Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

OK, the Corona Virus Isn't Going Away. Now What?


Recommended Posts

Pardon for a possibly on-topic post. Today I got a survey from CES (Consumer Electronics Show - canceled this year due to Covid-19)) which I occasionally attend. The survey had a number of general items about attendance, but the real focus was on what it would take to get you to attend next year's show or keep you away from it, in regard to the virus. There were some reasonable things like make aisles wider and put booths further apart, lengthen the show hours so people would have more flexibility in when they came and went, sanitize everything all the time, and so on. But the scary stuff (most of these asked you to check Must Have / Would be nice / Doesn't matter) was things like:

 

If there was an approved vaccine in time for the show, attendees would be required to show proof that they've been vaccinated

Require a clean virus test report in order to register

Swab testing before entering the show

Real time contact tracing during the show

and, horror horrors, curtail the happy hour drinks and snacks at show booths

 

Honestly, things seem to be moving slowly enough that, if they're that worried, they should just cancel it now, and maybe for the next few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If you're cool with that, then sure, no problem with the banks. JP Morgan Chase has $47 TRILLION exposure to derivatives, Goldman Sachs $42 trillion exposure, CitiBank $41 trillion, etc. etc. After 2008 when some practices were more tightly regulated, banks moved into other areas that weren't, like debt markets, and the jury is out about whether that was a smart move. Banks are also not immune to other problems, like interest rate risk. It's true that Tier 1 leverage ratios are better than they were in 2008, but that crisis was precipitated by just the housing industry, not the ever-more-likely scenario of a long-term, global collapse.

 

I don't know where you're getting these numbers from Craig but they're way, way off. Also, this goes back much further than 2008. It was Bill Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall which barred banks from doing that kind of trading. From Wikipedia:

 

In November 1999, President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the GlassâSteagall law is no longer appropriate". Some commentators have stated that the GLBA's repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the GlassâSteagall Act was an important cause of the financial crisis of 2007â2008.

 

Wikipedia is being too kind. It was Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act that forced the banks under penalty of being regulated out of existence to give loans to poor people who had no hope of paying them back. So, what did the banks do? Start this whole derivative crap game to help cover those losses which in turn, yaddablah, etc. That's history now.

 

As far as the numbers you quoted:

 

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/01/stock-exposure-has-exploded-at-jpmorgans-federally-insured-bank-to-2-4-trillion/

 

Note this is mostly JPMorgan alone, the other big banks are a fraction of that but in a major failure they would all be impacted for sure. That situation is not good but not nearly as bad as the numbers you quoted. Deutche Bank is the one with 46T exposure and yes it is linked to other big banks worldwide so it's a concern. What I always tell someone who thinks big banks or other multinationals are making/hoarding too much money, just buy their stock then, if you can't beat em, join em. You can open an account now with $100 if you want and buy one share of stock so it's pretty much affordable for anybody. I've read/seen reports of many thousands of people who took their $1,200 stimulus checks and did just that and the market has been doing quite well so that was a good move on their part.

 

Also, the Fed is including a COVID scenario as part of the upcoming stress tests. The tricky part of applying that overlay to the standard worst case scenario (which, of course, is too easy now) could mean the banks have to cut dividends which would in turn seriously impact institutional investors who handle the biggest pension funds in the country. That means it's the individuals with pension money in those funds who will lose and as we all know, they're getting hit hard enough already. My one piece of stock market advise? Don't buy the banks, keep to the fun stuff like Apple, Netflix, etc.

 

And yes, the situation with the banks derivatives exposure is yet another reason among many we need the economy back on track. When I wrote weeks ago a second Great Depression would be bad as in very bad, bank failures would be a big part of it. As long as that big floating crap game doesn't sink into the river, we still have a chance.

 

Bob

Hammond SK1, Mojo 61, Kurzweil PC3, Korg Pa3x, Roland FA06, Band in a Box, Real Band, Studio One, too much stuff...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was an approved vaccine in time for the show, attendees would be required to show proof that they've been vaccinated

 

Require a clean virus test report in order to register

 

Not off topic at all Mike. This is what they had listed? Wow. This is basically the idea of everybody needing a "COVID 19 Passport" to do anything.

 

That won't go over well in some quarters...

 

Bob

Hammond SK1, Mojo 61, Kurzweil PC3, Korg Pa3x, Roland FA06, Band in a Box, Real Band, Studio One, too much stuff...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the FDIC supposed to insure the account holder if the bank went under? So another great depression wouldn't wipe out the life savings of the depositors, and thus no need to make a run on the bank?

