Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Jazz Study Group 2: Advanced Players

How did u weight the keys?

It may be, if the keys feel enough different, and they're lighter, that you don't feel the same sense of control of them that you had before. Maybe you're getting a different sound than you got from the old one when you did much the same thing and that causes some tension from the surprise In which case, the more you play it and its response becomes congruent with your expectation of the response the tension will lessen the strain.

But who knows - I guess it will be another adventure to discover what's changed. But lighter keys sometimes give me some unexpected fortes

Cathy

You mean the touch weight setting? It's set to heaviest.

Cathy, it is a bit strange as I don't notice anything different until I've played for awhile. Now I can play faster lines on the Nord so that seems compatible with the notion of lighter keys.

It just snuck up on me. Some new bad habits maybe. Not good.

I recall on my last gig, I wasn't able to play anything fast later in the gig. The last tune we did was at 240bpm and I was starting to lock up. When I got home, my right arm and shoulder felt strained.

>>You mean the touch weight setting? It's set to heaviest.
No, I mean the actual weight of the keys. I remember comparing the upright to a cheap yamaha gh3, and the weight was EXACtLY the same. I used pennies and dimes.

What about seat height?
Whenever I forget my stool, I really end up regretting it. If the height it not perfect for me, I get pain very quickly. I know some people play sometimes super high or super low, I don't know how they do it.

No I don't know the actual weight. But nothing has changed otherwise since I had the FP7F. I'm using the same stool. Stand is the same height.

It has to do with the tactile response of the Nord which is a bit different than the FP7F. Although it's light, there's some additional resistance going down that softens the landing. So my perception of it isn't that it's light. I often play really deep in the keys especially since the Roland has a deeper key dip. It may not be necessary on the Nord and I may be overstressing myself.

When I'm conscious of what I do, I don't really notice anything different. This is why the reason evades me at the moment. But I've never had strained shoulders and arm at a gig before.

Here's the rebuttal from LA Club Owners post that we were discussing...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79063697/Answer-to-La-Club-Owners

The rebuttal discusses why they pay you what they can afford and which is sometimes "free". This is why I don't do restaurants/bars.

But in the same breath, the guy says that the real gigs are in Casuals (like I said), but are hard to get (True -- this is where the networking has to come in).

The advantage to playing at a restaurant/bar venue is that you can play what you want, though you bring your own crowd. That's true too. At a casual, you will have to play what the person who hired you wants to hear.

Fortunately, my gigs are in between because I still choose what I play, though I make concessions like having a singer and horns.

Interesting debate. The answer is: Have a Day Job and go with the flow

I think his argument is bogus. Meals are useless and make you fat.
Imho, if a bar pays $75 for a trio, then they ain't getting good musicians. End of story.

If you want a following, hire McBride.

LOL - it doesn't change a thing though. They'll still tell you to play for nothing.

Clearly there are two classes of musicians. Those that actually are trying to make a living out of performing and those that don't need the money but just want to say they 'gig'.

Hard to bridge that gap. There will always be new musicians who want to be seen and heard so I'm not sure anything can change. The problem of oversupply vs. demand.

I read in a biography of Lenny Tristano that he tells his students not to play professionally. He felt that once you have to make a living from music you start to compromise. He's quite right but interesting since this was a comment probably in the '70's.

I think finding a place to gig is not a problem. But expecting to get paid much is.

I don't like this guy's argument either. He mentions that if a beer or entree doesn't sell, he takes it off the menu... so if a band doesn't draw a crowd they aren't asked back. Ok, but if you only have a beer or entree on the menu for one evening and it doesn't sell well, you don't pull it. You give it a chance for a few weeks or months. And you don't expect the beer manufacturer to advertise that their beer is at your restaurant right? I think if a club owner wants live music, he should give it a chance for awhile to see if it generates interest. I'm not saying a band shouldn't promote their performances there, but you can't expect a crowd of people to show up the first night a band plays. Unless it's McBride.

But to give the restaurant owner some credit here, he's not pulling you out of his restaurant. He's just saying he may pay you NOTHING. And if you do eventually create a following, then you can renegotiate what you deserve.

Sounds to me like he's saying he takes a lot of new bands this way. In a way that's good too because it allows one a shot because there's little investment on the venue owner's part. If the requirement is that the minimum charge follows the union rate, then only established bands will be able to play.

From what I've seen around here, a venue will rotate their bands over some period (monthly or bimonthly), including unknowns. So there's time to build up an audience. Like anything else it takes time to build.

One thing I add from my perspective though is that people don't see live bands like they used to so the market has gotten smaller. My approach has been that if you can't come to me, maybe I'll come to you (private venues).

Yes, but would a restaurant owner expect a beer company to supply the restaurant with free beer for several months to see if it draws a crowd?

But the beer could be really bad...in which case neither party can make it better. Beer company should go out of business.

Otherwise the venue shouldn't take beer samples and instead audition every single beer and only take the ones that are a sure thing.

(Trusting the judgement of the venue owner that he makes a right choice).

Now if following the pattern of hiring around here, then we're talking about bring out the beer sample only once a month or once every two months. It's not a heavy investment on either side and either side could back out.

The actual answer though is of course in between. The club owners need to promote and so do the musicians since people will follow the venue and some people will follow the musician.

True. I thought about this when you mentioned supply and demand. There definitely are a lot of bad bands out there, and restaurant owners really don't know how to know which bands are good. So I guess they have to rely on the band's ability to bring a crowd, because they can't judge a bands potential... not knowing anything about music. But then there was the argument put forth by the musician with the craigslist ad. He pointed out that a bad band may bring a crowd because they have lots of friends who will come to support them. These people might not even really be interested in the restaurant, so they really aren't helping the restaurant much. And then, some of the people who actually like the restaurant may think the band is terrible and stop coming. I think if a good band comes in with no following, the customers of the restaurant who come to the restaurant because they like it will likely enjoy the band and continue coming as well as spread the word about the restaurant. But again, how is the restaurant owner to determine if a band is good?... by the crowd they bring. I guess it's a catch 22.



I agree.

Well that's why I understand the dilemma on both sides. It is a catch 22. Back in the old days, there were so many people going out for entertainment that the market was big enough to make sure the paid bands were paid well.

Because of Netflix and Cable TV and the internet, people now think home entertainment is much more 'cool'. So something has to give culturally before we see change. At some point, everyone will get bored being a couch potato and seeking social interaction in a virtual world. In the meantime, it is obvious that there aren't enough venues (particularly for Jazz) because there's not a big enough audience in the live music realm.

Now as I've said before, I've found that if I go to them (going where they already gather instead of them coming to a venue) I seem to get better results. People socializing hasn't diminished. It's just done in places different from the bar hopping etc. done in the '80's.

So educate me.

What's the distinction between bop, post-bop and other classifications of jazz playing along this timeline?

Interesting. I would think time is the main component. If someone was to refer to 'post bob' jazz, I'd think they're talking about jazz after charlie parker

Well if Bob's your uncle then . . .




Sorry, couldn't resist.

Well, in case you guys are wondering if KJ's still got it. He's still got it.
sitting 1st row with perfect view of his hands was like getting a private lesson. He was like "Watch!, now watch this. Look how I can make all those melodies come out." The guy was so fluid and flawless, the most beautiful thing. People of all ages were there. Lots and lots of 25-35 year old guys. One kid came out pulling his hair saying "Oh no, my mind has been blown!!". That pretty much summed it up for all of us.

man, Knotty, 1st Row...You're really spending the big bucks...

But was he doing jazz? Or some neo-classical improv?

And don't forget to report on Pilc.