United States

During the 70’s when live acts was common place, bands ruled the club/bar scene, I remember guys jacking for position where to eyeball the best chick in the joint, I used to sit or stand in a place with the best view to the band, loved to watch the guys at work, naturally my attention was directed to the guitar player in the hope to learn some exotic chord or a lic but also to the overhaul band sound.

After the mid to late 70’ all came to a F#% screeching halt when the F%#*Disco came in, from that point on if you wanted to gig you had to play that sh*t and look the part too, Disco came with a look, chicks had to have hair big enough to power a sailboat and with enough make up to paint a Buick while guys with platform shoes, bell bottom pants and vest or leather jackets looked like pimps.

But the nail that sealed Rock & Roll's coffin and the live acts for good were the DJ, these talentless pseudo musicians, record spinning gasholes with their $50 bucks at night fee put live acts out of business at least in my neck of the woods.

I don’t think live acts to this day have fully recovered from these two mother f#%& manmade disasters, although Disco thankfully has slipped for the most part into oblivion, DJ’s still linger on, it is not uncommon for me to dream to wrap a turntable around a DJ’s neck and when this happens even if it is just a dream, I wake up smiling.

How was it for you, can you relate?

Sorry for the outburst, my shrink advised me to do it.

Good points, though i'd be more inclined to say "danceablity" in the bar scene.
Taking a girl out i at least like to dance, seein's how it's costing a small fortune to get 2 peoples drink on. Or even single and lurking...you have to hit the dancefloor to up your chances of not going home alone (if ya know what i mean).
Let's face it, Rock and Roll is a good foot tapping music, ironically you can't dance to most of it.
Enter the DJ

Disco took the wind out of the sails in the 70s for local live music. DJs just became part of the scene and why not, I mean they can play whatever an audience wants to hear. Another thing that happened in our area was Karaoke. So venues that in the early 70s had live music now share DJs and Karaoke nights, plus people just have a lot of other options today besides sitting in a bar listening to bands play.

Good call on the Karaoke. Personally i don't get it.

Franny,

Everyone wants to be a star................................................

Ya know, I hear a lot of ppl whining about how DJ's & karaoke & modern music have killed live music. Hell, I've done it myself.

But as it's been said in other threads, some responsibility must be accepted by the live acts, themselves, for thier own business' demise.

Too many dumbed-down acts, too many low-level musicians asking for more than they're worth, and an overall reduction in the art of the performance itself. Musical acts quit doing floor shows. They even quit dressing up like they are stage performers. They went for the "easy buck" far too often, & said "let the music speak for itself." They quit putting the necessary effort into doing a "show" & just stood there playing like mannikens.

Well, guess what? If you don't give ppl quality entertainment, they'll find other ways of being entertained. That's where karaoke stepped in, & let the regular folks have the same kind of fun that the musicians used to on stage. Now you can laugh at the dopey one who can't read the words or follow the melody, or be totally wowed by someone who would never have had a chance to sing before this new "act."

DJ's can play the music that the regular musicians abhor - the rap, the disco, etc., giving ppl the stuff they want to hear & dance to.

Before you go moaning about "where are all the great venues to play," look at your act. Are you one of those that "lets the music speak for itself?" If you are, you're not putting forth the necessary effort to grab anybody's attention enough to be, well, interesting enough to go & see.

If you build a quality act, that transcends mere music (yes I said that!) then you may have a bigger & better following, & you'll get a better reputation, & places just might start calling you just because of what they hear about you.

It's work. You need to change up your act occasionally, too. You can't just go around with the same show forever.

To do anything less is simply lazy. When a band thinks it's so effing great that they needn't put any effort into entertaining the audience, it's just bad thinking on thier part. A live show is serious work. If you aren't gonna put the serious work into it, the ppl may as well just drop cash into the juke box, or hire a DJ, or have a great time watching & participating in karaoke. It's more fun than watching some guy who thinks he's so great that all he needs to do is stand there & play his guitar, or stand there & sing.

Sorry if I'm being a killjoy in your self-pity fest, but after watching the way live music has degenerated, I have a hard time being all that sympathetic about it.

