Comment

Comment by Amy Wolter on June 26, 2012 at 7:50am

Russ, thanks for such a perfect illustration.  I'm glad you were able to experience this and analyze the difference in the two performers effect on you, the audience. Telling a great story is a skill that most artists need to develop as well. Another note here though...I don't like when artists talk between every song - it's too much. Some songs should stand on their own, and the way they're presented (leaving pauses, space, using dynamics) can be  powerful moments. The way John Scott sang his songs - the raw emotion there, the rise and fall, and taking time to 'milk' the song as opposed to rushing though it, was what made his stuff magical.  Appreciate the dialogue Russ!

Comment by Russ Kirin on June 23, 2012 at 7:40am

Amy,

OK, I thought about your responses to my comments on your post. I decided to do some "research" and found the perfect "subjects." Thursday night, my wife and I went to the opening of the Bluegrass Nights at the Ryman series. The headliner was Vince Gill and friends supported by Sarah Jarosz, a young singer, songwriter and multi-instrumentalist, and her friends. I believe they provided two prime examples of what you're talking about in your posts.

First of all, the concert was a peak experience for both of us. We've had very little exposure to true Bluegrass music and we were absolutely stunned by the excellence of the performances and musicianship all around. It was also the first time we'd seen Vince Gill live and he delivered far more than anyone in the audience could have expected. Even after more than two hours, Gill and the boys literally didn't want to leave the stage. The only reason they did was because some idiot turned up the house lights and the emcee said we had to leave. But, we and many others in the audience would have stayed as long as they played.

Secondly, both performers built in various opportunities to make personal connections with the audience and deliver those "moments" you wrote about. Both acts were totally acoustic, and Jarosz and Gill used the interval between songs to "chat" while ostensibly tuning their instruments. It's hard to believe professional musicians needed so much time to tune up. So, after the second interval everyone kinda knew this was a time-stretching, storytelling device. No matter, we were all willing to accept this.

On one hand, Jarosz, who has formidable chops, a good, but unremarkable voice, and about as much stage presence as a mic stand, absolutely wasted every opportunity to connect. She issued a steady steam of pat platitudes - the honor of opening for "Vince," the honor of playing at the Ryman, how "cool" everything was, please buy my records, etc. There were no stories about her journey to this magical point in her young career. She gave no insights into her (original?) songs, nothing to truly interest us and make us care about her or her music. There were no "moments." Yes, her "content" was strong, but it was IMO substantially weakened by her useless "business" between songs, She would have done herself far more good by simply shutting up and playing her mandolin.

On the other hand, Gill's storytelling was exceptional and utterly mesmerizing. He shared deeply personal and genuinely entertaining stories about the road, his career, family and legendary musical colleagues. These alone were almost worth the price of admission. And each one connected powerfully with each and every person in the auditorium.

For the most part, he related each story to the song that followed. This made each song all the more meaningful to us because they were personally meaningful to him. The stories became an integral part of the performance, nearly as important as the musical content. And trust me, the music needed NO embellishment whatsoever to conceal or distract from any weaknesses. The stories and the music complemented each other perfectly. The result was a continuous stream of magical moments - music, story, music, story, etc. - throughout his set. He had all of us in the palm of his hand. I've never seen or heard anything like it.

Of course, Gill has the advantage of drawing stories from 55 years of life and a 35-year Hall-of-Fame career. Either he's a born storyteller or he has developed and honed this talent to absolutely perfection over the years. His lyrics certainly support this supposition. However, I'd be willing to concede that, at some point, he may have enlisted a professional performance coach to point him in the right direction. But his stories are so real and his delivery so natural that I'd have a tough time believing that such ability could be coached.

Jarosz is younger and has far less life experience than Gill. Also, she's probably not as comfortable in front of an audience as he. Some people can't tell a story (or a joke) to save their lives. Maybe Jarosz is one of these people. But someone should recognize this (her management or even Gill, who seems to be a staunch supporter) and, yes, take steps to teach her how to connect, relate to and transform an audience. This gig is a golden career opportunity and she needs to make the most of every "moment." 

If Jarosz would have had the benefit of a professional performance coach, it probably would have helped he immensely that night, but ONLY if that person could help find her own meaningful stories to tell in her own, authentic storytelling voice. The reason Gill's storytelling voice is so powerful is because he speaks honestly and truthfully from within and from experience. Any attempt to put someone else's words in Jarosz's mouth would only result in more transparent attempts to ingratiate, more superficial banter and more lost opportunities to make audiences "feel something."

