I came across this today in on of my random YouTube searches (harp part starts at 1:40, but watch the rest too):
The band's name is "Watsky" (the singer's last name), and the song is "Wounded Healer". Watsky is clearly an "advanced beginner" on Adam's scale, yet he is apparently filling medium-sized venues. Here's a live clip of the same song (Harp starts at about 1:40, also will give you a better sense of his skill level):
So, why/how does this guy get almost nine hundred thousand YouTube hits? That's a HUGE number of hits. Well, okay, it's not really for *just* his harp playing... BUT, there are tons of comments on his videos asking about the harmonica, asking the key, asking for TABS (Tabs? For that? Really?!?! :) ), and the harmonica is prominently and centrally featured in this song. The guy clearly has worked some on his harp playing too. Is he as good as most of the folks on this forum? No. Is he better than 90% of people who buy a cheap harmonica at the checkout stand? Yes.
Harp skill level aside, there HAS to be a reason he is getting that many YouTube hits -- and selling out venues. I mean, I just saw Jason Ricci at a great, authentic blues club with only about 15 people in the audience (I mean, it's Jason freaking Ricci! With only 15 g-d people!!!). So what is it? What is that gets 900 thousand views of a Watsky video, and 100 people to a Watsky show? Well, firstly, this is FAAAR from the Blues. *BUT* it is "angst-y". The kids these days LOOOOVE angst. This indie-pop stuff hits them right in their sweet spot. It's perfect for them. Instead of "Well, my baby left me", it's "Well, my dad wasn't around for me growing up, and school was shitty because of the bullies". That's the life of MOST American teenagers/young adults these days, and THAT'S what they identify with. Now, lets face it, "bluesy" and "angsty" aren't that far apart from each other on the scale of emotions... We, as Blues people, should be able to do "angst" in our sleep.
Now, I can see many of your heads shaking: "That's NOT why I got in to harmonica. I love the BLUES, man!". Cool! So do I. It's cool to love and to play the blues and to only play the blues. If that's your feeling, then that's cool, and you can feel free to ignore the rest of this post.
Okay, you still with me? Cool! Let's keep going... Why am I writing this post? Why has this "grabbed" my attention, and why should you care? Well, basically, I think this clearly hits to the heart of the discussion of how to bring the harmonica more into the mainstream, and of how to get good harmonica players some more mainstream success. The problem is: most people automatically associate the harmonica with the Blues, and nothing but the Blues. Some sophisticated listeners might know of some Jazz harp players, or some World Music harp players, but that's it. If they think about it, they might be able to recall a few songs in the Pop realm with some harp on them (The Smiths, The The, Karma Chameleon, etc.), but 90% of what they recall will still be Blues-based (Roadhouse Blues, Huey Lewis, Roseanne theme song).
The kids these days don't care about that stuff, and don't want to be listening to it. THIS music is what the kids want. Just on the Indie side of Pop. Pop enough to be accessible to them, Indie enough to be hipster-worthy. Now, look at that kid Watsky. Listen to the music. Listen to his lyrics. It's not complex. It's not complicated. It's simple stuff. Listen to the harp. DEAD simple stuff. But the fans are literally EATING it up. This kid is on his way up. Maybe not to superstardom, but definitely to "make a decent income playing music as my only job".
....continued in next post cause I'm out of room..
Last Edited by on Jan 21, 2013 10:47 AM
Now, imagine this: Imagine if he could REALLY play that harp. Imagine that he could blow harp as good as Jason Ricci, Alex Paclin, Brandon Bailey, or LD Miller. Now, imagine that he IS Jason Ricci, Alex Paclin, Brandon Bailey, or LD Miller! Imagine that!
Now, I'm not saying anyone should "subvert" their artistry in order to make it big, I'm just saying that there is a way to make it, and that I think the time is RIPE for a harp player of some talent to step up and fill that void. Of the players I've mentioned, I can really see Alex Paclin filling that void IF he gets his musical formula right. He's making an EP right now, SPECIFICALLY billed as a "Pop" album. If he sticks with the "Isn't she lovely" covers, I have a feeling that it may fly under the radar. If he comes up with something more like this Watsky stuff, then he might just blow up...
