deefstes
Here's a question for the regular (and occasional) stage performers.
When you're on stage, performing a few songs, how much do you talk between the songs? Do you introduce every song with a story? Do you simply flow from one song into the next?
I'm also particularly keen to know, when you're practising your set, do you also practise the talking bits between songs or do you just wing it when you're on stage?
I've found that I often sound like a dork when I talk between songs, probably because I'm nervous. I've tried rehearsing my song introductions and that did seem to work a bit better.
Your thoughts?
Bob-Dubery
I often talk between songs, but not always. If I'm tuning and it's taking time I'll start talking about something or other, or start telling some shaggy dog story or offer some insights into the next song.
Some folks like a bit of information about songs, like the little story I tell before I play the one Merle Travis song in my repertoire, "Dark as a Dungeon".
Travis went out to the Kentucky coal mines as part of his spade work for some music he had to write for a documentary. It was a very fertile fortnight in song-writing terms, he wrote two of his best known songs - "Sixteen Tons" and "Nine Pound Hammer". And he wrote a third, lesser known but perhaps the best statement about those miners and their lot.
So I say some thing like that and then I play the song.
I do think that practicing these things can be OK, or at least giving some thought to what you want to say about each song. That helps you keep it succint (unless you need to spin things out). I think you get better at it the more you do it. If you've seen Tony Cox more than once in the last couple of years you'll have twigged that some of his seemingly off-the-cuff between songs patter is actually quite carefully rehearsed and planned.
Squonk
Good Topic
Most probably applies more to Solo performances than band performances.
I feel like a Dork as well, it's quite an art engaging an audience. The more you do it the better it becomes.
Rehearsed - as XRB says, some artists have little rehearsed things they say and it works.
I have battled a lot with just performing(Nerves!!!!) and giving some info about the song, helps to steady the nerves and gets you focused.
It's a huge learning curve and the audience can also determine how you engage them.
The art is to not say too much but just enough to keep their attention.
The last time at TJ's I was asked to do 30 minutes and that is a long time for a noob like me especially if you have stage fright(Which I have hugely). I was a bit intimidated at first but then realized that I would only really possibly play for 18 minutes and allow 12 minutes for time between sets, tuning, and engaging the crowd with some banter between songs.
So I rehearsed with that in mind and it's getting easier, although there is still a long way to go before I come across as confident!
The more you do it, the better you will get at it!
Another good thing is learn from other performers, and TJ's has a huge amount of "Polished" performers to learn from, and for R25 it's a small investment for honing your craft
Hammeron
Ozzy has quite an extensive between song vocab:
And this a song called....and this is a song called... and this is a song called... and so on.
Personally I like a bit of between song banter, Dickinson and Hetfield are quite good at this.
Myself, I say nothing on stage, just shake my head and smack my ax! ?
Matt-White
I think it's essential.
Went to an Andra concert recently in the great Atterbury Theatre in Pretoria. She isn't very chirpy as it is, but because this was a big production with a full band, a theme for the evening and even dancers, she didnt speak between songs, fearing that she might wreck the flow of the show. Big mistake. The pregnant silences between songs became too heavy to bear. Some audience members even started shouting at her, in a friendly way of course, to engage her.
I've found that even in small ensembles, in other words not just solo gigs, it works. And not just "the lead singer" neccessarily engaging the audience like in a big band. It feels more intimate if, just every now and then, there is some banter coming from other band members as well.
But your little speeches needn't be between all songs. Changing it, according to circumstances and sometimes grouping some songs together, gives your gig a greater feeling of variety. Then its not just speak, sing, speak, sing, speak, sing. Or, even worse, sing, sing, sing and sing.
IMHO.
PeteM
I think it depends upon the venue. In the pub/restaurant environment I don't do much banter, if at all with my band or solo. Sometimes I get someone in the audience asking a question about a song and I give a bit of background to it like who wrote it, who sang it etc.