 

If that isn't the case, perhaps we should get our money out before there is a run on the bank, buy some gold, put it in a watertight container and sink it in our septic tanks so it doesn't get stolen. (I'm hoping to get a free septic tank pump out here ;) in case any crooks are monitoring this, it's where I hide my gold).

 

Notes

Bob "Notes" Norton

Owner, Norton Music http://www.nortonmusic.com

Style and Fake disks for Band-in-a-Box

The Sophisticats http://www.s-cats.com >^. .^< >^. .^<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're not holding our breath here in Houston for Abbott to do the right thing. Or, maybe that should be that we ARE holding our breath because he isn't? :D

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where you're getting these numbers from Craig but they're way, way off.

You are totally right, it should have been BILLION. Damn autocorrect. It's because I entered "trillion" for Deutsche Bank and...well, you know how iPhones are.

 

Also, this goes back much further than 2008. It was Bill Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall which barred banks from doing that kind of trading.

 

Absolutely. This has nothing to do with parties, it's about who owns the parties.

 

And yes, the situation with the banks derivatives exposure is yet another reason among many we need the economy back on track. When I wrote weeks ago a second Great Depression would be bad as in very bad, bank failures would be a big part of it. As long as that big floating crap game doesn't sink into the river, we still have a chance.

 

100% agreed. Smaller bank failures were much lower than big bank failures in 2008 but that also means their fiscal responsibility had a smaller ripple effect than the fiscal irresponsibility of the bigger banks. Regardless, we are in trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote=Jazzmammal

It was Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act that forced the banks under penalty of being regulated out of existence to give loans to poor people who had no hope of paying them back.

Bob

 

I've heard this said many, many times. My main quibbles with it are:

 

1 - the banks were never forced to make a single bad loan. The documentation of bank fraud perpetrated by lenders (and borrowers) is overwhelming.

 

2 - the banks were never forced into risky investments such as the derivatives. They simply saw a sexy new way to make money and jumped in with both feet, not measuring the water depth.

 

My understanding is that Clinton handed the banks a super-golden opportunity to make scads of money by repealing the old Depression-era regulatory safeguards, and the quid prop quo was that the lenders would start a new concentration on mortgage lending to low-income individuals. Seemed like a good idea at the time.....(famous last words).

 

IMHO - it was simply too good a deal for the lending industry and they got greedy and sloppy and fraud infected the industry. And when it all came crashing down, the US public bailed them out and the big bankers walked with their big bucks.

 

An illustrative anecdote from those days, about 2005 - I knew a local businessman who did quite well, but had a live-in girlfriend, a retail worker, who wanted in on some financial action. She applied for a loan to buy an expensive house in a very tony area - and she simply "added his income to hers" on the loan application as, well, that meant there was enough income to qualify for the loan. Of course, his name was nowhere on the loan application or the debt or the title. So she got loan and the house. That's a clear case of bank fraud.

 

So how can the bank be blamed here? Well, this was, in the parlance of the day, a "liar loan". Meaning that the bank handed her the application, and simply asked her what her income was. There was no bank request for any third-party confirmation - no financial statements from a CPA - no W2 - not even a tax return. Just quote the banker a big number for income, and the loan is yours!

 

These were not low-income people. So this anecdote is illustrative of the widespread, general corruption of the banking industry in those days. The windup of my mortgage fraud story above was that she sat on the house for a couple of years, sold it, and made about $150K, right before the big crash. And complained about having to pay tax on the $150K. (boohoo)

 

I could tell other stories along the same lines - but I'll refrain. This all happened a few years before the big 2008 meltdown, but I remember telling my wife at the time, "the banks have lost their minds again, just like during the Savings and Loan lending orgy. Wonder how long till it all comes crashing down this time?

 

The financial industry has crashed through sheer greed three times in my lifetime - the late 80s, the late 90s, and the late 2000s. Forgive me if my trust in that industry is rather shaky.

 

nat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, we all know that banks are businesses, businesses like to make money, and businesses that make lots of money can buy politicians in order to make more money than those who can't buy politicians. Nothing new there, and I doubt that anyone, of any political persuasion, would disagree with that.

 

So, let's get back to what musicians are going to do.

 

We're in a perfect storm. Music was devalued, in large part thanks to Napster, clueless record companies, and Apple. Physical media that you actually had to buy has been de-emphasized, going from 938 million CDs in 1999 to 46 million in 2019.

 

But hey, no problem! Even though you can' make money from selling your music, you can make money from playing live!

