The Economics of Rock's Downfall

[David Emm]

3 hours ago, KuruPrionz said:

I used to copy vinyl records to cassette all the time. There were no CD's, that came much later.

It spared me of the inevitable dust in the grooves sound that records tend to have after a few plays. 

I'm certain I wasn't the only one, copying of recordings has been around a LONG time!!!!

 

It was a standard for me over many years. I'd buy superior German and Japanese imports of things and include a blank cassette for the first play. When people speak fondly of vinyl's sound, I immediately think of surface noise, skips and the 6" of dust under my bed. Sorry, but I don't see the glamour and mysticism of a music delivery system so grotty, you can grow plants in the grooves after a while.   

 

[MathOfInsects]

2 hours ago, stoken6 said:

I would recommend Adam Neely's recent video for an alternative perspective on this subject. He says he's had enough of the endless Youtube merry-go-round, in which the algorithm demands constant content. Instead, he's going "back to the music industry" and concentrating on his band/touring.

 

This is not Adam's best video - it's a bit rambling and unfocused. But it's an thought-provoking message.

 

Cheers, Mike.

To be fair, though, he engaged in a closed eco-system: create click-bait, get clicks. He was not a musician taking advantage of all the benefits of today's delivery devices, he was a content-creator who played music on the side (ultimately). 

I hear something similar (and closer to home) from all the guys locally doing the solo and duo thing because that's where the money is right now. (Which it is.) Every one of them is 1) Doing quite well for themselves, $-wise, and 2) Desperately missing feeling like a "real" musician playing their or other people's original music. They all feel like they're out of circulation, even though, ironically, their schedules are the fullest among us. 

[MathOfInsects]

Classicists decried Romantics for being unsophisticated and primitive; Romanticists viewed Classicism as stodgy, corny, and uptight. Some was great, but in general the next generation was looking for something that spoke to them more directly. 

This same passage can be written substituting any "previous" and "next" genre, from any stage of history. It was said when jazz arose, then Big Band, then Bebop; when the blues arose, then rock n roll, then rock, then "unplugged" and grunge; punk into New Wave; R&B into funk/disco into rap, then into trap and mumble; "Old time" into Country & Western into "modern country," etc, etc. There aren't "fewer" great songs out now, we just live in present tense, amid ALL today's songs, instead of in the future when only the best ones will have endured. I think there are people only now, 30 years later, coming around to noticing how great and "worthy" the rap of the 1990's and 2000's was, who in real time were calling it "not music" and "just talking over someone else's songs" or the like. 

It takes a while for us to "get it" as a society, and over and over again, the ones least likely to are the representatives of the previous generation, whose aesthetic was shaped by the music they knew as they grew up, which is the EXACT element the next generation is likely to discard or reconsider/reconfigure. 

I will say that I'm grateful to be an older dad of teens, and also grateful that both my kids have really nicely developed preferences and tastes, distinct from one another and from me. One shuffle through either of their playlists leaves no doubt that the state of the musical union is healthy and thriving, and sometimes even thrilling. Many more chances are being taken these days than I remember from my youth. 

Partially it's because the stakes were just so high back then. Each single or release had to be an event. Sometimes that resulted in greatness and sometimes--often--in cheese platters. Now I feel like artists are more willing to carve out an artistic voice and trust the listener to come around to it. I mean, who would have thought that a Chinese Icelandic 20-year-old would be taking the young world by storm doing new and traditional vocal jazz tunes with lush strings and patient phrasing? 

Something else I think we forget is that the artists out now, had FAR more access to the previous generations' music than we ever did, even the record collectors among us. I can't tell you how often my kids have caught on to a 1970's musical reference I've made, relating to a song they would have no reason ever to encounter, and both kids somehow know the song and the artist. When I ask if it's been in a movie or a TV show, they generally reply that music is just "out there" and they've come across it. That was much less likely in our youth. 

[McBones]

21 hours ago, AROIOS said:

I blame it on Max Martin and the Backstreet Boys. 😃

Nah...  It's ancient aliens.  It's always ancient aliens... or right left wings.

[KuruPrionz]

1 hour ago, David Emm said:

It was a standard for me over many years. I'd buy superior German and Japanese imports of things and include a blank cassette for the first play. When people speak fondly of vinyl's sound, I immediately think of surface noise, skips and the 6" of dust under my bed. Sorry, but I don't see the glamour and mysticism of a music delivery system so grotty, you can grow plants in the grooves after a while.   

