What makes a successful acoustic performance?

[Matt Hicks]

I've not had anyone throw anything at me yet and occasionally I get someone paying me a compliment. When I want to gauge how my performance is going I usually look at peoples feet to see if they're tapping. Other than that there's not alot of other clues to go on. Playing a full acoustic set I have to admit is something that petrifies me. To go on stage with your own original very personal songs and offer them out to the public is not easy. With a band, atleast you have the confidence that theirs a few other people who think your songs are good enough to put their neck on the line for. So far I've only ever done a couple if open mic nights on my own just to get the experience.

Matt

[outsidenote]

My opinion - more as a listener, than performer, is that you should not sing if you can't sing well. Stick to what you are best at. If you are a good fingerstyle instrumentalist, then that is what you have to do but you also have to choose your venue.

New Age introspective fingerstyle noodling may go over real well at the local tree - hugger crunchy coffee shop space sharing time, but raucous twangy Fender Telecaster Country will go over a lot better at Bubba's outdoor Bar and Grill on the dock during Spring Break.

[Devin]

What makes a successful acoustic performance?

Getting paid!

- Devin

[JW1111]

“My love is acoustic instrumental music, and that's what I want to perform”
We have something in common.

“my desire to avoid covers.”
Avoiding covers is your first step to being original.

“what would YOU like to experience that would make the show enjoyable for you?”
Something original, and something good.

The best gauge is getting asked to come back. If you get rehired then you know you were liked. That is the best indicator.

If you don’t get rehired, then you have to get better..... and try it again. Or, find a place than is better suited for your music. Or, compromise, and style your music to the place you want to play.

Good luck.

[Guyute]

Having spent an afternoon listening to David playing, I'd have to say that if he didn't get asked back, it's not because he needs to get better. It's because his style of music isn't what the venue wants.

Either that or the booker has no musical sense.

[bagelsgirl]

[QUOTE=outsidenote]My opinion - more as a listener, than performer, is that you should not sing if you can't sing well. Stick to what you are best at.

But like I said, we artistic types seem to always be our own worst critics. Many people start out without much confidence in our abilities. In my case, I thought I was an ok singer and guitarist, but I certainly never thought I'd be particularly admired for either skill. I thought maybe I was good enough to get up in front of people... barely... and as embarrassing as it was when I started out, I stuck with it because of some compulsion to do so...

If you are one of those people who has enough good judgement to know for sure when you just can't do a thing, that's fine. (For example, I can't be a ballerina, or an athlete, and I know for sure that I am not just being hard on myself!)

But I'm just saying, if I had stuck with what I was "best" at, I guess that would have been criticising myself and thinking that what I was doing was never good enough.

Thankfully, I pressed on, and I am now better at music, but I keep the self critical thing as a side hobby ...

[dthumb]

[QUOTE=bagelsgirl]

Originally Posted by outsidenote

My opinion - more as a listener, than performer, is that you should not sing if you can't sing well. Stick to what you are best at.

But like I said, we artistic types seem to always be our own worst critics. Many people start out without much confidence in our abilities. In my case, I thought I was an ok singer and guitarist, but I certainly never thought I'd be particularly admired for either skill. I thought maybe I was good enough to get up in front of people... barely... and as embarrassing as it was when I started out, I stuck with it because of some compulsion to do so...

If you are one of those people who has enough good judgement to know for sure when you just can't do a thing, that's fine. (For example, I can't be a ballerina, or an athlete, and I know for sure that I am not just being hard on myself!)

But I'm just saying, if I had stuck with what I was "best" at, I guess that would have been criticising myself and thinking that what I was doing was never good enough.

Thankfully, I pressed on, and I am now better at music, but I keep the self critical thing as a side hobby ...

Imagine what we'd be mising if Dylan, Tom Waits and even Leo Kottke (Eight Miles High) had decided they shouldn't sing.
A great performance is one that holds you and , like any art, good and bad are so terribly subjective and predisposed to tastes. I've heard some really fabulous musicians perform terribly and some very average musicians bring down the house. Hell, I've even heard some really BAD musicians bring down the house (Sex Pistols) with pure energy...thats it...its all about the energy.
If the shows got energy it is contagious.

[Michael K]

I think the thing that makes Leo able to pull off not singing much is his personality and banter, and not many people have that. I think if you are primarily an instrumentalist, the suggestion about sharing billing with someone else is a great idea. Then the audience gets the best of both worlds, the mixture of the vocals and some great instrumental music. Very few audiences will be held tight with just solo instrumental music. Also, Leo used to sing a lot more than he does now. He's paid his dues and earned the right not to have to sing.

[Guyute]

And BTW David, as you suggested, I'm trying to get some gigs around here. If and when I do, I'd be delighted not only to have you sit in and/or play a few solo, I'll also plug the heck outta your CD

[bstring]

Originally Posted by jim_n_virginia

I have noticed that the performers who have entertained me the most tickled my funnybone and caught my attention with heartwarming stories.

