Changes in gigging

[Killing Floor]

Beats watching someone tune.

 

[rand z]

As a solo performer, now, I sometimes need to catch my breath between songs.

(I generally play and SING HARD.)

So, I'll rely on some old standard audience BS to keep them absorbed while I'm recuperating.

But, it depends on the venue and audience.

Wineries are a big thing for me, so I have to sometimes be subtle and not get to feisty with my presentation.

So, I can talk a lot more and it helps connect (tips!) me to the listeners.

You folks in bands with peeps dancing, are in a different environment.

You gotta keep it moving (mostly).

imo.

 

[David Barnett]

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

I suppose it depends on the Doors song, and how well they're doing it. If someone got up and nailed "Peace Frog" I'd go nuts.

 

[viking]

Generally , I only play rare gigs these days because my band mates wants a gig now and again ....

Even if we get payd a bit better than other places here , spending half a weekend to set up , play , and sleep late the next day.....nope.
But , please keep the band on the boil , keep the tunes coming , please !

People dancing or not , nothing is worse than dead air , even from a capable band ........Brought 5 guitars ? Let me tell you a secret : The audience cant hear the difference between your SG or your Stratocaster , so please leave the other guitars on the stand , unless you use different tunings , please....

 

[blowtorch]

yeah time between songs is usually just awkward, unless you're one of these charming frontman with a real knack for storytelling, in between songs. and chances are you aren't, plenty of pros even totally suck at this.

minimize the gap.

move along, on to the next song

 

[teletail]

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.

+1

Unless you have an incredibly gifted front man, you’re better off keeping witty repartee to a minimum and just move from one song to the next. And there are very few gifted front men. Usually the ones that think they are, play to the handful of insiders while everyone else wishes they would shut up and get to the next song.

I played with a front man who would go on for too long and more than once I just started the next song while he was still talking.

 

[Singin' Dave]

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.

While I'm strong in the front man repartee area, above is what we do in my modern Country cover band - keep it moving inside what we call "mini-sets" that are typically 3-5 songs long inside the larger set with well rehearsed and/or very clear timing between songs and owners of who gets the next one moving. I'm in the camp that just about ANY dead time between songs is bad form except during well-planned "mini-set" breaks. Also agree with diligence in planning a bpm flow to properly mix up tempo and slower tempo songs inside the set.

 

[telequacktastic]

I think there's a happy median between trying to slam them all together like a club dj vs a pick up band that's doing audibles all night long.

I'd say do some 2 song mashups/guzinta's/medleys here and there. Then when you do take a breather it's kinda nice for everyone there. I suggest that for every band I'm in that's still working on their setlist.

Ultimately you can't please every patron and trying is an exercise in futility. Whatever the band performs their best at is good place to stay

 

[Blues Power]

singer should have some crowd interactions. introduce the band after the first song.
most shoulds should go right after the other. to me looks more professional
introduce the band after the first song
dont be afraid to do requests so long as everyone knows them

 

[vgallagher]

When I'm at a show as a viewer my attitude is more like - "shut up and sing". I usually couldn't care less about the chatter.

 

[Gene O.]

We have been following set lists in order to minimize time in between songs. The other guitarist, who switches between electric and acoustic guitars, writes out the sets so that we can start the next song without him while he's swapping out guitars. The only other things that can slow us down between songs is if I have to change my synth patch or if the singer needs to bring up lyrics on a new song on her iPad. But that time is pretty minimal. It's been working well for us, regardless of what the dancers are doing.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I used to go dancing whenever Sleepy LaBeef was in town. He'd jump from one tune to the next without a pause — new key, new beat, didn't matter. And his band was always right there with him.

 

[Junkyard Dog]

As a front man, I like to break the band’s repertoire into 3 or 4 song chunks that are always played one right after the other…no jibber jabber. Then build the sets from the chunks. In between the chunks I will say a few words, which after mucho gigs becomes scripted and seamless. Often liberty is taken and spontaneity is incorporated, but I find this is a good basic battle plan to go in with.

 

[scottser]

Did a gig there last Saturday night for a mate - her eldest lad turned 18 so my classic rock covers band - the stiff hips - did a gig in the local pub for him and his mates. We do from ac/dc to zeppelin. My take homes were; none of his mates knew any of the tunes we played and none of them dance. Old lads our age were loving it though.
Paddy's Day is coming up, it'll be interesting to see if there's any change there.

 

[Toto'sDad]

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....

I think the music should stop long enough to give an old guy the chance to go to the bathroom. Maybe not play too many songs before letting him have another go at it. Other people have opinions, I have needs!

 

[Fiesta Red]

I’m not that interesting so I don’t talk much on-stage…I try to keep the songs rolling. The longest time between songs is when I switch guitars (usually due to alternate/open tunings) or switch from guitar to harmonica/harp.

@schmee I agree, you are an old codger…
I’m getting there. I’m a pre-codger.

 

[Papanate]

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....

You play to the crowd you have - if there young kids -30s or so - you fire the songs off - if there 60s - you take your time - I would venture to guess you guys don't play for the younger crowd - one thing though - the refusal to play songs just cause you are tired of them? - What's that all about?

 

[schmee]

You play to the crowd you have - if there young kids -30s or so - you fire the songs off - if there 60s - you take your time - I would venture to guess you guys don't play for the younger crowd - one thing though - the refusal to play songs just cause you are tired of them? - What's that all about?

Yeah, I may have mentioned the last bar full of 20 somethings we played at a few years ago. It was packed, maybe 6 people knew there was a band there really though, they were loudly talking, texting and taking selfies.

"the refusal to play songs just cause you are tired of them? - What's that all about?"
One of the joys of not trying to make a living playing music like some people I know or I used to do.
We can play more of what we want, take the 2-4 gigs a month at venues we like, forget the venues that aren't working for anyone. Not drive 150 miles for a $150 a man gig etc.. Some of the popular players here will drive 200 miles one way (Seattle to Portland) for less profit than a low pay local gig. Next night they'll take a ferry and drive the other direction for another gig.
Nope,........ the joy of NOT playing for a living!

 

[David Barnett]

- one thing though - the refusal to play songs just cause you are tired of them? - What's that all about?

It's about having some personal dignity and not being a human jukebox.

 

[sax4blues]

I'm an audience member, not a performer. I'm good with a little pacing, I came to relax and enjoy, there is no rush. But... what I don't want is confusion/BS/excesive banter.