Music 101: Pt. 5 - Knowing the Rules of the Roles

As a professional musician who makes most of my income from live performances, I feel compelled to share some essential information about the roles of performers and venues. This could have qualified for a Musician Tip, but it applies to venue owners as well, and it's good info for the mass public, so here it is as the latest "Music 101" entry. If you know a club or venue owner, please pass this along.


Imagine this scenario: Johnny W. Rockstar (the W. stands for Wannabe) is a small-time, local musician. He gets hired by Bud's Beer Barn to play a solo acoustic show on Friday, then Dick's Dumpy Dive on Saturday. Both are live music venues that serve food & drinks. I know this is starting off like one of those screwy "two trains travelling opposite directions" algebra test questions, but hang with me.

#1: What is Johnny W. Rockstar's role?

Entertainment? Yeah, but as a by-product. His ultimate role: alcohol salesman. Johnny's job is to keep people's butts in the seats (or dancing) and buying more beverages. If he were playing stadiums, his role would change to ticket salesman. Without some cash changing hands, he's gonna be stuck playing "Smoke On The Water" in his parent's basement.

#2: Whose fault is it if nobody comes out to the shows?

Johnny's? Only if both venues NORMALLY have good crowds on those nights. If you've never been to Dick's Dumpy Dive (or already don't like it), the add-on of seeing an artist you've never heard of probably isn't going to inspire you to give it a chance come Friday. If those bars normally bring in 100 people on a weekend night, and only 15 show up when Johnny plays, yep - it's Johnny's fault. Otherwise, THE VENUES ARE RESPONSIBLE. Read on...

#3: Whose fault is it if Bud's is filled to capacity on Friday, but Dick's is empty on Saturday?

It's Dick's fault. Dick will whine that Johnny shouldn't have booked those dates so close together, or that he promoted the Bud's show more. But the truth is Johnny's crowd is choosing to attend at the venue they like most. Bud's probably has better drink specials, better food, cleaner bathrooms, nicer staff, etc.

Why do SO many venue owners think like Dick? Because they're ignorant. They look at gigantic artists and stadiums and think the same logic applies on the small scale. If U2 comes to Chicago to play Soldier Field on a Tuesday night, who is 100% responsible for the turnout? U2 is, of course - nobody would be at Soldier Field on a Tuesday otherwise, and you can't see U2 anywhere else.

But if U2 is coming to Chicago and will play 30 different venues over 30 nights, people will buy tickets based on the venue where they want to see them perform. The Soldier Field, Navy Pier, Allstate Arena, and Grant Park shows might sell out, but there will be tickets to spare on the night they play the parking lot next to the county landfill.

So, for 90% of music venues out there: The venue's role is to bring people out, the artist's role is to keep them there.

Music 101: Pt. 4 - American Idol

"The contestants on American Idol are to musicians what meth dealers are to pharmacists."
- Gregory Hyde

I get asked quite often why I don't try out for American Idol. I usually try to be polite in responding with "It's just not my scene". The person asking is, after all, insinuating I'm good enough to excel as a singer against the stiff competition these shows offer. That's a compliment in my book, so I try to leave it at that. But for you who would like a deeper look into why I would light my eyeballs on fire before joining the Idol elite, read on.

My quote above holds true, I feel, in almost all aspects. Being a meth dealer, as well as an Idol finalist, requires some serious skill. With both, if you're not accomplished at the techniques of your trade or have at least some ability to market yourself, you'll destroy your career before it ever gets started (and your mobile home along with it in the case of the meth dealer).

The Idol shows aren't just the get-rich-quick scheme for a bona fide music career. It's something else entirely; just as with meth dealers - killing off the very people & industry that support your endeavor. In fact, getting rich AT ALL, much less get-rich-quick, is a long shot for these shows. If you're even a finalist on these programs, you're roped into a contract with the corporation that produces them. You think they're gonna pay you a "fair" wage? Think again. Even guys like Green Day or Justin Timberlake are barely making more than 2 or 3% on every album they sell. Yes, the cut performers get from major labels really is that terrible, but that's another blog post... the likelihood that they'll offer anything close to this for an Idol winner or finalist is nil.

What about writing? Writers make more money right? Heck yes they do. That's why singers & performers keep edging in to take writing credits they don't deserve (yep, it happens all the time. Yet another blog post...). The Idol winners write their own songs on their CDs, right? Heck no they don't.

The reason why goes hand in hand with the direction of the Idol winner's career in general. You win and you're essentially a product owned by this massive corporation. This corporation is a public company that has shareholders that want to see the stock rising each quarter. Do you think this multi-billion dollar machine is going to drop millions on this album's production and marketing and then hand the reins over to a 17 year old girl from Alabama just because she won a singing contest? Don't think so. The label has a stable of hit-making songwriters at their disposal, plus thousands of competent writers vying for a shot to get their song on one of these albums. Do you think they're gonna let Suzy Idolwinner write her own stuff over these guys? I don't care if she made Ellen dance on Randy's lap... the answer is emphatically no.