If you go to a classical performance, people expect to sit still and listen and don't expect patter. If you go to a jazz club, people also don't expect patter -- although they might not sit so still. But with popular music and guitar instrumentals in a non-concert hall setting, I agree entirely with jim about the need for some humor, story telling, or even something that helps the audience warm to you as a person. Recently I've heard both Michael Chapeldaine and Ed Gerhardt, two accomplished performers of primarily instrumental guitar music, and while there was no Arlo Guthrie extended monologue, there certainly were quips of humor and self-observation.

[dthumb]

Originally Posted by Michael K

I think the thing that makes Leo able to pull off not singing much is his personality and banter, and not many people have that. I think if you are primarily an instrumentalist, the suggestion about sharing billing with someone else is a great idea. Then the audience gets the best of both worlds, the mixture of the vocals and some great instrumental music. Very few audiences will be held tight with just solo instrumental music. Also, Leo used to sing a lot more than he does now. He's paid his dues and earned the right not to have to sing.

Believe me, I couldn't agree with you more..If anyone can hold an audience with out vocals , it is Leo Kottke. I was just pointing out that he has never let his vocals get in the way of his performance and picked on Eight Miles High as a perfect example of really BAD singing(personal opinion)..thats all.

[bagelsgirl]

[QUOTE=JW1111

“my desire to avoid covers.”
Avoiding covers is your first step to being original.

The best gauge is getting asked to come back. If you get rehired then you know you were liked. That is the best indicator.


You know what, I hate to say this but it is the truth: Getting asked back usually means that the club owner thinks [I]you[/I] were the reason that the cash register rang. (Or else he thinks you sound good enough that it will ring the next time...)

Rarely are club owners interested in supporting your "artistic" endeavers.

Also, it is a fact that covers tend to appeal to average (non-musician) listeners.

I understand the desire to be original, especially if you feel that you are a really good writer. What could be better than to be a good songwriter! But I do find it interesting that for some reason, it is the more accomplished players and/or polished performers that always seem to care more about "originality", and it seems to be the ones who only hack out a few chords who do all the popular covers.

That's why you see so many cover artist getting work, good and bad ones.... and why you know of so many astounding players who don't get as much.

My point being: if you can find some kind of middle ground, if you try to play your instrument really well but at the same time also try to lean as far towards popular taste as you can (without compromising your artistic sensibilities) - the more employable you tend to be.

[bagelsgirl]

And as for Leo... don't forget that while he may not be mainstream, he IS internationally famous. I went to see Leo Kotke, and he was awesome! But I only knew who he was because he had put out albums and has a reputation and is a famous (known) guitarist. That's why he gets hired, because everybody already knows that he has something special, that his playing sets him apart. Unfortunately for Leo, if we were both unknowns trying to get club work in Anytown U.S.A., I'd probably get more gigs because I sing, and I do a lot of popular covers. Nevermind that I could not in a million years play like Leo Kotke.

Actually, that's not fair. Leo might get a lot of gigs. Because fortunately there are some listeners who can tell when people have exceptional ability. And showmanship does figure in. But you guys know what I mean. You have seen it before, some awesome player, and the crowd just isn't getting it. They aren't cheering for him like they do for the guy in the next club down, the one who is playing mostly G C and D, and singing Brown-Eyed Girl and Margueritaville.

And hey, maybe the guy singing Margueritaville is great at it! Maybe he is really talented! And that's cool!

I'm just saying, music is a business, and unless you are comfortable with that, you can be made miserable by it. You have to do what makes you happy. Some people want to be more "artistic", other people want to work more often, and you have to find that line for yourself.

Leo Kotke probably gets paid pretty well for some of the gigs he plays. But he isn't an unknown. Yes, he has paid his dues, but he has also been "discovered". And the reason he gets gigs is because you and I know his name and will therefore we will buy the tickets (and you can read " we will buy the tickets" as " Leo will ring the register" ... if you like.)

[dthumb]

OK, OK..lets get off the Kottke thing...it was an analogy, thats all. Otherwise, I agree with you, Bagelgirl, once you make the decision to perform, as opposed to being sequestered to a studio, you have to deal with the "politics" of the "BIZ". And its very difficult to get a venue to play an unknown, all instrumental, all original act...and at that pouint, that is what it is..an act, like it or not.Its all about the show.
A finely blende mix of well rehearsed and "originalized"(my word) covers with pure originals be they instrumental or vocal sure helps to keep the tempo and the drinks acomin'.Audience participation via conversation, eyecontact, joking between songs or telling quick stories can help alot..thats all showmanship and at that point...that is what its all about..the music, unfortunately, comes second.

[Guyute]

One reason people generally start off playing covers and slowly integrate their originals into them.

There's probably a better audience out here in the Bay Area for solo instrumental players than most other cities, but that doesn't mean they're easy to find.