So, to make a long story short, I'm beginning to see what you mean and understand the value of what you do.

Comment by Amy Wolter on June 22, 2012 at 11:14am

Got it - thanks Robert!

Comment by Robert Xeno on June 21, 2012 at 5:57pm

Agreed Amy...

and the link is in the last paragraph.....

We can teach you this stuff.  Check out our Tom Jackson Productions Bootcamps here: http://tinyurl.com/7l4eglj…there’s a one day event coming up in Nashville this July that’s very affordable. Nobody leaves these, sorry that they came.see it? it has the ....there in the link ansd it does not come up.

Comment by Amy Wolter on June 21, 2012 at 5:28pm

Thanks Robert! Not sure what link you are referring to - I tried the ones at the end of my blog and they worked ok-? The most important part of what we do when working with an artist, is to create moments. This starts with the song arrangement and pulling out the cool stuff in there that a typical audience member may miss if we don't show them.  Is it a fun moment, touching moment, maybe an audience participation thing? We develop that first. Then visually, making each song look a little bit different, using tools (mic stand, stool, which instrument etc), movement, and more.  The big key is understanding what the audience wants, and working your set to that end! 

Comment by Robert Xeno on June 21, 2012 at 3:03pm

Hi Amy, Your link isn’t working.... looks like the ...there's is /has become part of it and so doesn’t take one to the page expected..

Hey we saw John Scott Sherrill at the Commodore Grille, yup ultimately entertaining.

For me, music and emotion is so important, but without something visually engaging, it just doesn’t come across.

Not to denigrate good songs or talented singer songwriters or musicians/bands.

All are selling something, talent, songs, yourself. The more full the package the sooner the sale.

Comment by Amy Wolter on June 13, 2012 at 1:22pm

I didn't fully explain the percentage thing, because most artists on our 'Backstage Pass' site that I wrote this for know this already.  'Communication from the stage' is 15% content, 30% - the tone or emotion it's delivered with, and 55% what the audience sees. Now I can't speak for the group you were in or the type of audience that attended your shows, but am talking about Joe-schmo audience member that doesn't understand musical things. They just know if the FEEL something - if they connect with you. For the most part, audiences don't really go to shows hear you play perfectly. (Not that artists shouldn't try!) They go for those moments. And no matter how good the music in most cases, if they just see the same thing song after song, they can start to tune out.

By the way, 'Hello Nashville' is one of the bad habits we tell artists NOT to do! So many cliches out there that people say and do that it's very hard to go to concerts anymore - even with top level artists!  I'm constantly critiquing! :-/

Everything we teach is focused on becoming a natural part of an artists show.  It needs to be rehearsed until it feels natural however.  Some artists just want to 'wing it' but that rarely works.  Spontenaity can be a part of the show, but must begin with form.  And just to brag on my boss Tom Jackson and everything that he's developed over the years, we've never seen this stuff NOT work.

 

Comment by Russ Kirin on June 13, 2012 at 12:55pm

Amy, 

With respect, when you say that out of 100% of a performance 55% is "what the audience sees," that denotes that the visual is more important than any other component, including the content. That is my main point of contention. And for the record, a performance is a performance no matter whether it's a writer's round at Bluebird or sold-out stadium concert. 

When I was in college I performed with an internationally known Eastern European folk music and dance ensemble. In each two-hour show, (think of an Eastern European version of Riverdance) there was ZERO direct audience interaction, no sets and minimal staging (other than the choreographies), lighting and sound reinforcement. All of the sung and spoken content was in various native languages. There was no "OpTrans." We as performers had to connect with, engage and transform our audiences solely on the merits of the material we presented and the quality of our ensemble and individual performances. Each performance was 100% content driven.

The content changed completely from season to season (even Riverdance has remained virtually unchanged since 1995). Therefore, each time an audience saw a performance they were almost totally unfamiliar with the content. But based on our previous performances, they knew the quality of performance and the entertainment value we would deliver. And regardless of whether we played in Upper Cupcake, Iowa or at The Kennedy Center, we delivered a transformative audience experience. They smiled, laughed, cried, clapped, cheered, stood, remembered and came back the next year. BTW, this ensemble recently celebrated its 75th season.

My point is that the most important audience connection can and must be made through the content. That is what establishes, builds and sustains the audience/artist relationship, sells tickets and creates success. The highest quality and most enduring connections come naturally from the audience's resonance with the artist's content and the "moments" created by performing that content. They will not come from any pre-programmed, rehearsed movements and banter in between songs.

