[Dixielandjazz] Some Thoughts on Adding More Recent Music to OKOM Bands - was Igor's Question

[Marek Boym]

In general, I agree.
I come from the other side - the listener.  I like to hear things I do
NOT recognize, which means - songs of today.  The only Beatles song I
know from the Beatles is "Yellow Submarine" - I took my son to see the
film.  All the other Beatles songs I know I've heard played by jazz
bands - Kenny Ball, Basie, etc.
There is one point on which I beg to disagree - amplification.  I do
not remember the pre-amplification days - in the mid-fifties
everything woa amplified (but not overly so) .  Still, the shows I
remember as best were acoustic; I much prefer it that way, not for
nostalgia reason, but for reasons of reasonable volume.
Cheers

On 11/05/2008, John Wilder <JohnWilder at comcast.net> wrote:
> I wanted to voice my opinion about Igor's question regarding OKOM bands
> adding some more modern music to our playlists, since I haven't seen many
> responses from those that agree with Igor.  Besides, the few times I've
> posted here, I've gotten a deluge of requests to post more, so here goes!
>
>
>
> I think it is a shame when a band which plays OKOM absolutely refuses to
> learn or play any more modern tunes, and here's why:  Many of you have
> mentioned that the younger patrons really enjoy your music, but then you
> turn around and lament that the younger audience doesn't follow your band.
> I think it's partly because many of you absolutely refuse to play anything
> that is even remotely recognizable to them.  People want to know that you're
> not so different from them that you can never connect.  Even if you just
> added a few tunes to your set list that they might remotely know, they would
> feel closer to you.
>
>
>
> I sometimes book society dance bands.  When I book a dance band, I tell them
> up front that we're not a rock band, so if they want rock music all night
> (or even just the majority of the night), we're not the right band for them.
> HOWEVER that said, if someone should come up and ask for Proud Mary, Mustang
> Sally, Sweet Caroline, or some other rock tune we usually play one or two of
> the five or six rock songs we have.  We still play 95% tunes that are the
> ballroom tunes we feature, but that extra 5% that we do for them gives us
> oh, so much more favor with the patrons!
>
>
>
> I used to work in a band that played all 20's music - a novelty orchestra.
> If someone would come up and ask, for example, for "New York, New York" or
> something else that was not from the era, our leader would smirk angrily at
> them and say, "Well, of course we KNOW it, but we're NOT going to play that!
> We play songs from the 20's.  That's not a 20's tune!"  The person who
> requested the tune would go away, not only disappointed that he didn't get
> his tune, but embarrassed that he was stupid enough to ask for the wrong
> kind of song.  In at least one case, he even walked away with the $20 bill
> he was going to give us as a tip!  (I found out later that the song he
> requested was written in the early 30's.)  Well, needless to say, although
> the band was a good and well-rehearsed band, our gigs dwindled until there
> were so few that the band broke up.
>
>
>
> Another friend of mine plays bass, and used to play in a German band in New
> York.  He said that their band got five times as many gigs as all of the
> other German bands, even though they charged at least double what the others
> wanted - usually even more.  When I asked why he thought that was so, he
> replied that his band would play the authentic German music with lots of
> energy and excitement, which is what the people who hired them wanted to go
> along with the theme of their event.  However later when people wanted to
> dance, they would "mix" the traditional German songs with more modern songs
> which everyone recognized, and knew how to dance to.  All of the other
> German bands in the area at the time would play strictly traditional German
> songs all night.  Unless you grew up in Germany, a whole night of German
> music is probably more than you'd like to listen to - especially if you
> don't know how to dance to the music!
>
>
>
> I think the above applies equally to OKOM.  Even though they may just LOVE
> the music we love to play, the younger folks don't recognize any of it, and
> many are at a loss as to how to dance to it.  After a good dose of OKOM, I'm
> sure most audiences would like to hear at least one or two tunes they know,
> or have at least heard before.
>
>
>
> Think about it:  If you paid good money to see a star like Sinatra or Liza,
> but they announced that they would not be singing any of their hits, but
> rather all new tunes in a different style that no one has ever heard before,
> would you not be disappointed?