I agree, records always end up sounding scratchy. Cassette tape had it's shortcomings but I usually made 2 of something if it was good. Now I hardly listen to recorded music at all. I just play live and have fun. 

[MathOfInsects]

To me they are two sides of the same coin, so it's no surprise that they might harbor some enmity toward each other. They're both traditionalists, both smart and talented, and both baldly chasing click-throughs with hyped titles and overlong (if excellently produced) content. (Payout is based largely on time of engagement.)

[Docbop]

I like Adam Neely's videos way more than Rick Beato's.   Adam's videos I feel are a lot more informative than Rick.   Rick's videos are just too much hustle of his books and etc and he has a definite target audience he caters to for most his topics.  Occasionally Rick make videos outside of his demographic. but even he has mentioned he's getting some pushback.  Rick's definite strongest skill is he's mastered Youtube marketing and shares that info with others like Adam, Amy Nolte, and others.   Years ago I used to watch almost all of Rick's videos he was a lot more educational on multiple areas of music theory, but over the years I find myself watch less and less Beato videos and mainly his interviews.    Adam I came to later and watched his video quality and depth of info covering all music topics grow and grow.   Adam has reduced the number of videos he does now like others that used to post good videos a few years ago.   YouTube is getting pretty crowded these days.  To me the better creators with good information seem to posting less especially with the current Youtube push for more short content.   The competition with Tik Tok is changing internet music videos with all the major social media trying to copy popular aspects of Tic Tok.  

 

 

[ProfD]

6 minutes ago, jazzpiano88 said:

Rick is entering the Rogan type sphere for music.   It wouldn't surprise me if he eclipses Youtube and scores a better vehicle. 

That would be something if Beato showed up on Axs TV like Daryl's House.😎

[AROIOS]

7 hours ago, Bill H. said:

...When you have something like Calm Down with minimal production and promotion which simmered in Northern Africa for a months, gradually made it's way into the world through social media, grabbed Selena Gomez by the coattails, and became the #6 single in the US for the year 2023... the chances of anything like that happening under the old system is dramatically less as well...

Looked it up out of curiosity, what a disappointment. If that's the kind of shit "the old system" has suppressed, thank God, it can stay in Sahara for all I care. 😆

[AROIOS]

5 hours ago, David Emm said:

 

It was a standard for me over many years. I'd buy superior German and Japanese imports of things and include a blank cassette for the first play. When people speak fondly of vinyl's sound, I immediately think of surface noise, skips and the 6" of dust under my bed. Sorry, but I don't see the glamour and mysticism of a music delivery system so grotty, you can grow plants in the grooves after a while.   

 

The vinyl revival and iPhone fetish are a big part of why I don't trust the average consumer's eyes, ears (or brain) at all. 😃

[Lou Gehrig Charles]

17 hours ago, KuruPrionz said:

I used to copy vinyl records to cassette all the time. There were no CD's, that came much later.

I'm certain I wasn't the only one, copying of recordings has been around a LONG time!

 

You had it good.  I had to make my cassettes by recording songs off the radio.  It was always a revelation years later to hear the actual recorded version with the whole intro on it, not cut off because I was asleep at the switch.

[KuruPrionz]

1 hour ago, Lou Gehrig Charles said:

You had it good.  I had to make my cassettes by recording songs off the radio.  It was always a revelation years later to hear the actual recorded version with the whole intro on it, not cut off because I was asleep at the switch.

In Fresno, we could pick up Wolfman Jack broadcasting from Tijuana after about 10:30pm but we never recorded it. Classic stuff!

[BluMunk]

17 hours ago, ProfD said:

When it comes to marketing and promoting and booking gigs, Indie artists don't have to rely on corporate gatekeepers for that either. 

I think the argument goes something like "having the privilege of doing your own promoting and booking means that that labor is now part of your bottom line. And it's your time and effort. Maybe it's not better, it's just different. And it means that all those artists now have to focus more on the business of show business in their day to day. And maybe they'd rather be playing."

Like, it's still an expensive endeavor... it's just that musicians are paying for that endeavor with their own time and energy. In any business, "being your own boss" works for some, but energy and time you spend on doing that work (and getting better at it) is time and energy that you are not spending on your actual area of interest.

