Look it seems that others are as determined to miss MY points as they think I miss theirs...

Next logical step is the sax player playing to tracks, and singing (got a few that do that, here), then the next step is a singer using tracks including a sax track, and then the NEXT step is a DJ.... I kind of assumed you might see the progression.

Of course, it's OK for YOU to get indignant that your contribution to their evening's enjoyment might have got downplayed a bit, but try looking at it from your drummer's, or your guitarist's or your bass player's perspective... Their contribution got nixed in its' entirety. But, of course, what YOU play is the ONLY important part, isn't it..? Those other parts can get replaced, no problem, eh? No musical value in it, at all.

You see, it's all fun and games until someone suggests that YOU are as replaceable as your other musicians. Then all hell breaks loose! But, instead of looking for every specious argument to justify your own contribution (no attempt to acknowledge that I DID say that a DJ to do the gig would have to be as good as you at selecting material for your crowd), and a hare brained attempt to put ME down by suggesting that I couldn't do the gig, which I'll admit, unless you had charts, I couldn't, as I don't play that kind of music (but I did, at many ballrooms in England in my youth in ten piece bands... OTOH, you'd fall as flat on your face as me were you to try to do a gig doing the music I do - I doubt you've even HEARD or Sly and Robbie, or Black Uhuru ), perhaps a serious attempt to talk about the issues could have occurred...

But, I guess, to suggest that a keyboard player is as replaceable as a drummer is some kind of blasphemy, here at the bastion of replacing everyone else! Trouble is, we are... Heck, half of us are only too happy to DJ a gig, mp3 players being the hot, must have items in our arrangers these days. And there was I, thinking arrangers are actually a musical instrument! Silly me...

My basic premise wasn't intended to YOU personally, Bill. I am sure you put on a hell of a show, everyone leaves happy, yada yada yada... But, on a thread that started out as a reflection by some that arranger playing no longer gets their juices flowing, and a discussion about whether playing live can get some of that back, to basically crow about how well your gig went WITHOUT your regular players kind of begs the extrapolation, IMO.

You say that no DJ has succeeded with your crowd so far... all well and good, Apparently, no other live band has, either. But do your show with an arranger and a sax player, all is well. Strikes me that material, familiarity with exactly what the crowd wants is what is scoring, here. Which, I'm afraid, definitely brings up the possibility that, should a DJ appear that DOES do the job, or a singer with tracks (let's face it, are you saying that, if push comes to shove and you can't play any more, you WOULDN'T do the gig just with tracks if they asked you?) came in and knew your crowd, what is there but simply a change of DEGREE in going down from a full band to a duo, then a solo, then a DJ?

I'm NOT singling you out here, Bill. This is an issue that has long worried me, watching full bands gradually get squeezed out, now watching even duos get squeezed out, even soloists getting replaced by DJ's and cheap karaoke acts. Once a venue realizes it CAN make money by cutting the entertainment budget, few choose not to...

Imagine what you would have to say to your regular guys, that have stuck by you for years (as much as you think you are carrying THEM!), if the venue turns round and says they would prefer to just have the duo from now on, due to cost. Now imagine it being said to YOU, were a DJ to succeed with your crowd...

You see the slippery slope, here?