 

Not right now, or for the foreseeable future.

 

Meanwhile, almost all music since the dawn of recording is available online for free, or for $10 a month at most. So let's say you're born in 2010. You're about to become a teenager. You have access to all the great music, and let's face it, there's nothing radically new that didn't exist in a similar form previously. You have more music than you can listen to in several lifetimes, and it's all only a click away. Unless a musician creates some radically amazing form of music, and figures out a way to market it, that is so irresistible people are willing to pay for it in the same way they would have for CDs...there's no reason for someone just getting into music not to listen to what came before.

 

Live gigs? Fewer venues, tip jars. The restaurant down the street from me stopped having live music because people would come for dinner, and keep listening to music after they finished dinner. Without live music, those diners could turn over into more diners, spending more money because they bought food AND drinks.

 

So the bottom line: music will turn into a hobby, nothing more, nothing less. It will become like fishing, sewing, or bowling. Some acts might break through into the "big time" if they decapitate their bass player on stage or do something equally outrageous to get attention, but it's going to be a very small number.

 

Please, PLEASE, tell me why I'm totally wrong about this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig, the answer is in one word. Meaning. Humans seek it through human connection. Every generation feels the same human pulls, urges, and emotions, but the words are different, the context is different. The kids who grew up on rap were not listening to Yes, and it likely wouldn't have spoken to them. As a teenager from the suburbs about the time that rap got popular, I completely didn't get it. At least not until I worked for an inner-city Chicago charity for 3 months before entering the Air Force. All of a sudden I understood exactly why the music sounded that way.

 

This will always happen. Most people can't deeply process the unspoken parts of their lives. Music does that for us, yes. But it does it for everyone else too. People don't turn to the Beatles now for answers and won't in 50 years. But they did some years ago. My teenage children listen to piles of music new and old. They need things that speak to them from pop princesses to funk and in the case of my oldest daughter Buxtehude and Bach organ works.

 

We do live in a time when music is going to be yet further devalued. Business people are working on automatic composition tools that will soon turn out works that are good enough for most media and commercial uses. This will eat into one of the few remaining areas where musicians have fled to earn a living. But if you can avoid paying sync royalties and run an algorithm? The high end won't. Everyone else will.

 

But one thing won't change. People need meaning. They need human connection. The EDM DJ all-stars are starting to tour with full bands - to play songs that were made on a laptop. Why? You can only jump around to a light show and have it be modestly interesting. Put half a dozen musicians up there, and it changes the whole thing.

 

It isn't yet, but as automation, AI and other technologies erode more and more things that humans used to derive meaning from, they will look elsewhere. They will value live music, clearly played by live humans much more than algorithm music - simply because humans like other humans. We want connection. We want meaning.

 

The fact that music has folded in on itself until commercial success seems to be the only thing that matters has ensured the present state. The goodness has been extracted. And it may remain so for yet a while. But humans will make art as long as we exist. And it will touch enough people to matter and be appreciated. It has never been easy. It may get harder. But the pendulum will swing back. You can't get a hug from an AI companion, and sooner or later, the only thing that will be truly special will be a live human, communicating from the heart in the way that only humans can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the bottom line: music will turn into a hobby, nothing more, nothing less. It will become like fishing, sewing, or bowling. Some acts might break through into the "big time" if they decapitate their bass player on stage or do something equally outrageous to get attention, but it's going to be a very small number.

 

Please, PLEASE, tell me why I'm totally wrong about this...

 

Hasn't music actually always been a hobby? I'm pretty certain the vast majority of people who take a guitar to open mics or campfires don't make any money at it while in many homes there sit pianos that someone enjoys playing for themselves or other family members. My wife was one of the latter until I came along and turned her into a gig monster!

 

If you're not driven by the sheer joy of playing then you're in it for all the wrong reasons.

 

I had some neighbors once, young people (early 20's while I was in my late 30's) who had a band that practiced every night in the basement playing fairly typical blues/rock type stuff. The lead guitarist had decided one day that he was going to be a rock star, bought a guitar and practiced his ass off. The lead guitarist's dad came over to chat with me once knowing that I'd spent many years in bands and asked me what I thought their chances were. I basically told him the chances of even making a living with their music were slim and they should just have fun and enjoy it. They played gigs around town, moved out of that house and were later out on the road.

I hadn't thought about them for quite some time but recently a friend of ours who owns and runs a mid sized manufacturing company inadvertently gave me an update. He was telling me the story of one of his employees (who as it turned out was the aforementioned lead guitarist) who'd decided to quit one day and become a rock star. The guy was gone for a few years following that dream but eventually after suffering enough "casualties of the road" reached a breaking point when the van they were traveling in broke down in Minneapolis. He called our friend, got his old job back and apparently put the guitar away.