>
>
>
> That exact thing happened to us several years ago.  We bought tickets to see
> Linda Ronstadt in Lake Tahoe, Nevada.  We expected to see a typical show
> band with horns, but they only had a rock band on stage.  When Linda came
> onstage, she announced that she had been booked to do a tour with a famous
> rock band so she put together a full show of rock & roll.  She said that she
> decided to use this booking as a rehearsal for her rock show, so she
> wouldn't be doing any of her old hit tunes.  (After two or three tunes, we,
> along with several other patrons, received a refund on our tickets, and will
> never patronize any of her concerts again.  The songs we did listen to were
> just poorly-done attempts to copy some old 70's & 80's rock tunes.)  Had she
> done some of her hit tunes first and then added some of the rock tunes to
> the show, we would have been more receptive.
>
>
>
> In the PBS special, "Ken Burns' Jazz", they mentioned that because of
> dwindling audiences, Miles Davis announced that Jazz music was officially
> "Dead".  Of course, this comes from a man who thought so little of actually
> entertaining his audiences that he played with his back to them!  My opinion
> is that Jazz was never dead - there were always people out there who loved
> jazz.  Miles' music just got so far out from anything the audience
> recognized that he no longer could sustain an audience for his style.
> Perhaps, had he played facing the audience, acknowledging patrons, making
> some friendly and interesting announcements, and truly enjoying being an
> entertainer (rather than only enjoying his own music) he would have retained
> enough of his audience to come to a different conclusion.  I noticed that at
> the time he made that comment, Louis Armstrong (who was fabulous at
> entertaining his audience, not just playing for them) still had music that
> was popular.   That could be because the audiences still recognized some of
> the tunes he did.
>
>
>
> Speaking of refusing to change, I remember playing in one particular
> Dixieland band a long while back.  At rehearsal, the tuba player stopped the
> song and said, 'No, that's wrong!  That's not the way they did it
> originally."  I said, "It's not wrong, it's just different than YOU would
> like to play it.  If what I play clashes with what you play, it's wrong.  If
> it's just different, it's jazz improvisation!  After all, are we playing to
> entertain the audience, or are we just playing to be historically correct?"
>
>
>
>
> If any band leaders reading this would answer that they'd rather be
> historically correct, I would remind them that there is not likely anyone
> around who still PAYS for live music who REMEMBERS what is historically
> correct (except for a few die-hard record collectors), and even fewer who
> even CARE if it matches exactly what was originally recorded.  Entertaining
> the audience is paramount, above historical accuracy in almost all cases.
> (An exception would be if your band were hired by a museum or a historical
> society to play as an example of the music of a bygone era.)  If you're
> playing only to amuse yourself, audience be dammed then you can't expect
> clients to support your selfish form of playing.  One of the marketing books
> I have which details a system for successfully booking gigs says that in
> order to have much of a chance at being successful, you must be playing at
> least some recognizable music.  The book puts it this way:  "If your music
> doesn't fill a need, then there is no need for your music!"
>
>
>
> Last week I was in Mexico.  Even the Mariachi bands that come around to your
> table play mostly the Mexican songs that are recognizable to Americans.
> None of them has ever told me that they only want to play the less popular
> songs that they personally enjoy, and are not interested in taking my
> request because it's not as fun to play.  If they did, I would likely listen
> (and maybe enjoy) their music, but tip on the light side - or not at all,
> depending on if I enjoyed their music as much as they did.
>
>
>
> We all get a chuckle at the old sign from Preservation Hall that says,
> "Requests - $1, Saints - $5".  However in "real life" that kind of attitude
> (I'll penalize you for making me play what you most want to hear because I
> hate it!) will only get you the reputation of being a sourpuss.  In fact,
> just take a look at any band who seems to have that kind of attitude toward
> their fans (if they even have any fans).  Most of the band members
> frequently look like they'd rather be sitting at home watching the game than
> playing for you.  "Damn, that's three songs already!  Isn't it break time
> yet?  Go ask if we can leave early, Bob!  Get me another Manhattan, I
> spilled the last one in the piano - again!"
>
>
>
> I would also point out that there needs to be a change in attitudes about
> sound quality.  The world is not the same as when OKOM came out.  Back then
> there were few other options to be entertained, other than attending live
> performances.  Records & radio sounded even worse than bad sound in a live
> venue!  Today there is television (with billions of channels), digital
> radio, computer games, internet, downloadable music, etc.  Live theatres are
> all using wireless headworn mic's for each actor, as well as mic'ing the
> whole band.  People no longer have the patience to sit through a boring
> performance with marginal sound to find the few interesting parts of the
> show.  Today if you lose their attention, you're history!  IMHO, Lousy sound
> will lose their attention quicker than bad playing.
