Changes in gigging

[schmee]

A couple weeks back a friend whom I played with 40 years ago touring the West Coast Circuit, and whom I have played with occasionally in recent years came to the gig. He plays regularly with others.

One of his comments at the gig got me thinking. He said "You need less time between songs, you need to fire them off..."
Now we all know that the traditional logic is.... to "get them up dancing and try to keep them there".
But the dancing thing doesn't seem to be what it used to be also. There are actually times now when they are all up dancing and I immediately start another dance song.... and they go sit down! They're tired!

I have changed my approach over the years. I no longer worry about punching out the songs rapidly. We're not a Vegas act! Basically, our fan base is now older.

Also, the last place I played to a young crowd in a packed bar was a couple years back and maybe 150 people, I think 6 moved close and were listening to the band! The other 145 were making a ton of noise, drinking beer, texting and taking selfies! We couldn't hardly hear ourselves talking on stage between songs.

Further, When I go out to hear music now, I LIKE a delay between songs. Because I want to be able to talk to who I'm with, make a comment, not listen to a constant barrage of songs. I've gotten the feeling there are many other listeners in this vein also.

OTOH, we pretty much refuse to play mostly Skynyrd, Doors, etc.... all those overplayed old bar songs, but mix in a few.

Whaddya all think about this? maybe I'm just an old codger....

 

[tery]

Over time I would check out what other bands in the area do.

 

[Gaylord Amsterdam]

Depends on the Genre, If it's a Stoner Doom show, they dont dance, but if you do your job right they will raise their Doom-Claw and throw the "Horns"

 

[brookdalebill]

The band I play in does indeed try to keep the tunes coming.
The leader is a good front man, but we’ve been firing off the tunes more quickly, lately.
I kinda like that.
Standing around waiting to play kinda sux, IMO.

 

[AAT65]

I’d keep them rolling unless you’re asked to give people a breather between songs.

 

[Chiogtr4x]

A couple weeks back a friend whom I played with 40 years ago touring the West Coast Circuit, and whom I have played with occasionally in recent years came to the gig. He plays regularly with others.

One of his comments at the gig got me thinking. He said "You need less time between songs, you need to fire them off..."
Now we all know that the traditional logic is.... to "get them up dancing and try to keep them there".
But the dancing thing doesn't seem to be what it used to be also. There are actually times now when they are all up dancing and I immediately start another dance song.... and they go sit down! They're tired!

I have changed my approach over the years. I no longer worry about punching out the songs rapidly. We're not a Vegas act! Basically, our fan base is now older.

Also, the last place I played to a young crowd in a packed bar was a couple years back and maybe 150 people, I think 6 moved close and were listening to the band! The other 145 were making a ton of noise, drinking beer, texting and taking selfies! We couldn't hardly hear ourselves talking on stage between songs.

Further, When I go out to hear music now, I LIKE a delay between songs. Because I want to be able to talk to who I'm with, make a comment, not listen to a constant barrage of songs. I've gotten the feeling there are many other listeners in this vein also.

OTOH, we pretty much refuse to play mostly Skynyrd, Doors, etc.... all those overplayed old bar songs, but mix in a few.

Whaddya all think about this? maybe I'm just an old codger....

Unless it is a special event, or some kind of themed (maybe just a one set thing) gig,
my bands ( just trios & I'm the main singer) just kind of follow my lead on which kind of music we may lean towards ( dance, mellow/quiet, Southern Rock, oldies, Dead,Bluesy) based on the folks in the room ( our gigs aren't huge)
We don't use Set Lists- I just either introduce a tune, ask the drummer to kick it off, or start it on my guitar.. I try to brainstorm the next song of two, while playing song X.

I'm really lucky to play with some great ( and 'jammy') musicians whom have learned to put up with me!

Good Fat Tuesday bar gig tomorrow after NOT playing it the last 2 years- psyched!

 

[schmee]

Unless it is a special event, or some kind of themed (maybe just a one set thing) gig,
my bands ( just trios & I'm the main singer) just kind of follow my lead on which kind of music we may lean towards ( dance, mellow/quiet, Southern Rock, oldies, Dead,Bluesy) based on the folks in the room ( our gigs aren't huge)
We don't use Set Lists- I just either introduce a tune, ask the drummer to kick it off, or start it on my guitar.. I try to brainstorm the next song of two, while playing song X.

I'm really lucky to play with some great ( and 'jammy') musicians whom have learned to put up with me!