 

I'm certain that some of the most talented people will still be able to rise to a high level and be very successful financially but the margins will be slimmer than they used to be. Opportunity will continue to exist in academia for those willing to achieve the credentials and other positions of musical influence such as yours Craig. Otherwise, I say, keep playing and having fun. My favorite mantra is the old, "we play for free but want paid for setup/teardown/transport etc.".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the bottom line: music will turn into a hobby, nothing more, nothing less. It will become like fishing, sewing, or bowling. Some acts might break through into the "big time" if they decapitate their bass player on stage or do something equally outrageous to get attention, but it's going to be a very small number.

 

Please, PLEASE, tell me why I'm totally wrong about this...

While I agree with much of your rant, I disagree with music being nothing more than a hobby - based on my life experience.

 

In my teens and early 20s, music was a passion. And I tried to ignore music as a career because it didn't seem lucrative or common sense. While pursuing a different career, an empty hole kept growing within me. This expanse represented the absence of playing music. The longer I ignored music, the bigger the hole became until I couldn't take it anymore. Soon thereafter, I quit my job and joined a band. Hobbies don't command that much emotional power and influence.

 

My opinion.

Steve Coscia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand, the way you earned a living as a musician, historically, was to be employed by a church or a member of the nobility/royal class. That's how JS Bach for example supported himself, his wives and 20 children. That is what it meant to be a professional musician back in the day.

 

Not sure that's what Craig wants to go back to though. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Music, as a widespread cultural activity, has always prospered when there's a lot or participation from the rawest amatuers to the most exalted geniuses/virtuosi, and the countless participants between these poles.

 

In fact I'd go so far as to say that you don't get a Beethoven unless you have a huge number of home hobbiests and middling-level local performers and a huge crowd of wannabes that will mostly never transcend that status.

 

So what have recent times done to the cultural activity? Well, as an industry, it's a Really Great Depression. And thinking in "industrial" terms,ie, a big business sector, you've got the support workers, the ancillary businesses, the enablers and impresarios, the manufacturers of physical product, the wholesale and retail aspects, and of course the musicians trying to make a living.

 

For many of us, the "industry" pretty much represents "music". But the industry is not really the roots of music. The roots are at home, in schools, in kids getting the bug, in all the people who participate for sheer love of the thing.

 

So the above-ground crop of music, as it were, is either given away pretty much for free, or mowed down. There are some pretty faces that serve as poster-children of what's left of the industry - but they pretty much serve to leave the public with the false impression that music is still a pretty cool gig.

 

So I think about the roots. They aren't dead, and things will continue to grow. Like any living plant, they will seek the light and water and soil in which they can thrive. The ground has not been 100% poisoned. Just the "farming industry" as we know it is decimated.

 

All this metaphorizing is just to say - music is still in the roots of our culture, and I believe it will find new ways to thrive and new ways to, yes, provide income for professionals. It will take some time. And somehow - the digital overlords of musical delivery will have to lose a huge measure of their control over delivery and pricing. The money in music now is feeding techies who operate servers and write a few programs to deliver streaming. It's as if the department that regulates, installs, and programs the street lights has taken over the entire transportation industry by requiring tolls for every mile by every vehicle. And the auto manufacturers and designers make all their dough by getting paid by the street light department - some fraction of what the department collects.

 

Who would put up with this? Musicians, that's who. Maybe not forever.

 

nat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few comments on the comments...

 

People don't turn to the Beatles now for answers and won't in 50 years. But they did some years ago. My teenage children listen to piles of music new and old. They need things that speak to them from pop princesses to funk and in the case of my oldest daughter Buxtehude and Bach organ works.

 

What shocks me is how many "kids" listen to music that was popular in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. This is very different from when I was growing, up, and people listened mostly to music that was of that moment. But I've talked to kids who listen to the Who, AC/DC, Pink Floyd, etc., because the music those bands generated at the time still speaks to what humans feel today. So yes, meaning is what matters...but if there isn't an insatiable demand for new music, then that doesn't open up a lot of opportunities for new acts.

 

...as automation, AI and other technologies erode more and more things that humans used to derive meaning from, they will look elsewhere. They will value live music, clearly played by live humans much more than algorithm music - simply because humans like other humans. We want connection. We want meaning.

