Deborah Lombardi, Singer-Songwriter

What is a Professional?

2012-01-23T18:46:00.000-08:00

I've come across quite a few online conversations on facebook or craigslist where musicians debate about who is an amateur versus who is a professional musician. Those who claim to be "working" or "full time" musicians say the local talent pool is being diluted by those "amateur" musicians who work day jobs, claiming they're bringing down what venues pay musicians, or filling the scene with a lower quality music. Well, I'm one of those day job musicians, and I'd like to state my case that most of us aren't doing the damage they think we are.

I'm always offended when musicians put me, or others, into categories or turn up their noses at us. Why? Because I'm working just as hard as they are. Because I have just as much talent as they have. Because I'm spending just as much money as they are on recording, promoting, rehearsing, equipment, and traveling to shows. Not to mention handling the business end of things.

We would all love to be doing music "full time". If it took just talent to be a full time musician, I and many others would have joined their supposed ranks a long time ago. But a lot of these "professional musician" elitists are a lot older than me - it took them decades to get to a point where they're making enough from music to do it as their only job. And to be honest, most of those who do music solely as a profession, aren't doing solely original music like I'm trying to do, they're being hired to play other people's music. Or they've been laid off from their day job, or they've retired, so they can just say their full time job is now music. Or they have parents or a spouse that makes enough money to support their music career. Or if they really are making a decent living doing music, they're doing a combination of things - accompanying other musicians, some studio work, some teaching, plus a little bit of income from their original music. Realistically, unless you have a big record company fronting the costs to record and promote your music, and then sell enough to recoup those costs so you get paid royalties from it, it's a near miracle to do original music full time.

While those "professionals" think that because of our day jobs that we don't need or want top dollar for our performances, I assure you we do. Especially when those like me have spent $10,000+ recording a new CD. Especially when it's going to take thousands of dollars more if I want to promote it nationally. And no venue owner has ever asked me "are you a full time musician or a weekend warrior" when setting the price of what they pay, so their whole theory of market dilution is a bit weak in my book.

Musicians shouldn't be putting down other musicians - you know why? Because the person you turn your nose up on now, may one day in fact be more successful than you. Music is an ability that only gets better with time if you stick with it. If you keep playing, songwriting or singing you get better at it. If you keep putting it out there and working your butt off maybe it'll start to pay off. Again, it's a miracle to make a living at it, or to even have a some small measure of success, but we're all here to do the same thing - add art to this world.

Some of the best musicians I've heard are doctors, teachers, office workers...should they be silenced because they're not doing it "full time"? Some unsigned singer-songwriters I've heard completely blow away what's on the mainstream radio or TV...yet because they're working multiple day jobs, should their talent be silenced? Of course not.

Musicians need to stop being the enemy to their fellow musician and applaud each other even for their smallest successes - it's an above average feat just to be able to get up there and sing and play for an audience, whether that audience or venue is paying enough to cover that musician's bills, or just passing a tip jar. I know a lot of people who create other kinds of art - whether it's comedy, theater, paintings, books...these people aren't doing it on a full time, professional level. Yet how sad it would be if professional actors said, "Enough with these small time, amateur community theater actors!" Or if those artists with paintings hanging in museums said, "Enough with these small town art gallery artists!" I seem to believe those creative types don't shun those aspiring to their field of work like musicians do to each other. It's a shame when musicians stoop to that type of talk, because I think they've sorely forgotten where they came from.

Actually Those Who Can Do Also Teach

2012-01-04T21:33:00.000-08:00

I've grown to hate the old cliche "those who can't do, teach". And I was one of those people who used to say it myself. When I was preparing for college, to study music, people would often ask me if I was going to study music so I can teach it, and I would turn up my nose at the thought. Why would I teach if I want to perform? It's as if I thought you can't possibly do both, that doing one would prevent the other.

When I got an offer several years back to take on someone's guitar and piano students I wasn't sure if I could or would want to do it, but it was extra money so I started doing it. It's something I continue to do to this day, not full time but as a second job that certainly helps pay for my music expenses, as there are many if you want to be serious about recording, performing with good sounding instruments and reliable gear, pay for rehearsal studios and the like. And I've not just used the money when I've needed it to fund my music "business", but I've grown to actually love it.

It's a great feeling of accomplishment to see someone who never knew how to read music, learn to play an actual song for the first time ever. It's great to see students go from not being sure of themselves, to being confident enough to tell me what favorite songs they want to learn next. It's exciting for my students, and me, to see someone grow their skills. And it makes me feel like I'm a better musician because of it.

