A Shocking Exchange on Facebook about Music and Hard Work | The Art of Freedom

How we frame what we do matters.

A Shocking Exchange on Facebook about Music and Hard Work | The Art of Freedom:

“Where is the love of the everyday music-making that we give to ourselves? Yes, music-making can be rewarding, but not just when the performance goes well and as planned! Where is the joy of learning, of experimentation? The spark of curiosity? The excitement of discovery? Where is the delight in making sound for the sake of making sound? Why take the fun out of what we do 90% of the time, which is in the practice room, not onstage? Why make such a harsh division between play and the studied attention we pay to detail in the practice room or in a lesson?”

Dark Forces Swing Blind Punches: I want to stay: Celebrating Ornette in Prospect Park

A great recap of the Celebrating Ornette concert for those of us who missed it.

Dark Forces Swing Blind Punches: I want to stay: Celebrating Ornette in Prospect Park: “Of course you would want to listen to this music. It’s for everybody. It’s not that its once-controversial radical-ness has been tempered; it’s more that the music has been given ample time to disseminate to its true audience, the public, flowing past the gatekeepers/naysayers and eventually submerging and silencing them.”

eMotion gestural control system

A few years ago I met a Chet Udell at a SEAMUS conference. He is a composer/technologist, a nice guy, and he wrote a great piece for trombone, piano and computer stuff. We have kept in touch, mostly via running into each other at conferences and whatnot.

Last fall, I saw him do a demo of a new gesture control system that he has been developing, and the possibilities were pretty exciting.

He is nearing the end of the Kickstarter for it. If you are curious about that sort of thing, check it out.

Visit the page here: http://kck.st/1gTwSCF

Where does the money come from?

Warning: This post has more questions than answers, because we can’t find the answers until we ask the RIGHT questions.

In recent weeks I have read the complaints of a number of people about the amounts of money that performers are paid in “creative music” situations. I know that I could spend an entire book weeding out meaning from the term “creative music,” so let me just clarify that I mean art music that is outside of the economic mainstream.

One of the people who inspired this post simply thinks that the musicians should “make” the clubs sign a union contract and pay a good wage. If music is part of the club’s business model, in the way that a band on Bourbon St. is there mostly to make the party happen, and making the party happen is how the club makes money, then I agree. The market sets a price for beer, and it should also set a price for the band. Both the beer and the band are part of the formula that the club uses to make money. We should also note, that in these situations, the band plays what the club wants them to play. These are craftsman musicians who are hired to provide a service for an employer. The club takes the risk, the band simply provides a service.

This isn’t really the situation I am thinking about.

What about a situation in which I (the hypothetical artist) have a band and some new music, and we want a place to play this music. This is original music, and it isn’t particularly mainstream. My goal is to find a place to present this music, and in doing so build an audience, and make some money.

Some venues pride themselves on presenting new music. It is part of their business model. Let’s take a “best case scenario” for the artist version of this situation, and assume that our hypothetical venue is dedicated to presenting new music. For our little thought experiment here, the genre of this new music isn’t really important, we just have to stipulate that the new music is made by an artist who is not yet well known.

Where does the money come from?

One version of the “unknown band” plan is to offer free entrance to entice more people in to hear the music. I won’t go into my arguments about why it is a bad idea to present yourself with the implication that your performance has no value. If there is no cover charge, then all of the band’s money must come from the bar. Giving the band 20% of the bar ring is on the generous side of standard. If 50 people come to your gig, and each of them has three drinks, and the drinks average $7 each, then the bar ring is $1,050. 20% of that bar ring is $210.

The cover charge scenario is the other way to go. With a $5 cover that goes entirely to the band (which can be rare), those same 50 people generate $250 for the band. Now, will there still be 50 people there with a $5 cover? Probably a question for another post.

Based on these numbers, when you get to audiences of 200 or so, you get to numbers that can support budget style touring (a van and couches). As cover charges can go up, the numbers change. The math isn’t difficult. The point is that the money for the band either comes directly from the audience (cover charge/ticket sales) or indirectly from the audience (percentage of bar sales). No matter how you look at it, audience size is the determining factor in terms of available money for the artists.

Who is responsible for bringing the audience? That may be another post.

The point is when there are 50 people in the audience to hear my great new music for the first time, and the band makes a total of $300, then we did a pretty good job of converting audience into dollars.

$300 a night for an entire band is not a living wage.

This raises more questions. Am I entitled to a living wage from my art? Do I make art as a financial sustenance or just for psychic sustenance? Do we, as audience members, have a moral obligation to financially support the artists whose work we enjoy? Do we, as artists, have a moral obligation to freely share our art with the world? Are there other places to find money besides the bar and the door? (I consider merchandise sales to be a separate income stream from the performance fee.)

The answers to the above questions can inform our search for answers about how to increase the amount of money performers make for live performances.

The Jazz Session » The Jazz Session #420: Jeff Albert

The Jazz Session, a jazz podcast produced by Jason Crane, is making a comeback. Back in February of 2012, I recorded an interview with Jason, and it never was released because he ended the show before the CD that we spent much of the interview discussing was released. Well that CD is out now, and the show is returning, and our interview is now available. Follow the link below to hear it.

The Jazz Session » The Jazz Session #420: Jeff Albert

**A couple of notes:

I have since finished the dissertation that we talked about in the interview. If you are having trouble sleeping and would like to read it, it is here: http://research.jeffalbert.com/imp/

The CD order changed a bit since I sent him music before the interview, and one of the tunes he plays in the show, is not actually on the CD. Mixes changed some too, so the bass sounds better on the CD than on the podcast.

August DownBeat was nice to me

The August 2013 issue of DownBeat Magazine was a good issue for my press clippings. For the third year, I was honored to be mentioned in the Rising Star Trombone category of the Critics Poll, and the Instigation Quartet CD got a 4 star review.

Let the CD sales, and festival bookings come rolling in…

Totm db review

Clip from Rising Star section of Critics Poll results:

2013 critics poll db

Dusted Reviews: Jeff Albert’s Instigation Quartet – The Tree on the Mound

A nice review from Derek Taylor in Dusted.

Dusted Reviews: Jeff Albert’s Instigation Quartet – The Tree on the Mound:

“By the time the four align on the first of Albert’s four ‘Instigation’ pieces (inexplicably out of numerical sequence and missing two in the order), everybody sounds as if they’re more comfortably on the same page. The last three tracks in particular find the group really hitting a galvanizing stride and crafting a series of bracing contrapuntal passages. ‘Instigation Quartet #6’ unfolds as a succession of duets, the first an explosive dialogue between Jordan and Abrams, the next a slow burn from Albert and Drake before moving on to an invigorating ensemble section and roof-raising solo by Jordan. Tenor and trombone converse and cavort in ornate arcs with a level of close confluence complemented by bass and drums. It’s a consensus that carries over into the closer, a collective leap through the indelible finger-snapping groove of Anderson’s ‘The Strut.’”

Since this is my blog, I will explain the inexplicable. The numbers on the IQ pieces are just a way to identify each one. I could have just as well called them Sue, John, Paul, George, and Ringo. They aren’t a suite meant to be played in order, just a collection of similar pieces. They are out of numerical order because that order made a better CD, and they aren’t all there because some of the recordings didn’t make the CD. Just like if they were five improvisations that had non-similar abstract names.

Interestingly, in an attempt to give the pieces names that created no baggage, expectations were still created. There may eventually be a longer post based on that dilemma.