Something to think about anyway! Thoughts? Am I crazy, deluded, stupid? Or do you agree? Why? ----------
PS. I don't want to make it seem that I'm saying that the teen-angst Indie-pop stuff is the ONLY way to mainstream harmonica success. There absolutely are other routes. There has to be! I'd love to hear what y'all think might be one.
Personally, I also think that the Hip Hop to Blues connection is also a way that is going get there. Bad News Brown was on his way up that route before he got killed. This dude might be poised to take his place:
Again, the harp is nothing special. It's what it's all wrapped up in that might be what takes it up... ----------
People just like the song I guess. Its accessable music.
same reason people want to cop Dylan or Springsteen's harp " style"-you feel anybody can do it
I play in two bands -one has a really excellent jazz guitarist with no personality--only questions he ever gets is from other musicians who want to learn a technique or want him in the studio. The other band is folk/rock with a talented writer but just average at best guitarist-yet those gigs attract lots of people asking questions about guitars.songs etc. We play music for ourselves-the average listener doesn't have an interest or even knowledge of musicianship
If you want to put your hand on the pulse of what's happening now, check out what the kids are listening to....(20 to 30 year olds).
Learned this from studying Miles Davis, who never looked back and always was interested in the latest musical developments. In the last 3rd of his life, he surrounded himself with younger and younger musicians as he grew older and always had an ear to the ground for what the young people were into.
During the late 60's (second great quintet), you would find tapes of Sly and the Family Stone, Hendrix and James Brown in his hotel room. From this he got into funk and how to stay on one chord for long periods of time. He hired Michael Henderson out from under Stevie Wonder in order to have a non-jazz musician who was comfortable groovin' on one chord in order to progress his music.
He also got into the latest electric sounds, including wah wah pedal for his trumpet.
At the end of his life, he was working on a rap album, as that was "the latest" music on the street.
So, if someone really wants to break through with harmonica, it makes sense to understand and embrace the latest evolution of music that the kids are into rather than sighing that a great artist such as Jason Ricci played to an audience of 15.
After all, John Popper did it 15 years or so ago. When he plays out, it is arena venue style. ---------- The Iceman
@Iceman: That's EXACTLY what I'm sayin', man! I've been a music lover and critic way before I started playing harp or listening to Blues. I spend a lot of time scouring the internet looking for new tracks from new artists. I read blogs, listen to radio shows, subscribe to youtube feeds, engage in discussions with like-minded friends (and I also used to read magazines and go to the music store when those things used to exist). It's a bit of an obsession, really, but I've GOT to keep my finger on the pulse of new music. I just have to!
The point is, however, that I think that for what ever reason, a lot of harp players DON'T feel the need to do that. There is a big "retro" ideal among harp players. You know, that the best music was recorded 60 years ago, and that's that (don't get me wrong, I'm not a retro hater! Quite the opposite in fact). But the consequence of this mindset is that harp is continually relegated to the popular view that it's a "quaint" instrument used in blues and country/folk. It seems that we, as a group, are content to let others define our instrument for us. But why not take control and put it out there ourselves? Why let dudes like Watsky do it? Why not let a SMOKIN hot harp player do it. Popper sort of did it, I'll give you that. But he didn't really remove the Blues connotations from the instrument. Yes, the music he played(s) is basically jam-rock pop stuff, but the name of his band is BLUES Traveller.
Actually, I think the Hip Hop avenue may have a better chance of changing the general view of the instrument as a whole. I think the Indie-Pop route would be easier for an individual performer to break out in, though... ----------
Quote from Isaaculla >'Actually, I think the Hip Hop avenue may have a better chance of changing the general view of the instrument as a whole. I think the Indie-Pop route would be easier for an individual performer to break out in, though...'
Yes but...it could in fact turn many mature folk away from the instrument!
When I came back to playing, ca 6 -7 years ago, I attended a one day harmonica seminar at which there were 90% young females in attendance. The reason they were there was because they liked the harmonica playing of Vicky from The Waifs & wanted to learn. The Waifs appearance & popularity at that time was more mainstream as 'country' was amongst young people decidedly uncool. The guy running the seminar told the largely young female audience that it was country harp that they needed to learn!
