I've decided to use an arranger as the instrument of "last choice" from here on out.

Now, before anyone gets bent out of shape, I'm not advocating that this is a choice for anyone else...particularly not here, on an arranger forum. It's just that I'm happiest when I'm making other players sound good and we're all sharing that unspoken communications that happens when players of equal skills and attitudes work together in a free-flowing collaboration.

Of course, budgets and venues will not always make taking a trio on the job possible, but that's what I'll be shooting for. I'll also do quiet classical guitar and piano single jobs when I can. I'll use the SD-5, Electro or GW-7 and SH-201 combination when I need to, either as a single or with others (sax/flute or flugelhorn and guitar). The optimum in terms of satisfaction will be using the B-3 and Rhodes, plus a synth with a live drummer, followed by C-1 with the SH-201 synth on top and the GW-7 or Electro on the right hand. On nights when I have two back-to back jobs, I'll use an old XB-2 and a digital piano of some kind for group jobs and my trusty old MS-60 on others.

This is the right choice for me, and in no way a slam on arrangers or arranger players.
that way, I'll be able to offer increased versatility and limit the boredom factor.

I just hope that everyone has a much fun working in this business as I do.


Russ

Russ,

Good luck in your latest endeavors. I'll stick with the arranger. More versitility, more fun!

Gary

------------------
Travlin' Easy

Russ, this is a tricky topic to discuss, and like most things in music, mostly subjective. So many things can influence your approach to performing. A few, off the top of my head, are:
1. how strong is the economic motivation? how much do I need to maximize the income opportunity?

2. How important (to you) is the pleasure derived from musical collaboration? Obviously, some here prefer the total control of performing solo. Control of material, control of arrangement, control of tempo, etc.

3. Ego. Some people actually prefer to be the center of attention, and not share the spotlight. This is NOT necessarily a BAD thing for those in the entertainment field. I've found that these types lean more to the 'entertainer' side than the 'musician' side.

4. The availability of good local musicians. Some, simply don't live in areas where good, compatible, musicians are in abundant supply.

5. This is subjective, of course, but I don't agree with Gary's view that using an arranger is more 'versatile'. In fact, that is the precise reason that I don't use one. I love the freedom that non-programmed anything, gives you while performing. Although it's more demanding, I love being able to just launch into a tune and, if everything feels right, just 'going for it' and taking the tune to new places each time you perform it. I admit that this is probably more of a jazz thing, but not altogether.

There are, of course, many other considerations, and as usual, you should pick the one that works best for your circumstance. I don't play as often as most of the others here (usually once a week and only in jazz clubs) and at this stage of my life, lucky enough to be able to pick and choose both the gigs and the people I work with. Luckily, I also live in an area rich with quality musicians. I've never tested it, but I doubt if any of them would be willing to work in an arranger setting (using styles, mp3's or midi files). What I can say is, I haven't had as much fun in years as since I got my Nord C1 and going back to gigging as a jazz organ trio w/vocalist. I've toyed with adding some other 'voices' but in the end, decided to stay true to the format and being satisfied with the occasional 'guest' horn player. YMMV.

chas

Thanks, guys. Chas, collaboration is ultra important. Financial issues are not enough of a factor to matter. I'm lucky that
I turn down more jobs than I take, and revenue from sound scores far exceeds what anyone just playing live makes around here. I totally understand the observation about starting out and just seeing where you end up. That's sort of the ultimate, for me at least. That silent communication between like minded players is the best natural high I know of.

I understand Gary's opinion about arranger versatility for a OMB, but I tend to agree that any arranger is restrictive when you are used to a loose jazz collaboration environment.

Good friends of mine run music departments at Morehead State, Eastern Kentucky and UK, so I have an endless supply of talented youngsters and the old faculty guys who are good enough to keep me struggling to keep up.

There's no right choice or reason to disagree here, because I'm not saying this is the right approach for anyone else. I've had no problem replacing most of my arranger gigs with trio jobs or singles on acoustic guitar or piano. I'll continue to use an arranger when that's the best way to do a particular job.

This is my approach for now, and I'm having a ball!


Russ

After year of doing music as an income generator, I'm doing it for FUN now.

And that's the way it should be.

Russ

[This message has been edited by captain Russ (edited 03-28-2008).]

Chas, most of what you say is true, but I believe Gary is on the money...arranger keyboards are more versatile...
They combine a lot of different ways to perform with a single keyboard..

I use the Roland G70 as a realtime..bass piano/organ and drums combo ..more so than full arranger modes..The only automatic play being drums as any other drum machine..I have the options of adding "color" sounds to my main sound , such as piano...

The versatility continues with mic inputs, harmoniser, and effects..

The versatility also continues with SMF playback..

The versatility also includes all mixing capabilities..

So where do you find Gary to be wrong with his statement?

Gary great post!!

Russ, you no longer charge for your services...Wow that's great...

Fran, I never said Gary was 'wrong'. I said in the beginning it was all subjective. Gary has a point of view and so do I. One is as valid as the other for the person expressing it. There are very few absolutes in music.

BTW, I hadn't heard much from you lately. I was (sincerely) starting to be concerned that maybe something was wrong. Glad that all seems to be ok with you. It was nice of Donny to give such huge accolades to Gary's post. I've read it three times trying to get a sense of why a brief and simply stated opinion would be considered a "Great Post". Oh wait, I did take a slightly different point of view. Nah, the newer, nicer, rehab-ed, Donny would never stick in a 'subtle' zinger.

In any case, I don't think Russ ever intended this to be a debate. Just an expression of opinions that don't need to be defended.

chas

Fran, I'm the highest paid guy in the area. Two jobs tonight with a net to me of over $800.00. It's just that I don't need to count on playing income for a living anymore. That means I don't need to and won't play anything I don't like or want to. The early job tonite is an arranger job that I'm not crazy about. I'll turn it down next time. If I didnt play out at all, I'd still have sound scores which pay several times more than any live player/entertainer in the area, although there are some real compromises there, too.

Fan, Gary and Donny are entertainers. I'm not. Entertainers get the most satisfaction from audience response. Mine is internal, but obviously has to involve satisfying a select group of music buffs. That's why type of music (jazz) and collaboration with like-minded musicians is key. If I have to trade a $500.00 single arranger job for a $600 trio job and pay players $300 ($150 each), I can choose to do that (and will) without causing a problem for my family or myself.Increasingly, that $300 goes to my son and grandson.

Again, guys, no intent here at all to say that other approaches to the business are not right for others. Arrangers are great tools. Just not my primary one(s) at this time.


Be well,


Russ