I have yet to find ppl that are willing to put forth the creative effort, the sartorial effort, or the physical effort, into putting on a good show for an audience, & I've been in the biz for over 35 years. Back when I started was when the acts quit putting the effort into the show. THAT, imho, is what has killed live music more than anything else, or everything else, combined.

After reading through this, I felt compelled to throw in what I'm thinking (as usual).

Karaoke is basically random people (bear in mind I didn't say singers...) singing your songs and the artists (could be you) get royalties n whatnot.
People tell others bout this certain song. They said it's a great song and they should sing it too. They try it and they like it. They wanna listen to the original. They get to know the band/artist and they're fans. And so on. It's not as bad as you think. It actually draws more people into music.

DJs, on the other hand, with their turntables n whatnot, made up a whole genre of music. It may be good music in your eyes.. ears, but not in mine. Nothing like real instruments with the least effects.
Having said that, I like it when DJs are integrated in bands. For example, Incubus, a funk/alt rock band, had a DJ for years. He toured with them and recorded in the studio. It added another dimension to the funk touch in the band. So, on its own, they're really not that cool. Imo ofcourse.

Might be the longest post I've written here. Here I'll light a doobie for myself.

PS. First day of Summer 08 for me. Amen.

As a form of entertainment I take a live act even a bad one over a record spinner any day, I realize we all have our own taste and opinion and I respect them all.

Franny made a good point about dance ability which was the biggest factor in making Disco a success, every guy wanted to be John Travolta or at least tried, it was common in a Disco club to see a room full of people but few couples dancing on the floor while the rest of the guys just stood around holding their drink looking the part but not really know how to play the part, women on the other hand for some reason dancing Disco seemed to came naturally.

JW123 made another good point regarding Karaoke although this was not a factor in killing live acts, in the 70’s there were no Karaoke, but I’d choose Karaoke to a DJ because the human factor involved as opposed to a machine as it is for DJ.

I don’t agree with Philbymon assessment of the situation, he seems to think that if every band did their home work live acts would have survived while I think the disappearance of live acts was due to economics more then lack of talent or effort, Club owners to sell drinks they need women, to draw women they need Disco, to play Disco they no longer needed a band, just a record spinner, why pay 4 or 5 guys when 1 guy does the trick. Philbymon you said that you did DJ, I’d like to ask you; were you as inspired in spinning a record as playing a song on an instrument?

Bands in 70’s and even now had to play what people like if they wanted gigs, it was customary for bands to include in the song list the top 40, this was the time before MTV where the music for musician and general public came mostly from Radio, bands had to switch from Rock to Disco costing a considerable amount of cash to upgrade the electronics in order to mimic the Disco sound and most of them did it successfully, for a short time there were gigs available for Disco playing bands, there was no lack of effort, nor there was stale acts, nobody can survive with a stale act in any Genre of music, again in my view it was economics that made a success out of DJ's at the cost of live acts.

The point here is the difference between a performing DJ and a performing a live act, I see no entertainment value in a DJ maybe I’m not seeing what Philbymon sees, but until a DJ fills an arena or a stadium, I’ll stick with live acts.

Dunno where you got the idea that I ever DJ'd. I emphatically deny ever being a DJ, or even attending an event where a DJ played. I have successfully avoided them for my entire life. Ah...no, when I said "I've done it myself," I meant that I've WHINED about it, too!

I DID sing at a karaoke thing, once, but I did it in FL, where no one knew me, after I couldn't find an open mic. I am ashamed to admit it, too.



Even during the disco years, I saw bands successfully play rock back to back with disco tunes, & they kept ppl dancing using songs like Mustang Sally & such. Hard driving, upbeat stuff. How the hell can you dance to Alice in Chains' "beautiful depression" style of music? Pick & choose fast-paced, catchy tunes, from ANY area of musical history, & ppl will come & dance to it, if you have more to offer than just the music.

Yes, I DO think that if live acts pick & choose thier material carefully, choosing danceable songs, thier rep & following will be much better.

I also think that if the bands put effort into the SHOW, they will be much better off.

One band I was in recently was very successful, locally. We played some strange songs, too. Everything from Keb Mo to Dead to Phish to Lyle Lovette, & a whole bunch of original material, as well. We had quite a following with the Dead-head/Phish-head wannabe crowd, yet we also managed to keep ppl dancing.