I get Neely's point. As a viewer, it's been very obvious that he (and countless others like him) seemed to confuse 'spending 40 hours a week making videos about music' with 'being a full-time musician'. Kind of like the indie musician who spends countless hours on booking, promo, marketing, and social media and discovers they're just exhausted before they even pick up their instrument.

 

[ProfD]

27 minutes ago, BluMunk said:

And it means that all those artists now have to focus more on the business of show business in their day to day. And maybe they'd rather be playing."

Like, it's still an expensive endeavor... it's just that musicians are paying for that endeavor with their own time and energy. In any business, "being your own boss" works for some, but energy and time you spend on doing that work (and getting better at it) is time and energy that you are not spending on your actual area of interest.

The smarter Indie artists hire someone who is core competent in taking care of business.😉 

 

In the same way that we hire certain musicians to fill out the band or they bring in someone else to record/mix their records, it only makes sense to hire someone on who is very good at marketing, promotion and booking gigs.  Even better if that person really digs the music. 

 

The biggest *problem* that most artists/musicians/bands have is that they don't see themselves as a business enterprise. They try to wear too many hats (musician, producer, mix/master/recording engineer, chief bottle washer, etc.).

 

if the goal/objective is to sell music...it needs to be run like a business.  Bring in a team of people to make it easier to concentrate on art.

 

Record companies didn't do the heavy lifting for free. Those high interest loans came at a cost. 

 

Only a very small percentage of artists/musicians qualified.  Plenty rejected demos. 

 

Since the beginning of the music industry/business, most  artists/musicians/bands that got signed were already established; working locally or regionally. 

 

The blessing and curse of technology is that it has leveled the playing field to a degree.  The barrier of entry has been lowered. 

 

Bandcamp, SoundCloud and YouTube are littered with content. There's no shortage of music floating around.  

 

The constant remains the same when it comes to selling music.  Artists/musicians/bands still have to be about their business.😎

[Jim Alfredson]

2 hours ago, BluMunk said:

I think the argument goes something like "having the privilege of doing your own promoting and booking means that that labor is now part of your bottom line. And it's your time and effort. Maybe it's not better, it's just different. And it means that all those artists now have to focus more on the business of show business in their day to day. And maybe they'd rather be playing."

Like, it's still an expensive endeavor... it's just that musicians are paying for that endeavor with their own time and energy. In any business, "being your own boss" works for some, but energy and time you spend on doing that work (and getting better at it) is time and energy that you are not spending on your actual area of interest.
 

I did all this for almost 20 years and just got burned out. I was the label owner, producer, engineer, artwork creator, publicist, radio promoter, booking agent, band leader, songwriter, and organist, in that order. It was exhausting. I remember a conversation with our guitarist at the time where he expressed excited wonder at how someone like Pat Metheny could produce such consistent high-quality work. I told him that if he and I had the time to just practice, compose, and play we could do that, too. But he was working a day job, taking care of his sick wife (who unfortunately passed away eventually) and I was doing all the above while being a dad and trying to pay our mortgage every month. Considering all that, I think we made some good records and wrote some cool tunes. But no label ever came knocking (and I tried really hard to get us on a real label).

 

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

The biggest *problem* that most artists/musicians/bands have is that they don't see themselves as a business enterprise. They try to wear too many hats (musician, producer, mix/master/recording engineer, chief bottle washer, etc.).

 

if the goal/objective is to sell music...it needs to be run like a business.  Bring in a team of people to make it easier to concentrate on art.

 

Yes, but it costs money to hire other people to do these jobs for you. And where does that money come from? That $300 gig you had last weekend?

I've been thinking about this a lot because of a conversation I had with my father before he passed away 16 years ago. He asked me what I was averaging per gig and when I told him, he said, "Shit... I was making that in 1970!" Yup. 

How did bands in the 1970s haul around 8000 lbs of keyboards and other gear? They had roadies. Even the small bands had roadies. Because they could afford them. Now it costs me $50 in gas to go do a $150 per man gig. It's not even worth leaving my house. At least in the early 2000s I could augment the low gig pay with CD sales. Not any longer.

Yes, the playing field is leveled. But so is the pay. It's brutal out here. 