 

Well, at the moment, there really isn't live music...but even before the virus hit, live venues continued to decrease. I don't know what exactly would cause live venues to bounce back, unless you're right that the need people have for live music cannot be denied. If so, that would hopefully translate into more businesses accommodating that need.

 

While I agree with much of your rant, I disagree with music being nothing more than a hobby - based on my life experience.

 

You can be plenty passionate about a hobby, my use of that word was not to dismiss it, but in the sense that a hobby is "an activity or interest pursued for pleasure and not as a main occupation." I think there are plenty of people for whom playing/composing music is a biological imperative (I'm one of them!), but they aren't making their living from it...it's not an occupation. At one point in my life, music was a full-time, well-paying occupation. The opportunities that existed then no longer exist, but I'm doing more music now than I did back then. I've also found it's a lot more fun to make music when there are no commercial pressures - I can do whatever I want, without second guesses from a record company or focus group.

 

From what I understand, the way you earned a living as a musician, historically, was to be employed by a church or a member of the nobility/royal class. That's how JS Bach for example supported himself, his wives and 20 children. That is what it meant to be a professional musician back in the day.

 

Not sure that's what Craig wants to go back to though.

 

In reality, we've already gone back to that. The money to be made in music these days, by far, is through licensing, The difference is that the royal class is now Apple. Cadillac, AT&T, Touchstone pictures, etc. deciding to use your music in an ad or film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've earned a living playing music for most of my life. I've seen music devalued and the live music gigs get slimmer and slimmer. DJs, Karaoke, Open Mic Nights, Sports-TV-Land, smart phones/tablets, and home HD TV with HD sound have eaten away at our business. Still we managed to stay working steadily, until COVID. We were having a very successful season until March came along.

 

For most music has been a hobby. I'd guess hundreds of instruments get sold to hobbyists for every one sold to a professional.

 

Like most pros, I've never made a living making recordings. Oh I've made an hourly rate putting sax parts on other people's recordings, but that was never enough to make al living from. Instead I've gigged and gigged and gigged. I feel most alive on stage in that place where there is no space, no time, no me -- just the music flowing through me and the energy returning from the audience.

 

From way before the traveling minstrels to the present, most musicians make/made their living playing live. Making money by recording was just a short blip in the history of music. Even at it's peak, the door to livelihood via recording was only open to a small percentage of us, while the rest of use played in front of an audience that wasn't in the fish tank.

 

Sadly, music isn't the draw it once was so I figure I'm lucky to be born in my generation. When I was young, anyone who was at least decent could gig if he/she wanted to. That started to decline near the end of the 20th century. I certainly hope COVID hasn't ended the business that has been my bliss for so many decades.

 

The bright spot is that we are scheduled to return to our 12 year, once per week gig in an outdoor venue late October. That is if our Governor's premature re-opening doesn't spike the plague to the point where people are not going anywhere. The dark spot is by now our 'season' is usually already booked, but the people who hire us for parties are in a wait-and-see mode and may not have those gatherings.

 

Fortunately I'm old enough to get Social Security, and will get it unless the "Starve The Beast" party gets too much control. And since I have zero debt, I can live with that, my IRA, and my savings, but I'd much rather gig. It's the most fun I can have with my clothes on.

 

I'm working more on my Band-in-a-Box aftermarket business, writing style e-disks and fake e-disks and marketing them through http://www.nortonmusic.com

 

It's a product that appeals to hobbyists and pros alike. That may be my future if gigs don't come back.

 

Our local symphony may go bankrupt, restaurants that have been here for decades are shuttered for good, live theater has no foreseeable future, hotels are empty, cruise ships are sinking, and the list goes on and on.

 

Plagues come and plagues go, there are always more losers than winners during those dark hours, we all may have to think creatively to survive.

 

Good luck to us all.

 

Notes

Bob "Notes" Norton

Owner, Norton Music http://www.nortonmusic.com

Style and Fake disks for Band-in-a-Box

The Sophisticats http://www.s-cats.com >^. .^< >^. .^<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main reason for my pessimism about the future of live music has nothing to do with COVID, but rather those darn young people. In my experience, they are not impressed with someone playing music in real time, right in front of them (when I was a kid, I was enthralled by that). Older people seem to be much more likely to go somewhere for the live music, or favor a restaurant that has it.

 

What leads me to say that, partially, is playing background music at restaurants where if it's a younger 20-30 something crowd, they make a pact on arrival to not make eye contact with me, much less request songs or tip. The only exception seems to be when they themselves are musicians, which usually means one of their parents is, too. I'm aware that they have their own music and I shamelessly do my best to pander (gaming themes, etc.) but the best that gets me is a raised eyebrow, lol.