Bored the shit out of me just like Jaylo and all the other people I can't identify; thankfully. Youtube hits don't quantify a damn thing as far as I'm concerned. But then what do I know? I know what I like and what I don't and that's about it.
I don't think you have to be a great, or even good musician to create something which captures the public imagination or mood of the time. The Sex Pistols were one of the most influential bands of the 1970s, Sid Vicious couldn't even play his bass guitar when he joined.
Bob Dylan was well know for playing the harmonica, however I don't think his success was due to his ability to the play the harmonica. He captured something in his work that caught the imagination of the people, of the time – I know people who like his work that don't like the sound of his voice.
IMHO the harmonica in a band situation is an accompanying instrument. We as harmonica players are drawn to any harmonica in any song, however most for most people it is incidental (how often you you really listen to a trumpet part, or the bass part – if you're a trumpet or bass player then you probably do but you get my point). I would disagree with the comment that "the harmonica is prominently and centrally featured in this song" form the original post.
Even the old greats we that we listen to and dissect today often didn't put the harmonica front and centre:
It's in there, but it's always about the song...
The trick to getting 900 thousand views on youtube is to write music and songs that the vast majority of the paying public (13 to 25 year olds???) identify with. Then you can put a gong in it if you like and people will start asking you for gong tabs.
Unfortunately from what I understand from talking to some friends who work for record labels etc. There's no real way to predict what is going to be big at any given time. Even the record labels don't know. They sign people they think might sell, put money and promotion behind them, and once in a while they get an artist that sells well for a while. Once in a blue moon they get an artist that is big – people like Adele etc.
The advice I was given was just keep making the music you like, because you like making it and take any opportunities you can.
Heres a recent "pop" tune which features some harmonica and has little to do (IMO) with perceived "harmonica music".
Hi Baker! Great to hear your well thought out ideas on this topic... I suppose you are right that the harmonica is not the main focus of that Watsky song, any more than it is of that Pablo Nutini song (thanks for reminding me that he plays harp from time to time! I'd forgotten about that)...
I'd agree that it's hard to predict what's going to be big. I too have also heard that the major labels really just take a gamble on stuff, and hope it blows up (which is why the big boys stay big. It's a numbers game).
I do disagree with you, however, on your assessment that the harmonica is an accompanying instrument. Yes, it is and has been used as such to great effect. However, there have been many instances where it is the lead instrument (how can we forget that "Juke" stayed at the Billboard #1 slot for 8 weeks?). Ricci plays harp like a lead instrument, and so do several other modern harp players. What I'm saying is that I think the time is ripe for an instrument like harmonica (i.e., an "alternative" instrument) to take the lead position again in pop/indie pop. There is a plethora of indie bands who are looking for something other than guitar, bass, keys, drums. Look at how frequently Ukulele's are starting to be used in Indie music. Look at the raging popularity of cigar box guitars (I mean, Paul Simon just used one in a major concert!). It is this "void" that I think Watsky is trying to fill with his harmonica solo in that song. The only problem is that he's not a very good harmonica player (yet, anyway). Think of how much more cool it would be if it were someone who could really play the thing doing it? I mean, it really might take off, right?
I will agree with you, however, that it should absolutely be about the song. Harmonica for harmonica's sake isn't going to cut it. I DO think that, however, if there is a harmonica player who wants to go down this path (and I absolutely subscribe to your ideal of "play what makes you happy", so this person should want to go down this path), that there is a higher likelihood of musical success for that person there than in traditional "harmonica friendly" musical genres.
Now let's be honest. This isn't a path for an old-timer. It's a path for a kid who fit's the age-group who is listening to this music. It's for someone the age of Watksy or Pablo. But why not a harmonica player? We DO have talented harmonica friends who fit that age profile! Are you listening youngsters?!? You know who you are! Now go out and DO IT! :) ----------
Interesting topic; I think the impact and reaction of Whatsky's harmonica playing would have been the same if he had pulled out a toy piano or a uke instead of a harmonica and played with the same skill level. The audience had already bought in and regardless of the instrument they would have like it. If he played with the skill level of Ricci would it have been any more successful? I kinda doubt it, you and I would like it better but his audience probably wouldn't care. So can a skilled harmonica player make it in today's music? Sure but it will not be because of his harmonica skills but what else he brings to the stage.