Good Fat Tuesday bar gig tomorrow after NOT playing it the last 2 years- psyched!

I used to do that more than I do now. That's my comfort zone also and I like to just start a song and let the others joins in. But some of the players I'm with now, although quite good, seem to want more structure. I still do it some, especially if I want to keep people dancing when a song ends.
I make set lists and they work for maybe the first set or so, but after that we jump around. Still, it's nice to have it there. It does help as sometimes without people stand around trying to remember songs to play!

 

[String Tree]

A couple weeks back a friend whom I played with 40 years ago touring the West Coast Circuit, and whom I have played with occasionally in recent years came to the gig. He plays regularly with others.

One of his comments at the gig got me thinking. He said "You need less time between songs, you need to fire them off..."
Now we all know that the traditional logic is.... to "get them up dancing and try to keep them there".
But the dancing thing doesn't seem to be what it used to be also. There are actually times now when they are all up dancing and I immediately start another dance song.... and they go sit down! They're tired!

I have changed my approach over the years. I no longer worry about punching out the songs rapidly. We're not a Vegas act! Basically, our fan base is now older.

Also, the last place I played to a young crowd in a packed bar was a couple years back and maybe 150 people, I think 6 moved close and were listening to the band! The other 145 were making a ton of noise, drinking beer, texting and taking selfies! We couldn't hardly hear ourselves talking on stage between songs.

Further, When I go out to hear music now, I LIKE a delay between songs. Because I want to be able to talk to who I'm with, make a comment, not listen to a constant barrage of songs. I've gotten the feeling there are many other listeners in this vein also.

OTOH, we pretty much refuse to play mostly Skynyrd, Doors, etc.... all those overplayed old bar songs, but mix in a few.

Whaddya all think about this? maybe I'm just an old codger....

Times really are changing.
You have to go with the (Cash)Flow.

 

[Marc Morfei]

There can be balance. Run a few quickly in a row, then pause to talk to the audience, tune, etc. I plan the pace of our sets pretty carefully. Build up to a few burners, then let them rest with a ballad or slow one or two, then build up again to end with a couple more burners. And always be willing to ad lib.

 

[Chiogtr4x]

I used to do that more than I do now. That's my comfort zone also and I like to just start a song and let the others joins in. But some of the players I'm with now, although quite good, seem to want more structure. I still do it some, especially if I want to keep people dancing when a song ends.
I make set lists and they work for maybe the first set or so, but after that we jump around. Still, it's nice to have it there. It does help as sometimes without people stand around trying to remember songs to play!

I will make up Set Lists if there is a sub musician ( mainly bass) that may like to have songs organized on a tablet, as they may not know my repertoire as well as the usual guys. No problem with that.

It's 'torture' for me to stick to it- but I do.

( honestly, we do all easy stuff, that most of us old farts know)

 

[GibbyTwin]

The band I'm in also plays mostly for an older demographic (organizations, private beach clubs, that kind of thing). I put together a set list before each job and make sure that the tempos are varied....only so many up-tempo songs then slowing things down. If it looks like they want to keep dancing we are able to medley into similar tempo songs to keep it going. We're very good at calling audibles if the next song in the set needs to change.
Ditto on the slow tunes...if a couple waits till the last verse to get up and dance we'll extend a little.
I dislike empty time between songs too. If you're not playing at least be talking....but don't talk too much!

 

[mfguitar]

Except for planned pauses, we pretty much rip one after another. I get the point about dancers resting though. A problem is the people that I work for all think they know more than I do as far as song selection, the second they see dancers sit they think we are not doing our jobs. I do like to keep things moving because the band members will "wander" if I don't.

 

[drmordo]

Pacing the set is so important. I'm a fan of doing 2-3 up songs, and then throwing in a ballad to give the room a break.

 

[2HBStrat]

A couple weeks back a friend whom I played with 40 years ago touring the West Coast Circuit, and whom I have played with occasionally in recent years came to the gig. He plays regularly with others.

One of his comments at the gig got me thinking. He said "You need less time between songs, you need to fire them off..."
Now we all know that the traditional logic is.... to "get them up dancing and try to keep them there".
But the dancing thing doesn't seem to be what it used to be also. There are actually times now when they are all up dancing and I immediately start another dance song.... and they go sit down! They're tired!

I have changed my approach over the years. I no longer worry about punching out the songs rapidly. We're not a Vegas act! Basically, our fan base is now older.