>
>
>
> Also I still even today hear the old guys say, "We don't use amplification
> because they didn't use it when the songs were originally written and
> played."  (This is a personal pet peeve of mine, as I play piano & banjo -
> two of the quieter instruments.)  Another variation would be, "We're not
> going to use mic's, as we're already too loud!"  I would reply that first of
> all, they would have used amplification and sound mixing if it were
> available back then - I know for sure - I've asked many of the old guys who
> actually played back then.  Second, today's players have almost universally
> forgotten how to play down to the quietest instruments in the band.  Most
> horn players blast full out and completely cover up the clarinet, piano and
> banjo that they refused to mic because "they didn't mic 'em in the 20's".
> Horns today are built to play louder.  Drums are built to play louder.
> Clarinets play at about the same volume as a century ago, as do pianos and
> banjos, and they can't compete with today's loud instruments without
> amplification.
>
>
>
> Even if the above were not true (which it is), the audiences of a century
> ago had no expectation of high fidelity when listening to live music.  It
> just sounded like it sounded, and if by chance you got booked in a hall with
> good acoustics, everyone was in music heaven!
>
>
>
> Today most audience members listen to television, CD's, radio, and movie
> soundtracks on their home theatre equipment, which is always at least in
> stereo (frequently in surround sound), and usually includes a sub-woofer so
> they can "feel" the music.  The music is mixed on digital equipment with
> special effects to sound big and beautiful (or big and exciting).  The
> different tones of the music are adjusted as to create a full, pleasing and
> enveloping sound without being unpleasant or harsh.  (of course, I'm
> speaking of the sound mix, not the style of music being played.)  Would you
> ask today's audience to give all that up and listen to your music in such a
> poor acoustic mix that most instruments sound weak, some can't be heard at
> all, and others blare at you to the point of hurting your ears?  In my
> humble opinion, less than 10% of OKOM bands utilize sound equipment to their
> best advantage.
>
>
>
> What would be the best use of sound equipment?  IMHO, the sound equipment
> should create a fullness in the sound by first filling out the sound of each
> instrument so that no part sounds "tinny" or "thuddy".  Next, the parts
> should be mixed in such a way that each part has the correct volume in
> relation to the other parts.  In other words, we want to hear the piano
> chords, but they shouldn't overpower the lead horn.  Bass should be clear
> and crisp and shouldn't rattle the windows.  If several horns play together,
> they should make a complete chord, rather than having one overpower the
> others.  A singer should be enough above the band that they can be heard and
> understood without blasting the audience.  Finally, (extremely important,
> and usually ignored by OKOM bands)  the sound equipment should provide a way
> for the band to hear what they need to hear from the other players to play
> tightly - a monitor system.
>
>
>
> As a side note: From what I understand, the Beatles ultimately broke up
> because the fans yelled so loud that they couldn't hear themselves playing
> onstage, so it wasn't fun anymore.  You can't play well if you can't hear
> the rest of the band!
>
>
>
> All professional sound engineers use compression on singers.  This is a
> process that minimizes the difference between the loudest and the quietest
> sounds so that a singer (or any instrument which has a huge range of
> volumes, such as clarinet) can be brought up in the mix to be heard when
> singing or playing quietly without tearing out the audiences' ear drums when
> they really hit it!
>
>
>
> I'd like to mention that almost without exception every time I book a band
> and I do my own sound set up someone (usually many people) come up to tell
> me how great the sound is.  They comment that they can hear everything
> perfectly, but it's rarely too loud.  That being said, I've worked with a
> few drummers who have told me, "I don't need to be mic'ed - I'm loud enough
> already."  My reply is that I'm not mic'ing them so that they will be
> louder, I'm mic'ing them so that their sound will be more full and even and
> it will mix better with the rest of the band.  (Then I turn the drum mix up
> in the band monitor, so they'll think they're playing too loud and will play
> softer.  - If that doesn't work, I ask them to play softer.  If that doesn't
> work, I stop using them!)