Hi isaacullah, sorry yes, I do fully agree with you that people like Jason are putting the harmonica font and centre, and obviously tracks like Juke were very successful in their time and place. I did mean to mention Jason et al in my post but I guess I got a bit side tracked... :)
I don't think what I said – "IMHO the harmonica in a band situation is an accompanying instrument" - Was exactly what I was trying to say.
What I was trying to get at is that tonally the harmonica evokes a certain "feeling". For me, and I realise as a harmonica player this may sound traitorous :), it fills a tonal space which only really works well with blues, folk, bluegrass, reggae, some rock and other forms of roots music. For me, tonally it isn't as versatile as maybe a guitar, or trumpet. – This is purely my opinion you understand – Bringing that "sound" out of that space and into more commercially viable forms of music takes something/someone really phenomenal, to make it work.
However you are right. There is several bands who are bringing a more folky sound into the main stream and maybe there is room for some harmonica players there.
Personally I don't really like the "sound" of jazz played on a diatonic. I can really appreciate the skill that goes into it, the technical and musical ability it takes to do it, but I'd rather hear that same track played on a sax for example.
I think the Paolo Nutini track works really well however I can't see this working on all of his tracks. I think the best example of someone who has managed to integrate great harmonica playing really well into more modern forms of commercially viable music is Stevie Wonder.
The other point I think I was trying to make is that, to make it as a commercially successful act, it isn't enough to be a skilled musician such as Jason. It isn't even necessary. What you need is to have a song / sound and probably more importantly, an image that captures the paying public's imagination. Which is why I guess "Watsky" is doing so well. The kids are obviously into his "thing".
I agree with rainman in that he could have played a uke or toy piano and it would have had a similar reaction, and that if he had played like Jason then it would be unlikely that it would make it any more successful.
But you are right, it would be great to see. We just need someone to do it! :)
Getting that many views had little to do with harmonica. Those commenting on the harp on YT are maybe, maybe fringe harp fans.
Unfortunately, the bar for great instrumentation in pop music is very low. I always go back to Nuno Bettencourt and Extreme. That dude could totally shred on guitar, but will be knowing for basic acoustic ballads.
If you want to "make it" playing harmonica, there are two ways to go. The first being the traditional road, and the second being untraditional. The traditional would be like blues, which is a tough nut to crack. The second is to add harmonica in an untraditional way. This gives you much more room to move in (see Howard Levy).
Now, to 99% of the world, what we consider "normal" harmonica use - like playing even something like jazz - is unheard of. Really, people think Dylan, blues, and old time country.
I am not a traditional blues player, or even really a modern one. I play rock music. I am a dinosaur in that I prefer rock from before 2000, but it is what it is. There is a ton of room for harmonica in contemporary music, but you have to find people, even on a local level, willing to give it a go.
Locally, it took almost ten years to get a non-blues band to let me play with them. I took the part of fiddle with a country-rock band that was a short-term deal. Loved it, but I had to hound the band for weeks to even get an audition.
A trio was looking to add people and asked me to do some work with them. This is cool as none of it is blues, but they do have access to keys and fiddle, which I too admit are a better fit.
I had a fair run post NiteRail and SPAH 2010 being in a coverband that used harp in lieu of guitar. That came to an end due to my grad work and change in jobs. That was a shame as I never felt anyone viewed us as being different for having harp. They just wanted to have a good time. That was ideal for me.
Now, I've conceded that a local project is a must, and that will be impossible if I want to do a full band. This took me two years to come to terms with. I will be doing a rock duo act starting next month.
Rambling point is, people don't give a shit about music beyond two things - Is it accessible? Is it the in thing?
I have never felt that harmonica was either of these, and the group or music as a whole is MUCH MUCH more important.
Listen, I have all sorts of crazy crap in my head and out their sounds...I probably won't get to share it. I will be content playing 90% acoustic to songs people know that I can sing well. That beats NOT playing for people at all.
If you want to be popular on harmonica, you either attack the small niche harmonica crowd or non-harmonica players. You then decide if you are doing so with limitations to what you play. That will create the path for you. ---------- Custom Harmonicas Optimized Harmonicas
As a youtube user I am aware that it is possible to ‘purchase’ large bundles of hits for nominated videos. I have had approaches from such a company making such offerings. I declined. However I could understand for those who are in the business to get discovered it is an opportunity to create a critical mass with a video which like a rolling snowball gets bigger & bigger.