Sure, "Hello Nashville!" gets a predictable reaction every time. But in the overall context of the experience, it's meaningless. Also, such manufactured moments can be perceived as impersonal and insincere, especially if the same fan sees them many times over. They become "part of the act" instead of real, meaningful attempts to bond with the audience that arise organically from the content. Audiences can smell "shtick" a mile away and they react accordingly. 

Of course, not all acts can be 100% content driven. That's where my 20% factor for audience interaction and engagement comes in. If the content alone can't seal the deal with the audience, the artist must create "alternative" opportunities to engage the audience. No argument there. U2's Moment of Surrender cell phone galaxy is a classic example of an engagement tactic that perfectly complements the content at just the right time to produce a transformative moment. It works every time. But if the artist has to work harder to win the audience using non-content engagement, they should revise or improve the content, engage the right audience or find another line of work. 

I certainly don't mean to denigrate the services you provide. They can make a world of difference under the right circumstances. But they should only be used as spice for the stew, not the meat and potatoes. That's what your 55/45 premise seems to recommend. If an artist can't deliver 80% of the experience via the content, no amount of spice will be enough to satisfy audience expectations. As with all spices, choosing the right ones is critical, and less is more. 

Russ

Comment by Amy Wolter on June 12, 2012 at 10:12pm

Please don’t misunderstand me Russ – I didn’t say the visual is MORE important than the songs, it just does a lot to enhance your set.  And I’m not talking about a writers round – that’s a different animal.  I’m talking about when you go out and perform your own set in front of an audience.

 

You can have great songs, but if you don’t know how to connect with your audience, you’ve lost. 

 

I’m not talking about theatrics, lighting and props either. There’s much that can be done to change things up visually for the audience.  Great artists understand that audiences go to shows for 3 reasons; to be captured an engaged, to experience moments, and, in some cases, to be changed. Once you understand the audience expectation and put your concerts together with that in mind, everyone wins!

 

Keep in mind that the artists you mentioned are all ‘married’ to their audience. People have/had heard their songs on the radio before even seeing a show.  They can get by with just standing there and singing their songs for the most part.

 

But given the fact that most artists now – signed or unsigned – are going to make most of their income (95-100%) from their live performances, then artists HAVE to learn how to engage an audience and win them over at their shows. Cuz they may never GET mainstream airplay!

 

I can’t get into all that we do in a comment, but check out our website. (There are some links befow for some of our ‘free pass’ blogs.)  There’s some real meat in the subscription site – before/after videos that really show how we work with an artist.

 

There’s No Quick Way: http://tinyurl.com/d7rqwyg

Connecting to a Wireless Audience: http://tinyurl.com/6t5s3d6

 

Thanks again for commenting!

 

Comment by Russ Kirin on June 12, 2012 at 8:21pm

Amy, 

At the risk of exposing my utter lack of experience and naivete, I'm gonna have to go out on a limb here and wholeheartedly disagree with your entire 55/45 premise. I believe in the old adage, "If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage." Any time the percentage of "what an audience sees" in a performance is more important, impressive and meaningful than the musical and lyrical content, there's something wrong. IMO, your 55/45 rule advocates and encourages "flash over substance" - a deception to distract attention from inherently weak content, performance and talent. When an artist has to rely on sets, lights, staging and "business" to carry the majority of a performance, it's time for him or her to go back to the drawing board. 

Sure, these "tools" add depth and dimension to the performance. They also help connect the artist to audience. That's why they've been used since theater began. But such affectations should support the art, the music and the message. Not the other way around. When they do, the performance is generally not worth the audience's attention. The "effects" become the show and the artist concedes that his or her work cannot stand alone on its own merits. In other words, "It ain't on the page." 

Think of legendary performances from solo artists ranging from Judy Garland to Bob Dylan to James Taylor to Yo-Yo Ma (and many others). None of them needed anything but a voice, an instrument, (maybe) a mic and a venue to communicate the genius of their music and artistry. The didn't need 55% of their performances to be glib banter and slick staging. And yet, their audiences "leaned in" in anticipation of their next note, their next syllable.

Now, think of a KISS concert. 

While I recognize the need to optimize the overall live performance experience, I'd rather rely on the 80/20 rule with 80% of the performance being content driven. It's why the audience is there in the first place. That's what is (or should be) the most important, impressive and meaningful component of the experience. The remaining 20% is (or should be) the sizzle on the steak. And that's important, too. It makes the performance that much more satisfying. 

My two cents. 

Russ