From: someone@anywheret.net   
      
   "JimD"  wrote in message news:2017062208065030942-email@nowherecom...   
      
   > There was a 15 year old girl acting as a volunteer at our seniors gig   
   > yesterday. Looked to my old eyes the same as any or the staff women we see   
   > regularly.  And then, the new person in charge at the place we worked the   
   > day before, this past tuesday ?  She's 23.   
      
   Is that 23 year old a sufficiently mature person, or a mindless Zombie?   
   That's the real question.   
      
   > I need to work on my reactions and manners around people this young.   
      
   Why? What's 'wrong' with being yourself?   
   I never have any problems with being around those in their early 20s,   
   because inside, where it counts, that's about as 'old' as I get, and often   
   prefer younger, even into the single digits ;)   
   I'm a youthful person and a kid for life, and those I'm around pick up on   
   that vibe very quickly.   
      
   > They are a whole different culture, apparently.   
      
   Just so long as it's not Zombie 'culture', then I'll have no part of it - at   
   ANY age!!!   
      
   > We sang a Jeniffer Nettles tune and dedicated it ot the 15 year old,   
   > Unlove Me.  Judging from the giggling and such, those girls knew it :-)   
      
   If you can really get into that song, fine, but if it's only to go through   
   the motions, they'll pick up on that.   
      
   > That was quite a jump from the old classic country we did the rest of the   
   > show. Songs, they are just songs. Old songs, new songs, all just chords   
   > and rhythm and words .... old songs are no easier or harder to play than   
   > new ones. It's comes down to what you know, and that depends on whether   
   > you want to bother learning this ot that.   
      
   Depends on WHY you want to bother  learning it. I know what I'm into and I   
   won't waste my time, trying to fool an audience into thinking I'm into   
   something I'm not at all even interested in, much less actually like.   
      
   > In a related, sorta, way, a buddy of mine is playing bass for a classic   
   > rock band gig coming up. This is typical gig for that sort of band, as in,   
   > there isn't really a band. The keyboard guy stumbled onto the gig, don't   
   > really know the details of how, and is putting " the old band " back   
   > together to play it. By that I mean, he's calling anyone he can find who's   
   > available. So they sent my bud a possible setlist. It's around 60 tunes.   
   > He was telling me about that yesterday. The idea of learning that many   
   > songs, for one gig seems to bother him. Said he knew some, maybe it was 5   
   > or so. Or maybe that was the number of songs he knew for the OTHER fill in   
   > gig he just did. Hard to remember all the details. I just listen on the   
   > phone as he vents :-)   
      
   No wonder rock & roll is dying!   
   I've been entertaining the notion of forgetting about covers altogether and   
   focusing on playing only Originals!   
      
   > He was saying, same as I often do, that it might be better to narrow that   
   > list down to some number closer to how many songs you might actually play   
   > in the available time.  His reasonable number was 34 songs.  That's about   
   > what we play in a three hour band gig.  Why not pick about 40 and   
   > concentrate on everyone in the band knowing at least what key those are it   
   > ?  :-)   
      
   I've got a gig coming up on July 8 that most likely will be something like   
   that - I can't wait! - FOR IT TO BE OVER WITH! - BORING!!   
      
   > This stuff is so basic. It's amazing to me just how it even comes up for   
   > debate.  Look at the job length, figure out how many tunes that will take,   
   > and make a list. Ah, but the catch is, what will we want to play ?  What   
   > will they like ?   
      
   Yep, particularly when everything is  Stale Worn-Out Boring CopyCat Crap!   
      
   > I see an answer to that.  Play what you're good at. Make the list of your   
   > best material. And, and here's the kick .... don't ACCEPT jobs that aren't   
   > what you generally do.   That way, you don't end up in the situation of   
   > not knowing how to prepair for the gig.   
      
   I'd venture to say all that could be contained in a more appropriate   
   behavior, and that's DON'T BE LAZY!!!   
      
   > Don't accept jobs that are for music you don't know very well.   
      
   Until you've Worked on it, with LOTS of Practice and Rehearsal!   
      
   > I'm not a classic rock guy. I know enough not to take jobs in that genre.   
   > No matter how much it pays. No matter how much someone things I'll be just   
   > fine doing it.  I know better.   
      
   I guess I'd have an advantage in such a situation, because I can do country,   
   even though I'm a total hippie rock & roller.   
      
   > Did one pool gig years ago like that when I was first on my own as a solo   
   > act.  I roughly learned a whole new setlist for that gig.  Way too much   
   > work. And it didn't go well in any case. Now I know better. Don't do it.   
   > If the job isn't what I play, I'll politely turn it down now.   
      
   Jim   
      
   The vibe I get from you most on that is that you really didn't all that much   
   like what you were playing, so why bother?   
   On the other hand, I don't have a problem playing country tunes, and why   
   not, I'm actually getting into church tunes ;)   
      
   Ouisie   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)