When looking for material /ideas I view numbers of videos on youtube. Often there are numerous versions from which to pick so one usually picks the one with the largest number of clicks. This sometimes is a fair decider of what is good and what is popular. Again it is ‘critical mass’ at work & it has its failings. Many times a real gem with less than 150 clicks is hidden away in the lineup.
To be fair I think that youtube try to do the right thing. They promote videos with the largest number of clicks by being more prominent in their placing. Plus they do try to manage the manipulated clicks. I know because we have 4 points of access to the net eg PC, Laptop, Ipad and Mobile Phone. All were interlinked ie email data etc except the phone which I got for Christmas & used for a couple of weeks whilst away. The phone took me about 2 weeks to figure out and completely set up and then I noted that my click count on my Youtube Channel dropped overnight with an explanation from youtube that some mobile access adjustment was made.
The video above of the young lass purporting to teach how to play harmonica is prime example of the critical mass thing at work. Lots of views so it must be good. How many times have we all seen it albeit to just scratch our heads and ask why? Another possible answer is that this young lass is less threatening, less technical, and more in touch with youngsters who are huge youtube consumers. Good on her.
Wow... Some great commentary here... There's a few topics going on, and I'd like to try to address them all if possible.
First, the number of hits on YT thing. Actually, I didn't realize that there was a way to "cheat" on this, but it makes absolute sense. I mean, how long did it take for the "auto sniping" thing to happen over on E-bay. Since then, I just only do "buy it now" deals, and not auctions. It makes total sense that there are auto-clickers out there boosting the numbers on these vids. However, "viral" IS the new gold record, so the click count matters. It really does. On my own YT channel, I've gotten something like 300k views for all my vids combined for all five years I've been doing it. That seems pretty high, but it really only breaks down to a few views per vid per day. I've got one "money maker" video of some traditional Bengali music, and that one has like 100k hits on it's own. Now, I've had most of my videos "monetized" for over a year now. I'm *just* about to hit the $100 mark, which is when YT will supposedly actually pay me. Now, the actual stats as to who clicks what ad more often, I'm not sure about. But I imagine that Watsky is actually making a little bit of money off his videos. Not as much as traditional record sales maybe, but probably making some money nonetheless. Same with that girl. Anyway, I suppose my emphasis on YT clicks in the title of this thread may have given folks the misleading understanding that that is the main purpose of this thread. It's not. But it IS, I think, and interesting correlated variable to my main point, which I will get to below...
Okay. The idea that it could be a Uke or toy piano. I fully concede that. I agree. It's the Novelty factor at work here. No one should underestimate the power of novelty. However, I do wonder if, since the Novelty factor relies on low expectation, if a person came out playing a novelty instrument (like harp) and just BLEW people away with skill (like a JR), wouldn't that just explode their minds?!?! Yes, the musical context matters. Wanky Jazz or jam-band stuff ain't gonna do it. The weight of evidence is in. There are tons of tremendously talented musicians playing that music, and remaining waaaay under the radar (whether or not they want it that way is another conversation). I can see the harp working really well in Pop music actually, which brings me to the next and main point:
The musical context of the harmonica. I will allow full concession here that this is a HIGHLY subjective area, and that we are obviously all not going to agree. I can absolutely see where Baker is coming from... I actually felt like that for a long while myself. Until I saw dudes like Chris Michalek and Jason Ricci, and thought "man, that WORKS". Harmonica is such a strange little thing. In my mind it's at least as versatile as guitar. You can make it play Bass. You can make it do chords. You can make it solo. You can keep it acoustic and low key, or you can amp it, fx it, crank it up and let it WAIL. You can shred. You can jazz it up. You can make it get CRUNK. The only thing that really surprises me about harmonica these days, is how little of it's potential is used by those who play it and promote it. I suppose THAT is my ultimate point in making this post...