Some people may think that if you're teaching music that it's because you've failed to become a performer or composer, but I've realized that teaching makes you that much more of a musician. Anyone can perform something, but to be able to pass that knowledge of how to play it onto someone else takes even more talent - you really need to be at the top of your game. And when I entered college I saw how every professor of music was an active performer as well, it wasn't like they gave up on performing, the two went hand in hand. Heck, even the great composers like Beethoven and Mozart had students. I'm starting to think now the opposite of the "those you can't" adage - I'm starting to think that if you're a great performer, musician, or composer that you should have students as proof that you know what you're doing...those who would shun teaching I would now say, "if you're such a great musician, how come you can't teach it to someone else?"

Teaching has it's ups and downs of course, not every student wants to be there and over the years I've come across some kids who were forced into learning an instrument. I hate seeing that, because I was the kid who had the opposite problem: I wanted to take piano lessons for years, and it took a lot of convincing on my part to let my parents invest in the lessons and piano for me. Yet there are parents out there that will just blindly buy an instrument and sign up their kid without even asking if they want to do it. I've heard things from parents like "they just have to do it, it's important that they learn music"...really? Even as a musician I'm telling you it's not as important as your child's happiness and forcing them to do it will just be met with resistance, not to mention ruin their chances of coming to appreciate the beauty of music on their own. It sucks to see that, or when I see kids that have a real interest in music, but unfortunately have been over-scheduled - their parents want them to do music, and sports, and church activities, and plays, and do good in school, and all these other activities, that often they just can't put the time and passion into one thing...and their music learning suffers as a result.

Of course not all music students are kids...I'm currently teaching a grown woman who's always wanted to learn guitar, and she's doing great. It's true that you're never too old to learn - I'm certainly proof, I didn't learn piano until my teens but was determined to learn all I could to catch up to all those kids that were forced into it from a young age. Because of my passion, in a few years after starting piano lessons I was good enough to be accepted into a great music school at a renowned university. And I didn't pick up guitar until my 20's, and in no time I was writing songs on it and performing them on a weekly basis.

I'm proud to say I've grown so much as a musician that I'm good enough to be a teacher too. As long as I'm doing music - performing, songwriting, recording - I will gladly pass on my skills to those who have a common love for this art.

Age-ism

2011-09-20T09:00:00.000-07:00

In this society we live in, I think we all strive to eradicate things like racism and sexism, and any other forms of discrimination or stereotyping. But I think something we don't realize we do is stereotype or discriminate on the basis of age. As an entertainer, there's always something in the back of my mind telling me I need to look or act younger from a marketing standpoint. When many people think of those who are "rock stars" they think of those who are in their twenties, maybe early thirties at the oldest. Anyone older than that surely has to have already been established as one, breaking out into stardom when they were in their early 20's probably.

The music industry certainly has it's age limits on who they will help break into stardom - American Idol has an age limit of 29, when it started the limit was 23. Not like every music connoisseur cares about the age of the musicians they like, but I've seen other aspiring musicians take age into account on many levels. Take a look at craigslist and you'll see musicians in their 20's looking for other band members around their age, often saying things in the ad like "no one over 29". It's like having a band member in their 30's will surely mess up their chance of getting a record deal. On the flip side, I've seen older musicians advertise only wanting band members who are like them, in their 40's to 50's, usually with the ad stating that they're not looking to become rock stars, just wanting to have fun and play on the side. It's like there's this divide that starts around 30, if you're under 30 you can be an aspiring star, if you're over that you've probably given up at that point and it's only a side thing.

Those of us in our 30's are left in this limbo. You're trying to balance your home life, as most are at least married if not starting a family at this point, yet you don't want to let go of your dreams either. And I've seen so many examples of independent musicians who want people to still think they're in their 20's, one I've seen who is blatantly lying about their age by shaving a decade off their birthday on their facebook page, while others simply start to omit their birth year on their page, so people can't figure out how old they are. When myspace was popular, I saw musicians who had a personal page, do the same trick with their birthdays, though it didn't have the option to omit the birth year, so the only option was to make yourself the maximum age of 100...people obviously know you're not 100, but they can obviously tell you're not letting anyone figure out what your age is. I admit I made myself 100 on myspace just to avoid people knowing my real age.