 

I hope others here see reason for optimism in that area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

From what I understand, the way you earned a living as a musician, historically, was to be employed by a church or a member of the nobility/royal class. That's how JS Bach for example supported himself, his wives and 20 children. That is what it meant to be a professional musician back in the day.

 

Not sure that's what Craig wants to go back to though.

 

In reality, we've already gone back to that. The money to be made in music these days, by far, is through licensing, The difference is that the royal class is now Apple. Cadillac, AT&T, Touchstone pictures, etc. deciding to use your music in an ad or film.

 

Oh yeah? So you're going to work for the Duke of Earl?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just live performers who are struggling, songwriters have it even worse. They're not getting paid by record companies, they couldn't tour even before COVID, and they don't have merch tables set up on their front lawns.

 

Where I do see optimism is in the much-maligned group of "button pusher" musicians. They're not just pushing buttons, I've done quite a few live gigs with DJs. It's difficult and often demanding. Their whole thing is live performance, with a tribal, highly social-oriented scene. The audience is there for the "scene" and the music more than the performance. But, when I played guitar with electronic bands, the crowds really ate it up because it was something fresh to that world. I often appeared on stage as part of a group with a half-dozen musicians.

 

When the DJs come back, and the dance party scenes return with them, live music will have a resurgence. It will likely take a different form compared to what the older generation thinks of as "concerts," but it will be live performance nonetheless.

 

IMHO one of the main things that stunted the growth of new musical forms in the US was when states started passing silly and Draconian laws that held clubowners responsible if someone in the club was found with drugs. A lot of clubs just shut down rather than risk the legal liability. So while the rest of the world was having dance parties and DJs were pulling in tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars for gigs, that wasn't happening in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a guess but I think what that's about is 20 somethings want to see a performer close to their age. An example of that was last year we decided to take a weekend in the Gaslight district of San Diego and stayed at the Horton Grand hotel. It's a really nice, fully renovated late 1800's building. It's not huge but it has a central very large timbers central staircase that goes up 5 floors that just looks awesome. The hotel also has elevators but they're on the side of the lobby by the front desk. The modern side, lol. The other side is where that staircase is and there's a old style bar with a grand sitting in it. It looks like something out of a 40's movie. All dark wood, the walls are painted a dark red with a wall of booze and large dark leather chairs with some tables adjacent to bar. A place Bogart would like. Does not look like a young person's place at all yet that's what I saw on Saturday night when we got back from dinner. A cute young lady was playing the piano and she had a group of equally young fans sitting around, the girl and her fans were chatting with each other and they were cheering her on. It was a classic old piano bar scene except there was no seating right at the piano. She was playing a lot of classic songs but doing it in her modern style. She could play, she had chops but didn't care about the changes. She played everything basically using two or three chords and basic rhythms. No swing. It didn't matter what she did, I heard some Beatles, some Sinatra and while the lyrics were correct all she did was two chords and adjusted her singing to fit. I could hear in those rhythms things I hear in modern music. To me it got boring fast because it was all the same but her crew liked it and she had a decent voice. I think the lesson here is they don't want to hear these old songs in their original style, make them sound more like current music vids.

 

So, get a face lift, a modern haircut, change your clothes, simplify everything, get your kids to bring all their friends and go for it...Oh, and know all about the current Vodka drinks and IPA brews. The kids are all over that stuff and I see those same drinks on Catalina too. Tom Collins, Rum and Coke, Jack on the rocks? Fuggetaboutit.

 

Had to take a call while I was writing this and missed these latest posts. You're absolutely right Craig, I've seen that too. Old guys love to disparage DJ's and there have been threads on KC about them not being musicians. They most certainly are musicians and several years ago I posted some vids where top DJ's were showing how they put their shows together and what the were doing during a performance. It's not just spinning records at a 50's sock hop. Just look at the Forbes Top 100 entertainers lists and how much they make. Some of these DJ's are earning every bit as much as the biggest stars out there like 30 to 70 MILLION a year doing shows in front of 100,000 people or more. I may be an old guy but I like keeping current with the music biz as much as I can. I'll talk to my musician friends about this who are all around my age and they have no idea AT ALL what's going on out there. Not the faintest clue. They still talk about how Woodstock was the biggest live music show ever. There are equivalent Woodstocks going on all over the world every year. Hundreds of thousands of people showing up at music festivals every summer. None of it has any relevance to people over 50.