PS. @Baker. Nice call on the FAK and Mumford tracks. I'd add The Head and the Heart and Shovels and Rope to that milieu as well, among others... This is a really interesting new trend in indie-pop, and I can REALLY see some BIG room for harmonica here too... ----------
Well, there's an easy way to make that extremely high visibility happen: Get Jason to make a harmonica version of "Gagnam Style" and call it "Bluesman Style." Let Jason be Jason--outrageously good harp, outrageous play with gender tags, and catchy lyrics.
That would do it. Put those three elements together, put it out there, and it will shoot up like a rocket.
Most of the parodies on this YouTube search have millions, sometimes tens of millions of hits:
Here's a funny one. Universal apparently yanked the audio backing track, so they've kept the video but replaced it with another song. Still, it gives you a sense of how (relatively) low budget these sorts of things can be:
What is the appeal? I'm sure the Music moguls wish there was an easy formula. I see videos of Bruce Springsteen, Neil Young and others in concert, at some point when the tune is dragging, they pull out their harps and chug out a few chords in 1st position and the crowd goes wild. But where are the crowds when a harp virtuoso is trying to book a show? Kim Wilson, James Cotton and the Mighty Thunderbirds are coming to town next week. I bought my tickets this week and hoped I hadn't waited too late. I needn't have worried, only 1/3 of the auditorium was sold.
Last Edited by on Jan 23, 2013 4:53 AM
As for Isaac's original challenge: I'm all in favor of it! Nothing would make me happier than if an MBH forumite took up the challenge and make a video that went viral, with an impossibly catchy song, fine playing, and something that caught the public mind in a big way. Really, we should have a Throwdown with the Pros competition, but I just don't have a spare minute these days. (I did my best with the Thunky Fing video, and spent a little money besides, but it hasn't gone viral. Pop success is probably not in the cards for Dr. Gussow. Never say die, though.)
But here's something that Isaac is leaving out of the picture: endurance. One of the things about pop success is that it is, or can be, terribly transient. Just ask Hammer. He's "back" these days, slightly, but when he dropped out of view, he really dropped.
It may be true that if you ever manage to have a #1 hit, you can sing that song for decent money for the rest of your days--the Westbury Music Fair circuit, so to speak. But it is also true that 95% of youth-pop acts enjoy their brief moment in the sun and then fade away.
Meanwhile, blues artists, once they've captured the public imagination, tend to maintain their audiences. I've joked with Charlie Hilbert that I'm going to enjoy the heck out of my 60s and 70s by going on tour as "the guy who used to play with Mr. Satan." I'll seem like a relic out of some vanished Wild West age when people still went out on the street with battery-powered amps and made music for crowds that threw--gasp!--tips consisting of paper and metal money!
The blues world is kind, in some ways, to aging blues performers.
In other ways, it isn't kind at all. We know how few older blues and jazz performers have medical and retirement plans.
Still, there's something to that.
Last Edited by on Jan 23, 2013 5:12 AM
I will also concede Adam's point about doing a harmonica parody of Gangam Style. Yes, that will get the clicks up there in flash (or is already too late for Gangam Style?). But I think that sort of uber-viral explosion event is a separate phenomenon from what's going on with Watsky. I'll go on record to say that I think Adam's idea of the transience of pop fame is spot on. I'll take it a step further and suggest that there is an inverse relationship between the speed/size of the initial popularity of a song/performer and the duration of that song/performer as an entity in the popular consciousness. Call it the "law of one-hit wonderness". A year from now, folks will be saying "Psy who?". Do any of you think about the Baha Men anymore? I mean, I serious had to just google "who let the dogs out" to figure out the name of that "band". But, what about Justin Timberlake? Beyonce? Christina Aguilera? All of them rose from what could potentially have been a total flash in the pan to enduring superstardom. I won't purport to know all the reasons for that (if I did, I'd be a millionaire, instead of a hundredaire), but I wonder if it wasn't because they all consciously went for a "slower burn" after their initial huge pop successes?
Now, I think we all know that the opposite is also a problem. Starting off with the slow burn, and non of the pop sensationalism. I know that most of us here have no aspirations for this kind of thing, and that even a lot of the pros are content to keep things status quo. Not totally obscure, but not pop either. That's cool. That's how I like my music too. Pop enough that I know about it, and enjoy listening to it. Obscure enough that it challenges me, and keeps me interested. I think this is what Adam is talking about when he talks about how Blues artists maintain their audiences... I think that this how most Blues fans view their music.
