TimR

What about the poor bass player who fell on hard times and had to pawn his bass? And now finds out it's worth $80k.

List price for a new Fender in 1970 was $295. Not sure many would have paid $70 for a 10 year old bass.

The sign of a good bass player is being able to play those fills - but knowing not to play them.

Yes. Everytime I think I should give it up, I see someone older, more decrepit, and talentless performing in front of some tiny audience. And I think, actually, I'm not doing too badly, maybe one more gig...

So increased competition then?

I didn't enjoy it. Not sure what else I can say. I didn't enjoy Metallica either. Saw them in 1987 and they were great, 2009, OK for an hour but just too loud, even with the earplugs. Maiden were loud at Hammersmith Odeon in the 80s but Metallica stupidly loud to a point where it wasn't enjoyable. Another band I'll continue to listen to but don't want to see live again.

The Band of Theseus.

Group electronics has fallen in price. You can now get a digital mixer and good powered speakers for well under £1000. Our PA cost nearly £2k in the late 90s. A set of very good LED lights, stupidly cheap. And you can get a very good gigable bass for under £400. Some things have really gone down in price or stayed the same. FX pedals are under £100. Learning tunes is easy so much online resources. And when I was at school rock guitar and drum lessons didn't happen. My old school is now having an annual battle of the bands competition with several bands playing. When I was there we had one drummer, two bass players and three guitarists. Enough for 2 bands with a drummer drafted in from another school. This means a young band of very good musicians can be up and running with minimal outlay. Increased competition means fees for bands haven't kept up.

Yes. But it's not like being and actor or a regular musician. Where usually you'd be doing a different play or playing a different set every few weeks. Playing pretty much the same set for 40 years? I can't believe that's their only work. Although I know some actors and musicians have been in the same West End shows or Pit for decades. I think an 80s weekend is something people would go to especially. Same when going to see a band, that's what that particular audience want to hear. There are hundreds of bands playing the same standards. I can't listen to them anymore and certainly don't want to be playing them. Even tracks from the 90s that are 25 years old haven't really become standards yet, so most of them are fresh or unusual. (Sex on Fire, and Dakota excepted 😆)

They are at least not stuck playing songs from the 70s. I wonder if their latest tracks would be well known enough for a cover band yet.

I guess at £300 you just have to increase their footfall. 20 extra people buying 3 drinks each would cover that.

It's a bit of a risk. I saw Rush in 1986 and 2013. I only got tickets in 2013 by chance but Geddy's voice wasn't up to the pre 2000 material. I decided then I wasn't going to see them again. I think if I was touring Holiday Camps and local theatres with a band with hardly any original members playing material I had written in the 70s and 80s, then I'd be wondering what I was doing. I've had enough of playing sets full of covers of music from the 60s and 70s (especially Beatles and Stones!) regardless of how well it goes down. We are playing material from 90s and later now. I think keeping it fresh is key for both performers and audiences. I get the nostalgia thing, but it's not for me. If you don't evolve you become extinct.

I'm still gigging and in 3 bands. 2 originals and a covers band.

Indeed. It comes to a point at which the work you're putting in is to try and limit the dip rather than create an improvement.

4 of us try and get £320. Gives us £80 each which is an easier sell. Otherwise push it to £280. Depends how many in your band as to how you can justify it. £300 for a 3 piece playing 2 hours of music is £50ph* as far as any onlooker is concerned. *yes I know, travel, set up etc...

A 'pub band' can get a lot more for New Year's eve if you go to an agent. Those gigs are in high demand so don't settle for a pub gig if all your members are available. Unfortunately getting my lot out on New Year's eve is impossible.

Toyah seems to pull quite a crowd for some reason...

I was thinking about this last night after reading the thread. In athletics, athletes continue into the masters category. Over 40s, 50,50,70,80,90 for men and 35,45 etc for Women. Although people do go and watch, they're not so high on the TV ratings. I suspect the same happens with Tennis, McEnrow et al have 'retired' but still play age group and exhibition matches. There will be an ever diminishing audience for Cliff Richard and others, it's just a matter of whether the fans die before the artists. 😆 Lots of ageism and sexism at display. How comes Tom Jones is great for going out and entertaining but Madonna isn't?

I'd say (without hearing you), you almost definitely will be better. How much better will depend on how much you've stretched yourselves over the years. If you've just played the same material at every gig and not rehearsed in between, probably not much better. The point is, incremental small improvements over 16 years will add up. It may be pointing out the obvious, but from some of the replies above, some people need to be reminded of it every so often. A lot of us are a lot better than we think. And a lot of us could easily be even better with only a small amount of extra application.

So you stopped working on bass and your bass playing abilities stopped improving. And you started working on your vocals and your vocals improved. Who'd have thought? 😆

It's meant to be a general point. You will have prioritised other things in your life. We all do that. My point is that we often resign ourselves to playing the best that we can, but don't appreciate how a little extra, done frequently will lead to big improvements over time. Frequently we are saying, I do enough to get by, or I do what I can with the time available, I'll never be a great player. That's great, but I suspect in a great number of cases, if we are truthful, it's not quite true. If you really want to improve, then you will find the time.

Not one bass player on this forum is not better now than they were when they started. At some point they make a decision not to do any work to get better.

The point of the quote (to help @Paul S out) is that you're only ever going to be good enough, if that's all you want to be. The top guys are only at the top because they go the extra mile. Guys who are obsessed with bass rather than it being one thing theyre quite interested in. You meet these kind of guys all the time in all aspects of life. They're the ones that have only one topic of conversation. Golf, football, cars, their work, bass. It's not that healthy.

No I have no idea why you think I'm narcissistic. Do you know why you think I'm narcissistic? I'm not sure how your input has helped with the thread...

I heard a good quote this morning. "Ways to fail: 1. Be the best you can. The people who succeed are not content with being the best that they can, they're the ones who seek out to be better all the time and not settle for today's best..." A lot of what people are describing in the thread is attributed to being comfortable with what you're doing and not willing (or able) to put extra practice in and seek new opportunities. That's not a bad thing, but people should understand why they are what they are.