 

Bob

Hammond SK1, Mojo 61, Kurzweil PC3, Korg Pa3x, Roland FA06, Band in a Box, Real Band, Studio One, too much stuff...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They still talk about how Woodstock was the biggest live music show ever. There are equivalent Woodstocks going on all over the world every year. Hundreds of thousands of people showing up at music festivals every summer. None of it has any relevance to people over 50.

 

so true. People who are turing 50 years old this year were not alive when Woodstock occured,

:nopity:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. I'm closer to 50 than 40, and none of the bands that played at Woodstock played a significant role in my journey thus far. I can appreciate the craft and the musicianship, great songwriting, etc. but it isn't a sound I've ever wanted to make. Probably heresy here, but I'm sure its true for others. High school was late 80s for me, and I basically stopped listening to radio pop when I discovered the classical station. Later I found jazz, prog metal and symphonic metal and wonderful musical projects by top notch musicians that just fall into the category of "good music". I would have really liked the prog era though. (And I totally lusted after a huge keyboard rig like was always on the cover of Keyboard magazine. It was all unobtanium. When I entered the Air Force, I saved all my paychecks until I could order an O1/Wfd -I'd lusted after that for years).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old guys love to disparage DJ's and there have been threads on KC about them not being musicians. They most certainly are musicians and several years ago I posted some vids where top DJ's were showing how they put their shows together and what the were doing during a performance. It's not just spinning records at a 50's sock hop. Just look at the Forbes Top 100 entertainers lists and how much they make. Some of these DJ's are earning every bit as much as the biggest stars out there like 30 to 70 MILLION a year doing shows in front of 100,000 people or more. I may be an old guy but I like keeping current with the music biz as much as I can. I'll talk to my musician friends about this who are all around my age and they have no idea AT ALL what's going on out there. Not the faintest clue. They still talk about how Woodstock was the biggest live music show ever. There are equivalent Woodstocks going on all over the world every year. Hundreds of thousands of people showing up at music festivals every summer. None of it has any relevance to people over 50.

 

We have GOT to get together for dinner and drinks someday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also observe that DJs are making meaning. What are people seeking? Escape and transcendental experience. They want to be out of their own heads. Some chemically mediated, but most not. Its a hard world out there for everyone not in the 1%. Most don't want their brain stimulated, they want to not have the frontal cortex engaged for a happy few hours when life can be natural and free. Many can enter a flow state when pulsing with highly rhythmic music. Entrainment is real. They don't need lyrics, or at least not complicated ones. The good DJ's are experts at reading a crowd, and absolutely think about key changes, tempo changes, when to bring it up/down/chill/whatever. They can keep a room of thousands of people in a trance state for hours. How many bands can do that? Snarky Puppy can. There's bands in every genre. But that's what it takes today - can people transcend? Can they get out of their head? Will they emerge with that buzz that humans get when exposed to great art?

 

If you look back in history, the music that makes money is what fills the dance floor. Jazz used to. Rock used to. Rap still does. EDM still does (and is a HUGE tent). All these genres have a tendency toward an eventual complexity and polish that kills the groove. Musicians love this music because they understand the complexity. We call this prog rock, and now, pretty much all jazz. Jazz is classical music now. There is a high priesthood, and anointed prophets. You can get a PhD in it.

 

My observation is that you tell how good the music is by: do people move to it? Do people lose themselves in it? Are all ages and genders equally transported? What do children do when exposed to it?

 

TransSiberian Orchestra fully meets this bar - all ages love these shows. It isn't a genre. Its an ability to connect and provide a transcendental experience. Broadway does this. BBC Proms does this in its own way. Movies and shows do this for most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old guys love to disparage DJ's and there have been threads on KC about them not being musicians. They most certainly are musicians and several years ago I posted some vids where top DJ's were showing how they put their shows together and what the were doing during a performance. It's not just spinning records at a 50's sock hop. Just look at the Forbes Top 100 entertainers lists and how much they make. Some of these DJ's are earning every bit as much as the biggest stars out there like 30 to 70 MILLION a year doing shows in front of 100,000 people or more. I may be an old guy but I like keeping current with the music biz as much as I can. I'll talk to my musician friends about this who are all around my age and they have no idea AT ALL what's going on out there. Not the faintest clue. They still talk about how Woodstock was the biggest live music show ever. There are equivalent Woodstocks going on all over the world every year. Hundreds of thousands of people showing up at music festivals every summer. None of it has any relevance to people over 50.

 

We have GOT to get together for dinner and drinks someday!