You don't want to make the worst movie in history? Too bad Kelly Clarkson, you're required to be in "From Justin to Kelly" and you better not say anything bad about it at the junkets or we'll sue your Cinderella-story butt back to Nowheresville, USA.

So what's the draw? Why do people keep going on these shows, barring ignorance of these details, of course? Well, out of the rich & famous expectation, fame is still on the table. People will know who you are and, for a little while at least, might even care enough to listen (but maybe not, right Ruben?). That's worth something, no doubt, but the question is whether the cost isn't too high.

For me, the cons simply outweigh the pros. I prefer having control of my art, career, and income stream. Having the freedom to create for the sake of the creation rather than what a corporate CEO thinks will sell, and not ever having to perform a smiling, group sing-a-long while butchering a Queen song for a Ford Focus commercial are all luxuries that I simply can't live without.

But don't get me wrong - I don't detest these shows. There's some grandiose entertainment value in the try-outs when people sing like Helen Keller praying in tongues, get an honest review, and then run out crying, "I gonna be bigger than all a yall's!!!"

More importantly, these shows have fostered the notion in the masses that there is a wealth of undiscovered talent out there. The guy on the train next to you might be a much better singer and songwriter than John Mayer - who knows? The band in the bar you're going to tonight just might be the most incredible group you've seen in years. Gone is the mindset that if you aren't on the radio or on the t.v., you must not be that good. For this, I can't thank these shows enough.

Music 101: Pt. 3 - There Is No Such Thing as Christian Music

"So is this Christian music?"

I was asked this question about my projects / albums long before I put humanity's most popularly accepted & recognized deity in the title of my latest album. But the question keeps coming, so I thought it was time to express my thoughts on the subject here:

I'm a Christian. I try my best to follow Christ's teachings, though I obviously fail constantly. I am also a rock musician. Personally, I don't think these things are mutually exclusive.

I play music at church, at my house, in bars, at parties, at concerts, etc. - and I truly feel it's what God has called me to do even though many of my songs have no direct lyrical reference to spiritual matters. But as for Christian Music, I disagree that it exists.

When people refer to 'Christian Music', it is better defined as 'The Christian Music Industry'. As the name implies, it's a business created by human beings for the purpose of commerce of art separated into a faith-based market niche. The motivations behind it are as numerous as the people involved, ranging from saintly to sadistic.

I have a large collection of albums released from Christian labels, and thoroughly LOVE many of them. I think supplying the world with uplifting music is a great thing to do with your life and career, so please don't take the following to be a criticism of individuals or the genre as a whole. Rather, I just want to express my concerns against blanket judgments of art & music based on this term.

There are songs that glorify and praise God, songs that directly blaspheme and mock God, and songs that do neither of the above. Songs are without will. People on the other hand...

Here are some hypothetical scenarios I used for thinking this through:

A) Marilyn Manson writes a song claiming he is Jesus Christ, which he recorded while hanging upside down on a black crucifix, drenched in pigs blood, in a Jewish cemetery. Later, Michael W. Smith (a popular Christian artist) does a cover of it. Is it Christian music now?

B) Good ol' Marilyn does a note-for-note, line-by-line cover rendition of "Amazing Grace" on his new album with the London Symphony Orchestra. It's so illustriously beautiful, it moves the pope to tears before he finds out who recorded it. Does this glorify or blaspheme God? Is it Christian music?

C) Michael W. Smith writes a song about his favorite flavor of ice cream and sings it in church. Christian music or just a song? Is God mad or just happy that Mikey enjoys Triple Butterscotch Ripple so much?

D) A well-intentioned Christian musician writes and records a song that becomes a major hit on Christian radio, though in reality the concept or lyric is the antithesis of something taught in Scripture. Is it anti-Christian music?

E) Ozzy Osbourne dedicates his life to Christ and begins a recording career with a Christian music label. Is "Bark at the Moon" now a Christian album?

F) Michael W. Smith denounces Christ, joins a Yak-molesting cult, and starts releasing albums which worship Tralfarganom, Creator of All Things Slightly Off-White. Is Mike's back catalog of songs no longer worshipful to God? Want to take bets on whether or not Family Christian Book Stores would yank his albums off the shelves?



Scenario D (which happens way too often, BTW) also brings to light another issue. If you want to preach to a congregation or start a church, it's standard practice that you attend a seminary, be mentored by another minister, or obtain an ordination of some kind. Yet anybody with a microphone and a claim to have heard the call can seemingly jump on stage and spout their own brand of cultish religion without much, if any, contradiction. Many people are so militant about only exposing themselves to "Christian music" that they overlook they fact that it sometimes directly contradicts their beliefs more than some of what they consider to be "secular" music.