>
>
>
> While I could do a whole class on setting sound, my point is that people
> today expect much higher fidelity from live performances than they did even
> 20-30 years ago - certainly infinitely more than a century ago.  Ignore that
> fact only if you don't give a damn if your band is shown in it's best light!
> If you do ignore it, my band (or another one like it with good sound) will
> likely be able to get the gig away from you next time!
>
>
>
> By the way, I could also do a whole seminar on marketing live music
> effectively, but that's way too far off topic for this letter, and I
> understand that my good friends Steve Barbone and Tom Wiggins have already
> shared marketing ideas here worth pure gold to anyone who would attempt to
> use them, rather than criticize them.
>
>
>
> Perhaps I've given some of you something to think about.  You're not going
> to convince any audience that just because you want to play the music in the
> old way, they should listen to it in the old way.  You'd be much more
> successful with an attitude of, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!".
>
>
>
> Here's an example of just that:  Last week we were on a Mexican cruise on
> Carnival Cruise Lines.  For years Carnival has anguished over the
> hit-and-miss quality of the onboard talent show.  If they produced one,
> sometimes it was great - sometimes it was crappy.  If they didn't do one,
> passengers would complain, "What happened to the passenger talent show?"
> All the while, Karaoke was getting more and more popular, but a typical
> Karaoke show was not very exciting.
>
>
>
> Carnival came up with a novel and effective way to solve this problem.  They
> "produced" a Karaoke production show.  Each singer auditioned to portray one
> of about a dozen famous stars, such as Elvis, Madonna, Cher, Sinatra, etc.
> The winners were placed in a stage show (in full costume of the character)
> complete with dancers behind them and a full live show band!  The band
> played along with the Karaoke track by having the rhythm section listen
> through headphones and play along.  That way, the featured Karaoke guests
> could still see their words on the TV screen hidden on stage for them.
> Between Karaoke acts were production show numbers that featured the dancers
> and the regular show singers.  The show received a quick standing ovation,
> which IMO, was well deserved (Certainly NOT for the mostly awful Karaoke
> singers, but for the wonderful concept of the whole show.)
>
>
>
> I must admit that I wouldn't have even gone to this show, thinking it was
> just another boring Karaoke sing-fest, except that we had to go to see if
> our raffle tickets had won a free cruise - we didn't.  However, after seeing
> the way they produced the show, I would say it was a brilliant way of
> featuring passengers as performers and using the growing popularity of
> Karaoke (and, unfortunately, the dwindling number of quality performers for
> the talent show) to best advantage.  They used the dancers, the singers, the
> costumes, the lighting and the live show band to create a fabulous
> production using Karaoke singers, most of which otherwise would have been
> ranked by me as less-than-adequate to perform in front of an audience.
>
>
>
> Carnival could have just said, "No, we'll just do a passenger talent show
> because that's what we've always done.'  Yet they knew that if they don't
> change with the times, they'll become a relic of times-gone-by.  If we want
> to keep OKOM alive and thriving, we've all got to think about how to reach
> and appeal to today's more demanding audiences, or OKOM will indeed become a
> relic of times-gone-by.
>
>
>
> John Wilder
>
> JohnWilder at Comcast.net
>
>
>
>
>
> P.S. - A special note to pianists:  The cruise I was just on had no pianist
> in the show band - he was on two week vacation, and they didn't have a sub.
> The last Carnival ship I was on had one for the show band, but he was
> leaving at the end of our cruise, and they hadn't found one yet to replace
> him.  The last three Carnival ships I've been on have had less-than-fabulous
> pianists in the piano bar - one was a sax player from the show band who
> agreed to play piano in the piano bar for some extra dough.  I am told that
> Carnival is extremely short of good piano players, both for the show band
> and for the piano bars and other venues.  I mentioned to the cruise director
> that I used to work on ships, playing piano for ballroom dancers and in the
> show band, backing up the show acts.  He offered me a job on the spot!  His
> exact words were, "When can you start?"  Although I didn't take the job, if
> there are any pianists out there capable of handling the job, I'm sure
> Carnival Cruise Lines (and maybe some of the other lines as well) would love
> to hear from you!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or change your e-mail preferences for the Dixieland Jazz Mailing list, or to find the online archives, please visit:
>
> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz
>
>
>
> Dixielandjazz mailing list
> Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
>