But I am an anomaly as a music listener. All of us Blues fans are. That's why the audiences at Blues shows are so much smaller than at a Justin Timberlake concert. Same for any "Indie" music. It's a dead fact that I keep realizing as I grow older and older, and meet more people and realize that none of them care half as much about the music that they listen to as I do. In fact, almost all of the people I consider to be close friends are those who also care about music and want to be challenged by it. It's kind of a pattern I've seen develop in my life. Music is so important to me that if we can't talk about it in some way, then I'm not sure I want to be your friend at all! ;)
So yeah. We like our music challenging. That's good, and I support it. But we ALL know that POP MUSIC is where the real livelihood of a musician is at. That's where the word spreads from too. I don't want to see ALL harmonica become engulfed in the Pop vein. But don't you think that one or two good Pop successes from our little harmonica world would have some good influence on the position and treatment of harmonica and harp players in general? Maybe some of those older blues and jazz cats might actually start getting their pensions... ----------
There are several things that make a song popular. A good looking young singer helps. A good lyric helps. Playing it in a popular style helps. A good hook. A good YouTube video helps (it's the MTV of this generation). Then you need luck and marketing.
The ship may have sailed on some of those things, for me at least. I love playing in different styles because it's something new. Still, I have enough blues inertia that it sort of winds back to the blues. Most of my lyrics wind back to the blues.
(P.S., I love First Aid Kit. I've been listening to them for some time now.)
Sorta related to Adam's post...I was Googling something related to John Popper, and I swear I don't obsess over him, but have really been trying to figure out a particular pattern and effect he uses, and found a site claiming his networth is $15million.
BT essentially is a one hit wonder, although if they moved that many albums today, it would be enormous as people don't sell music anymore, they sell image.
Being a huge BT fan, I realize they hit a perfect storm and struck big on album four, but had a really solid fan base before that. It is possible that that level of success was still above many blues groups.
That being said, they haven't had real radio play in over a decade yet still play many shows a year to thousands of people. I would readily take being a one hit wonder - from a live perspective, and not YouTube - over being an established blues act.
I don't think people realize the thousands of dollars a band like BT can still generate a night. Even at their low points since hitting, they are making WAY more money and playing to way more people than blues acts.
Shit, locally, a blues band would get less than $100 a man for a 3hr gig. In fact, even good band with solid local draws are lucky to get that. The cover band from the Cities, though, is going to start out at $1,000 a night for a 4-5 piece band.
The guitar player I played with for a long time went from 3-4 blues shows for $75 a night playing to 25-50 people to playing infront of 500 plus a night (3-4 times a week) for $250+ a night.
I contest that at the national level, and double true at the local level, that anything other than blues makes way more money unless it is some really crazy eclectic stuff.
Another case and point...the guys I've been jamming with play nothing but crazy and weird stuff. It is all artsy and eclectic and odd progressions...mostly instrumental...very very far from pop, jazz, or blues. They can play during the week for $100 a guy doing off the wall originals. Those same clubs flat out won't book a blues band...like not at all.
The guitar player noted above has tried for three years to do a blues show during the week for money and has had zero success. Keyboard guy we played with is getting paid to perform with a modern jazz group every week.
People don't like the word blues. Businesses like it even less. It is all over, easily accessible, and enjoyable...however, there is a huge stigma.
@Mike: You make a couple great points there. I think the stuff you bring up about Popper and BT is really interesting and goes to my point about the relationship between the "overnight-ness" of success and it's endurance. As you say BT didn't hit it big until the fourth album, and they already had a decent following. They managed themselves pretty well too. They got in good festivals, played good shows, and managed to keep themselves just on the edge of the radar for the last several years. Compare that to Chumbawumba. Seriously. The last thing I heard about Chumbawumba was on a late-nigh TV show, and it was an announcement that they had just broken up. It was as the butt of a joke (Really? they JUST broke up?!?). But BT and Chumbawumba hit at basically the exact same time (Mike, I think you and I must be about the same age. This was just at the very beginning of college for me. Like 1998/99 or something.) But I think Chumbawumba totally came out of nowhere, and thus went back there fast. Whereas BT already had a bit of a following, so stayed relatively higher up.