Despite being told that those in the industry can sometimes discriminate on the basis of age, I'm starting to get tired of hiding my age. I mean, I'm a singer-songwriter, my style of music mostly appeals to an older demographic anyway, and it's not like I'm trying to do dance pop music here, where I can see it would be to your advantage to be 19. So here I'm going to say it, I'm 34.

Being 34 has it's disadvantages not just in the music industry, but in life too I've found, especially as a woman. Biologically, you told, time is not on your side if you want to start a family. "Don't start too late!" I keep hearing from people. There's this line in the sand, of age 35, that they always tell you..."it's more risky to have kids over 35", like as if you give birth at 34 you're kid will turn out fine but if you give birth a day after your 35th birthday, you're kid will have something wrong with it. Or that you'll have a high risk pregnancy if you're a second over 35. Not for nothing, but every person I know who has had a high risk pregnancy were way under 35, some in their 20's or no older than 30, so it clearly had nothing to do with their age. For many, the risk was caused by eating the wrong things, gaining too much weight or already being overweight, while for others it was pre-existing medical conditions. So as a person who isn't overweight, and doesn't have any pre-existing conditions, I think I'll be just fine.

If people aren't scaring you at the thought of something medically going wrong with your pregnancy, they'll surely scare you with this line..."You don't want to be old parents, do you?". I'm still trying to figure out what that means, because it usually comes from women of another generation who got married at 20 and had kids instantly...no enjoying your marriage for a few years without the chaos of kids, no career aspirations, no desire to see the world and travel a bit before having a family. That's not me, let's not compare apples to oranges. Not to say there's something wrong with how they did it, if that makes you happy than that's great for you, but that's just not what I wanted out of my marriage and home life.

And I hate the term "old parents" because what is that even supposed to mean? On one hand they tell you you won't have the energy to take care of your kids. But let me tell you, at 34, I can run circles around most 24 year olds. Between working full time, being a wife and all the responsibilities of taking care of my husband and house, taking dance classes, teaching music lessons, and constantly performing music...which involves the physical activity of singing and playing an instrument for hours on end, often lugging heavy equipment to most gigs...I think I can juggle a lot more responsibilities and activities than most people do, with a lot more energy. Plus I don't smoke, rarely drink and try to stay in shape. Not for nothing, but I think it's how well you take care of yourself that determines your energy level, and to tell someone they're going to be "too old", well, no one goes up to a larger size woman and says, "you're not going to be able to keep up with your kids if you're that big", because that would be considered rude to say, but yet, it's okay to make someone feel old?

And then there are those that scare you into thinking, if you start too late, you won't live long enough to see your kids have kids...but there are no guarantees in life. My dad's mom had her kids young, and died of cancer at age 28, and then his dad died of a heart attack when he was a young man. Both didn't live to see him get married or have kids. And I've known several of my peers whose parents died while they were in high school or college. On the other hand, my mom's mom didn't have kids until her early 40's, yet lived long enough to see her grand kids grow up. Everyone's different, and no one knows the future.

I probably am going to start a family soon, but I'm not going to worry too much if it doesn't happen right away. There are people who scare you into thinking you'll be infertile by 35, but I've known so people who've had trouble getting pregnant in their 20's, while others in their mid-late 30's had no problem, so again, everyone is different. There are so many factors at play and if I let people stress me out, it will just be another factor to potentially get in the way.

It's unfortunate our society is so age obsessed, so prone to age-ism, whether you're trying to start a music career, or start a family, but I'm not going to let society's pre-determined roles regarding age determine how I do either one.

Failure?

2011-09-18T21:05:00.000-07:00

Doing music on an independent level has its many ups and downs. One day you'll have a gig where you sell tons of CDs, the next gig you'll sell none. Some venues that pay nothing will reject you purely on the basis on how many people you can bring, while others will book you, pay you well and feed you even if you didn't bring a crowd of your own. It's a constant oxymoron. And I've found this see-saw of acceptance and rejection can often occur not just out of commerce, but even amongst your peers in the music scene.

I recently had a facebook conversation with another local songwriter who commended me because it seemed that I was getting so many things accomplished with my music, and many great reviews and press. This was a big breath of fresh air compared to other musicians I've known to tell me what a failure they think I am.