This was the band I was in where I bleached & dyed my beard purple one time, & we all wore wierd outfits on stage, danced around like loons & such, while keeping the music going with no more than 10 seconds between songs, even when we were changing up instruments. We were interesting to WATCH as well as to listen to, even though we never actually developed a "show." We often had guest lighting ppl who played home movies or slide shows on our back drop while we played. It was pretty cool, & I'd love to do it again!

The changing up of instruments & singers worked pretty well, too. Every time you do that, you sound like a whole different band all of a sudden.

All I'm saying is that it isn't all about the music - it's about ENTERTAINING THE AUDIENCE IN A LIVE SETTING, & bands don't do that anymore, for the most part.

That's what killed live acts more than anything else. A general lack of effort to do anything other than play & sing. It isn't all that entertaining anymore.

A bunch of factors killed live acts: raising the drinking age, karaoke, dj"s, disco, more fees and regulations put upon the barowners, smoking bans, music videos, etc. etc. etc. It's a wonder anyone even tries to play live music. And find a venue where you can get paid to play all original music. Taint happening. Later...

Good points all, Bob.

I've found that when a bar starts to get a good rep for being a fun place, the police will watch it more carefully, too.

The new "zero tolerance" for everything in this country has hurt the music industry more than many others, I'll admit.

Still, I think there are many venues remaining to play at, & a good act can play there & make great money if they're willing to do the work to be entertaining.

A band must find a way to stand out from the rest. Making the event, the show, a visual act as well as an aural one will go a long way to making your band successful.

Bob, I tend to forget about the raised drinking age. I think that was a factor, when I was growing up you only had to be 18 to get in and drink. Nowadays its 21, those people in between would probably be in a club if they could. Heck some are in there anyway, but it cut a lot of customers out of the loop.

I still think that people have a lot of entertainment options that werent there in the past. Heck people just sit home and type in the computer instead of getting off their asses and living.

Also, once again if you are a cover band I think that you will have to play songs that people want to hear, not your pet favorite songs. One of my favorite guitarist is Jeff Beck, do I get to play Beck in a club? What Ive learned to do is integrate my old favorites into other songs. This weekend I played with some guys and somehow we started playing Turn Me Loose by Loverboy and we were kind of modulating between G and F, so I start playing Smoke On The Water over the top of it, we keep kind of jamming and then I threw out the lead melody line of Freeway Jam on there, then I wound up throwing the Frankenstein riff on there also. Later between sets I had a couple of guitarist come up and say where you playing Beck, I said yea, they are like cool. I never thought of that. Make it fun for yourself and others will pick up on it.

Ive never been in a band that didnt put some effort into putting on a show. If your just going to sit there like a knot on a log, do us all a favor and just stay home and play with yourself. Live music is meant to be exciting, so make it exciting.

I think you have to be serious about it all in your preparation, but once you start playing live you got to let it go.

Glad you chimed in fisherman, i had forgoten all about this till i read your post.
Check this article out and tell me that don't stink; if this keeps up, cover bands will be history.

http://www.beachrehoboth.com/10-12-2007 ... sty_rudder

Ya know, Franny, this looks like such a scam to me!

I mean, how do the artists get paid for the songs that are played? Do the bar owners have to keep a record of each song played so that the writer gets paid for its performance? No. Yet BMI demands that they pay the fee, & when they don't they may get fined.

Who's really benefitting here? Looks like BMI to me.

Does every pro songwriter get a cut from the fee? No.

It's a scam. It may be a legal scam, but it's a scam, & it needs to be either stopped or set up so that the songwriters DO get a cut from the cost that BMI receives.

If I play cover songs at a private party, where there's a fee to enter, then by law BMI or ASCAP need to be paid a fee. For what? For WHOM?

They have ppl that just go around taking notes on every song that's "pirated" by cover bands, & THEY get paid, but does the actual composer? Perhaps they should have to go to the places where the fee to BMI IS paid, & take notes to assure that the $ received by BMI gets to the songwriter!

I don't understand how all of this crap works, obviously, but it doesn't look very fair to anyone but BMI to me.

I feel the same way philbymon, how they know or keep track of 'who does what' is beyond me. Even if bands offered up setlists it'd be a logistical nightmare; take encores, running out of time, or flatout not playing X song(s).

I will call it what it is though B***S***