[CyberGene]

Maybe we should accept that music can’t be a job anymore. I alluded to that with the painter analogy in my previous post. In a world where many people can draw in various levels, from amateurish to spectacular, but only a very few highly commercialized artists can make real money, it’s only natural that visual arts are mostly a hobby. Same with music. I don’t think there’s a single reason, let alone anyone or anything to blame. 

[kpl1228]

16 hours ago, ProfD said:

That would be something if Beato showed up on Axs TV like Daryl's House.😎

All of this is for Boomers and Gen X. It's for us, not them. Daryl's House might as well now be the Lawrence Welk Show.

Having just hit my 60th birthday, and as a high school teacher surrounded by younger music consumers, I think about the whole Rock Is Dead thing quite often. How music is delivered and consumed, the lack of a central industry, the DYI aspect of music and social media, all of it. 

Those of you who are around my age will relate to this. In the mid 70's, there were big band guys still hanging on to a dead big band world (Stan Kenton, Buddy Rich, Maynard Ferguson, Woody Herman, etc) trying to maintain a career based on touring and hits of the past (by then, 30-35 years ago. Some struggled mightily (Kenton and Harry James), some adopted elements of pop music and streamlined rock into their jazz (Maynard), some collaborated with younger artists who still saw them as influences (Woody Herman allied himself with Steely Dan and Chick Corea). New younger guys came up (Weather Report, Clarke/Duke) but the heyday was gone and they were playing an archaic genre sprinkled with some new tech and new blood. But the ship had sailed except for a niche of few followers, most aging or dying. And if I wasn't playing trumpet in school band, I wouldn't have even heard of any of it.

We, and the bands of our youth, are now those old big band guys. We're the old fans born in 1920 swooning for our old idol Sinatra 35 years after he was with Dorsey whenever we listen to Yes or Parliament or Journey or whomever today.

I went to see one of the "hot new bands" of rock (The Struts) and while I was blown away by the talent, the crowd was my age, with some kids and grandkids dragged there and sullenly watching their parents' and grandparents' idea of "what kids are listening to" but really just playing on their phones and walking around with zero interest. That woke me up to this.

Rock is dead in 2024 just like big band was dead by '77. There may be younger people doing it (like there were always a few good trumpeters or saxophonists in my '70's high school), but it's two generations removed by this point.

Saw Buddy Rich and his big band in the late 70's, and while many of you ooh and ahh at the though of this, note that it was in a high school auditorium and only 150 people showed up that evening, of any age. And now bands from the 70's and 80's that sold out hockey rinks struggle to fill a club or bar.

Life has marched on......far far away from rock and/or roll.

We are now the Tony Bennett-loving parents who can't figure out why our kids listen to the Rolling Stones. same generational time frame, same generation gap. The Super Bowl halftime show, for example. Was any of that geared toward the over-40 crowd? Tried to keep an open mind, but the older Alicia Keys (43) was the link to the distant past, and certainly Usher was seen as older too. That was nostalgic music one generation removed, and I'm one more generation past that one.

Where's my can of Ensure? And my Rudy Vallee 78's? Google him, kids.

[Docbop]

32 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

Maybe we should accept that music can’t be a job anymore. I alluded to that with the painter analogy in my previous post. In a world where many people can draw in various levels, from amateurish to spectacular, but only a very few highly commercialized artists can make real money, it’s only natural that visual arts are mostly a hobby. Same with music. I don’t think there’s a single reason, let alone anyone or anything to blame. 

 

I don't think that is a now thing I think it's always been that way.   I saw it a lot growing up in L.A. around entertainment industry and how so many come here to make it, and so many that go home, switch to a behind the scenes job in industry, or change career path.  Especially working in and being around musician education so much of my life and how few actually make it a living compared to how many go to music school.   Working in music education the ones that made it a living were people who came to music school just to polish their skills and make contacts.   Of those most were already gigging and got Pro level gigs before even graduating.   Of those that went to music school most that gave up during or after graduating is because they discover it is a business it's not all party time.   Even people who are Artist learn to make a living they have to become a business person or hire a business person to handle it for them.     Some say even the Classical composers only a few we know the names of, but there were a lot that were really good some even better than the names we know today.   Things haven't changed you got to know how to play the game to make a living in any of the arts. 

[Bill H.]

