer me.:zzz: gimme a friggin' beak. Word my ass.

CT.


----------



## Mr. David Severson

I'm part of a Corporate band and have no problem getting gigs during the high season.Ex Xmas,Stampede..Ect. Would be nice to play a bit more in between. Hopefuly the acoustic project "Scotch on Sunday(s)" will take off to fill the void.


----------



## hoser

CocoTone said:


> ...man yer too cool fer me.:zzz: gimme a friggin' beak. Word my ass.
> 
> CT.


lighten up.


----------