For example, there is a musician I used to know several years ago who made it a point to tell me how much I've failed. He is also a singer-songwriter, but pretty much makes his living playing covers or backing up other musicians. Several years ago we were friends, or at least I thought we were, and we often played gigs together, and he was always very encouraging of my talent and even wanted to assist me in the production of my first CD. He wanted to play bass, which I totally would have allowed him to do, but it was much easier for me scheduling wise to have my producer do the bass tracks, as he was also doing most of the drums and even some guitar work on that CD. I had no idea he would be offended by this, as it really was going to be a free gig for him anyway...it was going to be a barter - I design his website, and in turn he plays on my CD for free. Well I kept my end of bargain, designing him a website and doing multiple updates to it and countless hours of work on it over the course of a year for him, despite the fact that he was no longer going to play bass on the CD. And I even went out of my way to book him on a local radio show and rewrite his bio materials. If anything, I lost out because I did so much free work for him, but I didn't care, he was a friend and I wanted to help him out. He on the other hand, apparently held a big grudge against me for not being given the opportunity to play bass with me. So fast forward over 5 years later to this year, as I was going through band member changes and needed a bass player I figured, what the hell, let me email him and see what he says, I figured he always wanted to play bass with me, so I asked him if he just wanted to fill in on one gig for the fun of it, it may be nice to play again together after all these years. Well, big mistake on my part for even emailing him, because he ended up sending me the most scathing reply I've ever read in a long time.

He basically told me that I wasn't of the caliber of musician he plays with anymore, citing a more recent opportunity he had backing a famous musician and that I probably couldn't afford the large sum of money he says he gets paid for gigs now. It's like he just wanted to rub it in my face that he's this full time musician and I'm not, though the last time I checked, he's still playing in restaurants and hole in the wall places, doing covers, not like he's making thousands of dollars a gig to play his own songs. But I guess in his mind he's bigger and better than me and had to try to make me feel smaller than him. He then goes on to rant about how horrible my CD was without him, and that not only did I squander the opportunity to work with him but that I've "sabotaged" my career over and over again, citing things like not learning a Beatles cover he suggested way back when, because I could've become a better songwriter from learning that cover song.

Well, call me crazy but, I'm pretty sure had he played bass on my CD, or had I learned that Beatles cover, that I still wouldn't have become the next Taylor Swift. I mean, let's be realistic folks. Not to mention, I think I've done pretty damn well for myself without his contributions to my career - I mean, if that CD was so horrible without his bass playing, why did I get some national licensing placements from it? And I think I've grown just fine on my own as a songwriter, despite not learning from the Beatles cover he suggested, as I continue to get tons of positive feedback and press from my newest songs. My guess is, he's just another bitter, middle aged musician who wanted to latch onto someone younger, in the hopes of molding them into what he wants, like a stage mom living vicariously through her kids. I just wanted to be his friend, but and he was the worst type of person, a fake friend who just saw me as a business prospect.

Another example is a former band member that wrote me an email to tell me I was "guaranteed to fail" and that my songs were "too plain and simple", and needed a band behind it to be interesting. I mean, sure, I like how my songs sound with other musicians joining me on stage, and I enjoy playing with a band, but when it comes right down to sales, I always sell more CDs at my acoustic shows than my band shows. If my songs were so "plain", than how would you explain that? Maybe in a solo acoustic setting where the audience can more intimately hear my lyrics I can better sell the stories I'm trying to tell. And if my music is so plain, how come I've was asked back to do a TV show in NJ after doing a solo acoustic performance on it 2 years ago? Either way, I'm not sure why someone would reinforce such negative vibes and negative thinking, but my ultimate answer to a comment like that is, what is your definition of failure anyway? If I never become this big rock star, some could cite that as being a failure, but that would put me in some pretty good company with lots of other talented but under-appreciated unsigned musicians.

It's such a crap shoot to even attain a measure of national success with music, let alone in this over-saturated local music scene. You can do everything right, and still not get anywhere because there's thousands and thousands of other talented people trying to do the same thing. I would bet my chances are better at winning the lottery than being a "winner" at music. I've seen so many talented bands and singer-songwriters, who had bigger followings, who had better marketing behind them, or countless other advantages over what I'm doing, that surprisingly enough have thrown in the towel a long time ago. Whereas I'm still going...you know, despite "sabotaging" myself, or despite being too "plain" of a songwriter to some. I think the fact that I keep doing it is proof enough that I'm not a failure.

And despite some people putting me down, I do occasionally get a pat on the back from my peers for all my accomplishments, no matter how small or overlooked they may be to some.