Our full band was asked a little while back to perform at a soiree with an audience mainly made up of intellectuals/university lecturers and other people from differing creative disciplines... poets, writers, painters etc. Here it was necessary to introduce each number and to have a theme. I chose to concentrate on the composers of the songs, who quite often get lost in the mix in the entertainment world, rather than the original or cover performers. I did quite a bit of research in this respect and rehearsed extensively. I reckon, the more prepared you are the more confident you are. I also referred to notes, which the audience didn't mind at all. It went down very well... the organisers even asked us to perform the same set (+/- 50 minutes with a 10 minute intermission) a couple of months later to a slightly different audience. So, yeah, it depends upon the venue and the occasion.
majestikc
I think it's the most annoying thing, kind of makes whoever is up on stage just seem like a regular joe, breaks the whole flow as well, would be like going to see a theatre play and between each scene there's a guy rambling on about what the next scene is going to be, the worst is the whole getting the audience to clap there hands thing.
Keira-WitherKay
Well the brutal truth of the matter is . . You get people that can banter and those that can't , and the trick is to identify which you are ? and also i agree with pete who mentioned the venue sets the tone , back in the day i played in hotel action bars the band became more of a stand up comedy act with everyone chirping and creating an audience inter play . But last year when i was resident jazz guitarist at the palace hotel i never said a word and the songs were even flowed into each other that the music never stopped so no " pregnant pauses " to upset the soft jazz atmosphere so yes the genre, venue and the muso's ability to banter is the way to decide this . Just don't get caught in that trap of between each song saying " and the next song is . . . . " and then the very same line after the next and next . Truthfully after many talking to's i even fired a vocalist who would not keep quiet between songs but sounded horrid trying to compare , just like some people should not sing . . . And I include myself there ? some people should never speak on stage . It's an art to be a good compare or even just banter between songs ?
AlanRatcliffe
+1 Keira, +1 Pete. Depends on the audience and the artist. Some folk can do it well, where the talk between is every bit as entertaining as the music (Tom Waites).
Fingerpicker
I saw Bob Dylan play a 2 hour concert in an agricultural warehouse in Medford Oregon. All he said was "hello" at the start.
When he received his Oscar for best music something or other all he said was" this is nice" while waving the statue.
Bob-Dubery
I agree with Pete that you've got to play to the audience, the venue and the occasion. I'm fortunate in that mostly I play to an audience who are good listeners and they tend to like a little something between songs.
But, as Bill says, some artists don't. I think with a guy like Dylan he's pretty much preaching to the converted and they know all the songs and have decided what they mean and so why would they need information. Besides, Dylan likes to be mysterious and aloof.
Squonk's also right when he says that it can be a way of settling yourself down. I have seen some artists throw different things out to the audience early in the set to see if they bite. If you don't get a bite then "shut up and play yer guitar" seems to be the most sensible MO.
Squonk touches on something else - patter takes up time. We've had acts at TJ's spend too much time talking and not enough playing and in the shortish sets you generally get there that's the difference between 4 songs and 5, and 5 is a much better structured set with a better flow to it.
I saw John Tams some years ago. He's one of the big names on the English folk scene, a very good singer. But also a teller of shaggy dog stories. Looooooong shaggy dog stories. And he blew it. One hour on stage and he did 4 actual songs (and, if you were about to ask, there were not ten minute guitar solos going on). The audience got tetchy and then got bored and he didn't seem to read the situation until it was too late.
Squonk
Fingerpicker wrote
I saw Bob Dylan play a 2 hour concert in an agricultural warehouse in Medford Oregon. All he said was "hello" at the start.
The thing about Bob Dylan as opposed to Squonk of Weltevreden or any other Joe Blogs who is trying to cut his teeth as a performer is that Dylan's huge career speaks for itself, not much he can say about introducing "Knocking on heaven's door" that he has performed a gazillion times and the whole audience knows all the words.
When I perform "The grand parade of Sleepless Hamsters" on an unsuspecting crowd at TJ's , there might just be some explanation involved! but maybe not so much after I have performed it say 50 times!
Like what's been said, it depends on the performer and the audience.