Also, the last place I played to a young crowd in a packed bar was a couple years back and maybe 150 people, I think 6 moved close and were listening to the band! The other 145 were making a ton of noise, drinking beer, texting and taking selfies! We couldn't hardly hear ourselves talking on stage between songs.

Further, When I go out to hear music now, I LIKE a delay between songs. Because I want to be able to talk to who I'm with, make a comment, not listen to a constant barrage of songs. I've gotten the feeling there are many other listeners in this vein also.

OTOH, we pretty much refuse to play mostly Skynyrd, Doors, etc.... all those overplayed old bar songs, but mix in a few.

Whaddya all think about this? maybe I'm just an old codger....

1. It's always best to keep the show moving with little to no down time between songs.
2. If you have to take time between songs so people can talk you're playing too loud.
3. In my opinion...

 

[ce24]

Depends on the venue.....READ THE ROOM!

 

[Masmus]

The one thing I can't handle is a band spending several minutes between songs trying to decide what to play next. The type of venue has more to do with how this goes down. When I used to play with my band it was always 20-30 year olds at clubs so all I know is going from song to song quickly and knowing when we were expected to stop and playing right up to that time.

 

[schmee]

The one thing I can't handle is a band spending several minutes between songs trying to decide what to play next. The type of venue has more to do with how this goes down. When I used to play with my band it was always 20-30 year olds at clubs so all I know is going from song to song quickly and knowing when we were expected to stop and playing right up to that time.

Yeah, I'm talking a 'minute' being a long time....

 

[bromdenlong]

A couple weeks back a friend whom I played with 40 years ago touring the West Coast Circuit, and whom I have played with occasionally in recent years came to the gig. He plays regularly with others.

One of his comments at the gig got me thinking. He said "You need less time between songs, you need to fire them off..."
Now we all know that the traditional logic is.... to "get them up dancing and try to keep them there".
But the dancing thing doesn't seem to be what it used to be also. There are actually times now when they are all up dancing and I immediately start another dance song.... and they go sit down! They're tired!

I have changed my approach over the years. I no longer worry about punching out the songs rapidly. We're not a Vegas act! Basically, our fan base is now older.

Also, the last place I played to a young crowd in a packed bar was a couple years back and maybe 150 people, I think 6 moved close and were listening to the band! The other 145 were making a ton of noise, drinking beer, texting and taking selfies! We couldn't hardly hear ourselves talking on stage between songs.

Further, When I go out to hear music now, I LIKE a delay between songs. Because I want to be able to talk to who I'm with, make a comment, not listen to a constant barrage of songs. I've gotten the feeling there are many other listeners in this vein also.

OTOH, we pretty much refuse to play mostly Skynyrd, Doors, etc.... all those overplayed old bar songs, but mix in a few.

Whaddya all think about this? maybe I'm just an old codger....

The Doors are overplayed there? I think it’s been 5 years or more since I heard the Doors covered anywhere.

 

[LGOberean]

Some of this I can relate to. Geezers play gigs for a likewise aging population that can no longer "rock around the clock." The pace of the performance should reflect that.

The part that I don't relate to is in my gigs. And I'm different. (I guess one look tells people that, but I digress.) I am a solo performer, and my repertoire is not geared toward "party hearty" or "dance till you drop." If I'd been born in an earlier time, I would have been a crooner. My voice is better suited for that, even though at times I do like to cut loose and rock out.

Also, when I began to learn to play guitar in the '60s, Folk and Folk Rock was quite popular. So while I learned a few Stones songs and a bunch of Beatles' songs and CCR, a lot of what I played and sang was Pete Seeger, Kingston Trio, Peter, Paul & Mary, Bob Dylan, Gordon Lightfoot, Simon & Garfunkel, John Denver, James Taylor, et al. That kind of stuff I enjoy doing, and I do it pretty well, I think. But it's not the kind of music that gets people up dancing.

Also, I tend to move fairly quickly from one song to another. When I do have more space between songs, it's because of stage banter, and that largely depends on the audience. If my attempts early in the gig to verbally engage my listeners falls flat, I just figure people are saying in essence, "Don't talk; just shut up and sing." I figure they just want to hear a flesh covered radio, and I oblige them. If they enjoy my jokes and quips and reply to my offers of taking requests, then it's a different feeling gig altogether.

 

[joe_cpwe]

I like to default to about 3 songs in a row. I put lines in setlist where the breaks between songs are.
Where there's lines you can talk to crowd, change /tune guitar...whatever.

Most people don't want to hear the band talk, or look confused, or take a poll to see if everyone is ready to start the song....again.