Monday, June 9, 2008

Solo Artist vs. Band

I've been a solo artist for a long time.  A long, long time.  Sure, I've been in a few bands.  The little unnamed sixth grade rock combo that got laughed off the stage at it's first and only gig.  Mesa, my CSN-style folky acoustic trio.  Innocence (I didn't come up with that name), a band I pulled together in college that I quit before we ever had a gig.  Jim Pellinger and the Folkups, which played a few club gigs around Minneapolis/St. Paul before it disintegrated.  And one unnamed band that played it's first, last, and only gig at the Metrodome in Minneapolis.  But mostly through all that time, I've been a solo act.  Why is that?

Well, in some ways it's just easier.  This point was driven home today when I got a call from my sax player, explaining that he couldn't make the gig tomorrow because he had a recording session booked.  No worries.  I can do the gig by myself.  I've done it thousands of times.  It's no big deal.  But now imagine that you've got three or four or more other people to depend on, and their schedules and lives, etc. to take into account.  And it's not only the shows, it's the rehearsals too.  It can be very difficult to arrange a simple practice.  (I really don't like practicing all that much.  I can never seem to remember the lyrics to my own songs after I've sung them once.  The second time through I get lost.)  And I'm not even going to get started on everything else that can complicate a band relationship.  I don't have the time to get into all that!  

But I am comfortable with the little combo that I've developed.  Just me, and Dennis on sax, and now Bruce on bass.  I like the flexibility of it.  I book a show.  I ask the guys if they want to play.  If they do, great.  If they don't, it's a solo show.  Somewhere down the line I'd like to add a drummer to the mix.  Will I find one?  Who knows?  It would be great to find a good drummer who fits what I do.  Till then, there's always the looping pedal.

Of course there are advantages to being in a band.  Nobody calls you a folksinger when you're in a band.  That seems to happen when you show up alone with an acoustic guitar, no matter what kind of music you are playing.  Not that there's anything wrong with being a "folksinger".  I just don't think it covers what I do.

And you have a wider choice of venues to play at with a band, venues that draw bigger crowds.  And there's someone to have a drink with during break.  I'm sure there are lots of other advantages I'm not thinking of.

But tomorrow, I'm going out to do a solo show.

2 comments:

Leigh Charest said...

I love this post (and the punchline). Trying to decide whether I should do a band or a solo act right now. Maybe my greatest fear is the "folk singer" label. Thanks for writing this!

Jim Pellinger said...

Hi Leigh!

Wow--I didn't know anyone read this stuff! Thanks!

If you can do a solo act AND a band--do that. That way you're covered. Because the band WILL fall apart. But you don't have to if/when it does.

For instance, the band I was performing with when I wrote this entry did fall apart. Then I went back to solo gigs. Then another band formed, with some guys I played with in the band before the above mentioned band. Things were going along great, then the bass player's wife had a baby. I suppose we could've looked for another bass player, but we didn't. So, can you guess what I'm doing now?

Ah yes, the dreaded "folksinger" tag! No matter what kind of music you are playing, if you're doing it with an acoustic guitar alone, people will call you a folksinger. Yet, Mumford & Sons and The Lumineers will play folk music (very energetic folk music, but still folk music) and be labeled rock bands. Go figure.

Thanks for reading, and good luck. Don't worry how people categorize you. You can't control that.

Cheers,

Jim