Your insights into clubs booking blues acts, and the lucritiveness of blues vs other genres seems to be basically par for the course as far as I've seen too (speaking as a concert goer, and not a club promoter or act). ----------
Really interesting thread. Just through I'd point out Watsky is playing 4th position on an E harmonica from what my ears can tell.
Maybe this can serve as an example of why you should learn to play other positions?
Anyway, I'm sure no one is reading this anymore because I'm no opinionated enough or TYPE IN CAPS enough for people to read. No one cares. My parents split up. My dad wasn't there for me. Life is just a series of disappointments followed by death. Meh.
Ridge, just remember, there is a difference between typing in CAPS and ALL CAPS. It's one of those pieces of advice that gets taken to extremes, like not ending sentences with prepositions. However, capping ONE KEY PIECE of information is just a way to get around the fact that it requires HTML to bold, italicize, or underline. The other options, of course, are the overused "Air Quotes", which confuse the issue with "Real" quotes and "Fake, sarcastic quotes", and the also maligned exclamation mark, or the "!!!".
Personally, my favorite (aside from the smiley face letting people know I'm being friendly about it!) Is the ?!!, like, Really?!! You chose a Blues Band harmonica? Really?!!
A different perspective on wealth and success is needed. I read the Harp Ninja post re John Popper & his reported wealth of $15mio. Did he make it from music I don't know. I know nothing of the man so cannot judge but there must be countless numbers of 'successful' people ie musicians, actors, sports persons who have earned and lost this amount of money & more. His family may be rich? But it is more likely that you will find that wealth comes about through hard work, paying ones self first (savings) and in making very astute investments. Music may have provided the income out of which grew the savings and investments?
isaacullah, hello MBH long time no post! I hope everyone is well. I just wanted to chime in about Watsky. First off this dude is slightly E-famous and is well known Youtuber. I was a fan/subscriber before I even knew he played harp. He is not getting out of the blue youtube hits. This guy has been a hard working artist for many many years. He is most known for slam poetry, but his Youtube fame came from the following video which has over 23 million hits. He is popular because he raps fast and has killer word play. He has over 300,000 youtube subscribers and almost every video he makes gets a million hits.
I think it's awesome that he plays harp, and it's great to see the younger kids asking about it.
Whats up earlounge! Good to see you back here... Yeah, I probably should have done my homeworks on Watsky, but it makes sense that he's a YouTube phenom. Unless you are cute kitten that just can't help but fall asleep, the youtube hits are likely something you have to build up through some serious hard work ("cheating" aside)...
Listening to the vids you posted, it seems like Watsky has found a niche combining M&M with Jason Mraz. Sounds like a pretty lucrative sound! Cool to see him using the harp a bit. I do wish he was better at it though. He's at least worked on it some, so that's more than I can say about a lot of other more abusive uses of harp in pop music. Wouldn't it be cool to see some GOOD harp playing being repped in pop music these days?
I am pretty sure he got rich playing in Blues Traveler and recording the album Four.
"Four (styled as four) is the breakthrough album by American jam band Blues Traveler, released on September 13, 1994.
Four peaked at #8 on the Billboard 200 albums chart (North America) and is most known for its hits "Run-Around" & "Hook", which charted at #8 & #23, respectively on the Billboard Hot 100. Both songs also charted in the top 20 on the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks & Hot Modern Rock Tracks charts, as well. According to the RIAA, the album is certified as 6x Platinum (6 million copies sold in the U.S.). "Run-Around" won the 1996 Grammy Award for Best Rock Performance by a duo or group."
The rest of the money came from touring, recording, etc., but most of it came from opportunities related to that album.
Here is Jason Mraz with better harmonica, lol...
I think the whole - I fell into a career in music thing without doing much work - thing is VERY overexagerrated and in most instances people busted their ass and met up with luck.
However, it is very much more public when someone "hits big". There are TOTALLY people who are famous as a result of contrived and orchestrated practices, but even Lady Gaga paid her dues.
The notion that some people get a free pass isn't as prevalent as we think, and when it does happen, it doesn't last long. It still sucks that they get rich and we don't, but...even 50 years ago, Pop was dominated by shit...