14 hours ago, AROIOS said:

Looked it up out of curiosity, what a disappointment. If that's the kind of shit "the old system" has suppressed, thank God, it can stay in Sahara for all I care. 😆

 

It's from Nigeria, so I guess I should have said central Africa.

 

I'm kind of embarrassed to admit it, but Calm Down was in my car's playlist last summer. 🫢 But I can get sucked into simplistic but catchy stuff when driving. It just seemed to fit in with the July and August heat. 

 

It was also picked up by at least one ad agency. Here's a spot for Beaches I remember seeing a lot last summer:

 

 

 

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, Jim Alfredson said:

Yes, but it costs money to hire other people to do these jobs for you. And where does that money come from? That $300 gig you had last weekend?

Of course, takes money to make it.   Only certain entities can just *print* money.🤣

 

A band that only makes $300 per gig is not a business.

 

1 hour ago, Jim Alfredson said:

How did bands in the 1970s haul around 8000 lbs of keyboards and other gear? They had roadies. Even the small bands had roadies. Because they could afford them.

Affordability comes in many different forms. 

 

Back in the day, many artists/bands/musicians built a following of people who became their sponsors and/or volunteers. 

 

Roadies were usually fans of the music who didn't mind moving the gear especially if they could get into the gigs for free. 

 

Sponsors were family members and friends who believed in the music.  Those people helped as financiers, managers, marketing, promotion, etc.

 

Again, it takes a team of people to build a business selling music. 😎

[MathOfInsects]

I also think a lot of us shall we say well-seasoned folks can forget just how cheaply we lived in our 20's, and confuse that with making more money or having more support doing music than we do now. Yes, things were different and the pay structure has not advanced with the times, but also we mostly lived alone or in groups in cheap-ass housing with no real expenses except equipment. Once we start adding kids and insurance and doctor visits and vet visits and utilities for a family of five instead one or even one-third, not to mention gradually changing expectations or requirements for what we might need as a baseline on the road, we would have been at a net-deficit back then too. With blue-collar musician pay not keeping up with the times, the deficit is much worse now, of course. But it would also have existed back then. 

As @ProfD is also hinting at, many of our expenses around recording and distribution are now laid out in advance by us, instead of by a label that then recouped it from sales. Either way, we owe that money, and at least now it's more democratized in cost, with the potential for upside also carried by us, at a lower threshhold. It was just a bit more invisible to us "back then" in the days of Atlantic walking around handing out $30K advances to whoever they thought the next Nirvana would be. 

[Jim Alfredson]

50 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

As @ProfD is also hinting at, many of our expenses around recording and distribution are now laid out in advance by us, instead of by a label that then recouped it from sales. Either way, we owe that money, and at least now it's more democratized in cost, with the potential for upside also carried by us, at a lower threshhold. It was just a bit more invisible to us "back then" in the days of Atlantic walking around handing out $30K advances to whoever they thought the next Nirvana would be. 

$30K? Pffft. A certain jazz organist told me that he got a $150k advance for his first record in 1972. FOR JAZZ! 

Yes. Things are very different now.

[ProfD]

6 minutes ago, Jim Alfredson said:

$30K? Pffft. A certain jazz organist told me that he got a $150k advance for his first record in 1972. FOR JAZZ! 

The purchasing power of $30k and $150k in 1972 is equivalent to $224k and $1.1M respectively in 2024.

 

Major labels and record companies were not handing those advance checks to just any artist/musician/band who wanted to make a record. 

 

That advance money was not a gift either.  Nowadays, they might call it a reverse mortgage. 🤣😎

[Docbop]

2 minutes ago, Jim Alfredson said:

$30K? Pffft. A certain jazz organist told me that he got a $150k advance for his first record in 1972. FOR JAZZ! 

Yes. Things are very different now.

 

Things are really a huge mess now especially if going the independent route.   I've been hanging around Beat makers making a living creating Beats and what a nightmare getting into the royalties collection companies,  sample clearance business, and all the related companies.   The big names seem to main just cover the US, but other countries have different laws so you need other collection companies, especially now with Spotify and the others all music is international so some artists are leaving a lot of money on the table because they don't know they need around agency to collect from other countries.  Then limit how far back they will go to collect money some limit to two years.    It's been really eye opening what these people have to go through to get paid, even to get paid from US media companies using their Beats for TV and commercials.  