 

What I always tell rockers who think DJs suck is "Okay, go on at 3 AM, play for four hours, keep 10,000 Germans whacked out on ecstasy happy, make sure none of them leave, and never make ONE mistake...then tell me it's easy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sammy Hagar, 72, says he'd 'rather get sick and die' than cancel concerts due to coronavirus

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8455641/Sammy-Hagar-Id-personally-sick-die-cancel-concerts-coronavirus.html

 

* I think Sammy Hagar is nuts and a bit irresponsible, but I also gotta respect where he's coming from ... rock on dude, stay hardcore ... :rocker:

 

Considering I bought the house I'm living in from his former lead guitarist, who was a good friend and died recently...well, Sammy...rock on. [Edit: Actually Bart played with David Lee Roth, not Sammy Hagar...those two were always kind of interchangeable in my mind, LOL]

 

Referring to the article, I'm with Chrissie Hynde on this one. I saw Cream, Blues Project, and Jimmy James (Hendrix) at clubs like the Cafe a Go Go on Bleecker Street, which seated...what...maybe 2,000 people? I'll never forget that kind of live performance experience. You'll never get that from a stadium. And frankly, I'm not sure the performers get that experience either. I've played stadiums and hockey arenas, but give me a club with attendance in four figures any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DJs and live musicians share one basic skill - manipulate the audience - in a good way.

 

It's a skill every DJ and live musician should develop. Throw out the set lists and learn to read the crowd, anticipate what song will work best, and play that song next. Repeat until the gig is over.

 

Of course that has little to do with COVID. But I do hope to get back into that game again as soon as it's safe.

 

Insights and insights by Notes

Bob "Notes" Norton

Owner, Norton Music http://www.nortonmusic.com

Style and Fake disks for Band-in-a-Box

The Sophisticats http://www.s-cats.com >^. .^< >^. .^<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old guys love to disparage DJ's and there have been threads on KC about them not being musicians. They most certainly are musicians and several years ago I posted some vids where top DJ's were showing how they put their shows together and what the were doing during a performance. It's not just spinning records at a 50's sock hop. Just look at the Forbes Top 100 entertainers lists and how much they make. Some of these DJ's are earning every bit as much as the biggest stars out there like 30 to 70 MILLION a year doing shows in front of 100,000 people or more. I may be an old guy but I like keeping current with the music biz as much as I can. I'll talk to my musician friends about this who are all around my age and they have no idea AT ALL what's going on out there. Not the faintest clue. They still talk about how Woodstock was the biggest live music show ever. There are equivalent Woodstocks going on all over the world every year. Hundreds of thousands of people showing up at music festivals every summer. None of it has any relevance to people over 50.

 

We have GOT to get together for dinner and drinks someday!

 

What I always tell rockers who think DJs suck is "Okay, go on at 3 AM, play for four hours, keep 10,000 Germans whacked out on ecstasy happy, make sure none of them leave, and never make ONE mistake...then tell me it's easy."

Old guys love to disparage DJ's and there have been threads on KC about them not being musicians. They most certainly are musicians and several years ago I posted some vids where top DJ's were showing how they put their shows together and what the were doing during a performance. It's not just spinning records at a 50's sock hop. Just look at the Forbes Top 100 entertainers lists and how much they make. Some of these DJ's are earning every bit as much as the biggest stars out there like 30 to 70 MILLION a year doing shows in front of 100,000 people or more. I may be an old guy but I like keeping current with the music biz as much as I can. I'll talk to my musician friends about this who are all around my age and they have no idea AT ALL what's going on out there. Not the faintest clue. They still talk about how Woodstock was the biggest live music show ever. There are equivalent Woodstocks going on all over the world every year. Hundreds of thousands of people showing up at music festivals every summer. None of it has any relevance to people over 50.

 

We have GOT to get together for dinner and drinks someday!

 

What I always tell rockers who think DJs suck is "Okay, go on at 3 AM, play for four hours, keep 10,000 Germans whacked out on ecstasy happy, make sure none of them leave, and never make ONE mistake...then tell me it's easy."

 

There are musicians and there are entertainers and everything in between. Some sit in there basement all day and play an instrument(s). They are musicians, maybe good or crappy. But they are not entertainers :wave:.

 

There are DJ's who spin records for 10000+ people. They are entertainers. If they play an instrument (singing counts) then they are musicians as well. Sometimes they only know enough to bang out a few notes on a synth making them...crappy musicians. Or they maybe really good musicians and not show it. Either way with 10000+ in front of them they are fabulous entertainers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...