Also interesting is the lack of denominational attention to detail. Personally, I am ALL FOR breaking down the barriers between denominations and unifying in our common goals and ideals as Christ-followers. But it truly baffled me when a Southern Baptist Christian youth group I knew of was in attendance at a concert, bobbing their heads to their favorite Christian band, which happened to be a Spirit-filled, tongue-talking (therefore hell-bound by their interpretation) band from Georgia. That detail is conveniently omitted from most group's songs and even public lives. Why? You lose album sales. Is that what would motivate Christ?

Would it bother you if Jars of Clay were Methodists? How about if you discovered Third Day or The Newsboys leaned more toward the homosexual-endorsing side of the Episcopalian Church than the Assemblies of God denomination? Would they still be "Christian" music to you?

Lest I need say more (you're gonna love this)...

Testamints. Go to a Christian Bookstore and you'll likely see these in the checkout line. Christian mints. They have Bible verses included and even sport little crosses on them. So does that make Certs secular mints? Which breath-freshener would Christ choose?

If you're not seeing how ridiculous this is, then where do you draw the line with "Jesus Junk"? If songs are either Christian or secular, what about instrumentals? Jingles? A tune you make up and hum in your car on the way to work? Are there Christian guitars? If a novel is Christian or secular, what about children's books? Anecdotes? Memos? Notes on the fridge? Can you have Christian or secular pens? Cars? Clothes? Hairspray? Or is it all just labeling and marketing?

People can make the decision to accept and follow Christ. Nothing else can. Judge what you like and accept on the merits of content and creativity, not a label.

Music 101: Pt. 2 - Avoid Blind Allegiance.

So you loved the first album - it changed your life. The second album was pretty good. But now that this artist/band is 10 disks deep in their catalog, your once favorite performer of all time seems to be taking a tire iron to that once mighty, though now thoroughly deceased, artistic steed.

It's O.K.

You can call it like it is. It's all right to not like every single stinkin' thing an artist or group releases. You no longer have to pretend that each new Radiohead album is even half as good as The Bends or O.K. Computer. Fret not - admitting that the new Pearl Jam album is a festering pile of phoned-in, mediocre, pretentious upchuck doesn't make Ten any less of a monumental achievement of musical greatness. Van Halen was outstanding. Van Halen III is one of the worst things you could ever put in your ears.

It's O.K.

In a related manner, it's no disrespect to the greats that their kids didn't get the goods passed down. Yes, John Lennon was brilliant. It's not blasphemy to admit that Yoko and Sean consistently put out audible dingo feces (though Julian certainly had a few fine moments). Sting - also brilliant, but stating the obvious that his son's band, Fiction Plane, is suited more for torturing enemies of the state than for entertaining the crowd before a concert by The Police... well that's just good old common sense. You can still love "Every Breath You Take".

It's O.K.

Like what you like. Admit what you like. Admit what you don't. Be a fan of good music, not a mindless cult member who nods in lobotomized agreement with whatever an artist does.

Music 101: Pt. 1 - Your Favorite Band Sucks.

We've all said this at one point or another. Somebody mentions an artist they saw butcher a classic tune on the Grammy's, Disney releases another pop tart starlet while she's still in the womb, you see some college fratboy with an ankle tattoo of his favorite jam band, Justin Timberlake comes on the radio, and out it comes... "That musician/band/artist/charlatan/entertainer SUCKS!"

Tempting though it may be to say this, it's incorrect.

I could go into all the P.C. crap about diversity and how boring the planet would be if we were all the same, yada yada... whatever. I think I threw up a little just typing that. There's still a tinge of it in my right nostril. But I digress...

So here are the rules. You can dislike a style, song, artist, producer, or even misspelled album liner notes. You can even downright HATE all of the above, but you have to give your own (good) reasons and not just blanketly say something sucks or else you'll you sound like an imbecile who is secretly going home and listening to those Miley Cyrus albums you are openly condemning to the public. Ya dig?

For example:

BAD - ZZ Top sucks. (blasphemy, by the way)
GOOD - I hate ZZ Top because I can't stand blues-based rock songs with sexual innuendo. I also have an intense fear of facial hair.

BAD - Ashley Simpson sucks.
GOOD - Lip-syncing chicks who have no musical talent or skill and yet get on Saturday Night Live because of millions of dollars spent on over-producing their albums thanks to their dad's pandering of their eldest sister to Sony execs for that daughter's music career turn my stomach.

BAD - The Beatles suck.
GOOD - I need to find a place to hide this body of the guy who said "The Beatles suck."

You get the point.

True, I have been guilty of this more times than I care to admit (and will very likely violate this rule again in the future... probably the next time I hear Neil Young), but let's give this our best effort, ok kids?