 

These people in their home studios are making a living creating Beats for sale and YouTube revenue for videos about making their Beats then selling for a few dollars for a .WAV file to selling for hundreds of thousands for limit use of total ownership of the original stems.   Pretty complex business but there is money to be made if you learn the business side. 

[MathOfInsects]

1 hour ago, Jim Alfredson said:

$30K? Pffft. A certain jazz organist told me that he got a $150k advance for his first record in 1972. FOR JAZZ! 

Yes. Things are very different now.

Someone famous enough to warrant that kind of advance in 1972, is not really who this conversation is about, right?

Though I, too, question that figure. Maybe a fish tale…?

The $30K advances were a real thing in the 1990's, and legend around these parts. SD was presumed to be the next "scene" after Seattle, and the labels were all here signing everyone they could to lock them down for when the scene broke. Jewel, Mraz, Blink 182, and a bunch of others were breakouts from this era, but safe to say did not go how Atlantic (and others) thought and they moved on within a couple of years. SD's "scene" is really the diversity of its scene, which the labels saw as a lack of one. We in the midst of it beg to differ, of course. There just isn't an SD version of "grunge" that they were going to find it easy to market. 

[jazzpiano88]

2 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

4 hours ago, Jim Alfredson said:

$30K? Pffft. A certain jazz organist told me that he got a $150k advance for his first record in 1972. FOR JAZZ! 

Yes. Things are very different now.

Someone famous enough to warrant that kind of advance in 1972, is not really who this conversation is about, right?

Though I, too, question that figure. Maybe a fish tale…?

 

$150k in 1972?

Jazz?

Organ?

 

The probabilities when multiplied essentially equal zero. 

I'm trying to wrack my brain.   Organists who played with Miles?   Zawinul? Nope.

Maybe the great one?  No he was earlier than 72.

 

I do think that Lee Ritenour has had a continual unbroken recording contract for 56 years and may hold a world record.

 

[AROIOS]

5 hours ago, Bill H. said:

...I'm kind of embarrassed to admit it, but Calm Down was in my car's playlist last summer...

Nothing to feel embarrassed about, brother. Music is a very personal experience. Don't ever let my (or anyone's) snarky comments hold you back from enjoying what you like.

[AROIOS]

6 hours ago, kpl1228 said:

...We are now the Tony Bennett-loving parents who can't figure out why our kids listen to the Rolling Stones. same generational time frame, same generation gap. The Super Bowl halftime show, for example. Was any of that geared toward the over-40 crowd? Tried to keep an open mind, but the older Alicia Keys (43) was the link to the distant past, and certainly Usher was seen as older too. That was nostalgic music one generation removed, and I'm one more generation past that one...

I love Debussy, Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Steely Dan, Duke, Yes, Parliament, The Struts... equally.

And I've always found it idiotic to divide music by periods and generations. A Cmaj9 is a Cmaj9, whether it's played on a harp, Rhodes, or a Strat; a shuffle is a shuffle, whether it's played on an axatse, a set of Ludwig, or a TR-808.

Folks who base their musical consumption on "timeliness" of a tune, are one of the biggest reasons so much annoying/idiotic noise fill our air, while tons of great music become neglected and forgotten.

[Jim Alfredson]

8 hours ago, ProfD said:

Major labels and record companies were not handing those advance checks to just any artist/musician/band who wanted to make a record. 

Of course not and obviously that figure ($150k) is the upper end of the spectrum for a jazz label at the time, but if someone at the top was getting that, the 'little guys' and 'middle guys' were getting decent money, too. 

I know of two Michigan based bands that got $100k advances in the 90s. I worked with blues artists that were getting $40k advances in the 2010's.

That's ALL gone now except for the folks that already have a name and even among them it's just the creme de la creme.

 

 

7 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

Someone famous enough to warrant that kind of advance in 1972, is not really who this conversation is about, right?

Not directly but it reflects how much money was in the business at the time. And this person was not famous yet.


 

[Jim Alfredson]

 

7 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

 

5 hours ago, jazzpiano88 said:

 

$150k in 1972?

Jazz?

Organ?

 

The probabilities when multiplied essentially equal zero. 

I'm trying to wrack my brain.   Organists who played with Miles?   Zawinul? Nope.

Maybe the great one?  No he was earlier than 72.

 

 

 

It happened. And the label made their money back. It's one of the most sampled records in history.