10 Years Ago

2011-09-10T22:20:00.000-07:00

Ten years ago was September 11. I, like everyone else, had no idea what that day meant when it started. I was living in the Washington, DC/Northern Virginia area at the time. For September it was still warm and the weather seemed like it was going to be a gorgeous, sunny day, which made me feel a bit disappointed as I drove to work to spend my day indoors. I just didn't feel like going into work, almost felt like I should've called in sick, I just wasn't looking forward to another stressful day at the office.

When I got into work I did my usual routine - checked work email and voice mail, as I'm sure most of my co-workers were doing too, until one of them told us she heard that a plane crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center. Not sure how she found out, it's possible she got an instant message or call from someone, as I'm not sure it was posted yet on the AOL news page that our browsers defaulted to. We all thought it was a horrible accident, though odd since we didn't think planes were directed to fly over that area of Manhattan. Someone in the office turned on the television and while it seemed newsworthy, I don't think I was too concerned about it, at least not until I was told a second plane hit the other tower.

At that point we all knew this was no accident, but an act of terrorism and something unlike anything we've ever experienced in our lifetimes. I remember a conversation months before with a colleague, about how I couldn't imagine how people live with terrorism in other countries, like Israel, where you have to worry that something as simple as going on a bus could mean you might get blown up. I think my opinion was something along the lines of, "I'd just move" to a safer country where there isn't terrorism. Kind of ignorant on my part, considering I did in fact experience terrorism in my country - in the 90's we had the Oklahoma City bombing, and the first bombing of the World Trade Center.

Instead of working, we became glued to the TV. As we were watching what was happening to the Twin Towers, we got word that a plane crashed into the Pentagon. As a native New Yorker who at the time was living in DC, all I could think to myself was, "both my hometowns are under attack now"...and of course my country, that I thought was so invincible and so safe from such horrors.

Even as it was happening I don't think we realized what a large scale event it was going to be. When the Towers fell, we assumed there had been enough time for most to get out alive. And while it was clear someone was at war with us, I remember saying aloud, "Well, means we're going to war right?", to which most of my colleagues said, "But with whom? They're terrorists, not a country". Little did we know we'd be lead into two wars as a result.

Our office only stayed open a few hours that day, shrouded in a surreal panic in what was beyond any sort of work stress I had been expecting that day. Our supervisor's husband worked at the Pentagon, and until we got word that he was okay, we were all worried sick about him. There were false rumors of a car bomb in DC as well, to which someone said, "We're being attacked by air and land now". Then when Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, we worried how many other flights may have been hijacked that could be headed to crash into perhaps the Capitol, the White House, or anywhere in our metropolitan area. As we were dismissed from work in the late morning, I kept my eyes to the sky as I was driving home.

When I got to my Alexandria apartment, I called family back home on Long Island, making sure no one had gone into the city that day, and hoping no one I knew was near the destruction. I called my DC area friends to make sure they were home safe. I took a nap after watching way too much TV all day, hoping I'd wake up to better news, but really knowing it'd be a long time before the news would be anywhere near close to normal. Even as I returned to work the next day, the AOL news page was nothing but September 11th related news stories, and continued that way for at least a week. There was no other news reported other than the September 11th attacks. It took so long for the news and everything else to feel back to normal again.

And it was all anyone talked about for days. People from back home calling to tell me who may have been in the Towers. I got word that a girl I graduated high school with worked in the World Trade Center and died along with her sister. It made me think of my own mortality, like what if I had moved to New York City like I always planned to do after college? What if I got a job there? My sister used to intern in Manhattan right by the World Trade Center not more than a year before the attacks...what if she had still been working in that area? Ever since then I'd always pondered how perhaps luck or the chance decisions we make could affect the outcome of our fate.

As the months passed, I realized how that one day changed the mentality of many in my generation. It was a big wake up call. What was going to happen to our country, our economy? Were we going to lose our jobs? Were we going to get drafted into a war? Even as I watched my Fight Club DVD with a friend, when Brad Pitt's monologue mentions, "We have no Great War, no Great Depression", my friend said, "well, that's about to change". Suddenly our comfortable Gen X slacker lives were slapped into the reality that yes, there are bigger problems in this world than our quarter life crisis angst.

The one good thing out of this lack of normalcy was everyone was so united, so nice to each other. Even roommates I didn't get along with were nice to me. Everyone forgot about the pettiness that divided us. And I feel most people in our country were as united as we ever were in my lifetime right after September 11th. Growing up people always seemed divided politically, economically, and even along lines of gender, race and religion. For months after September 11th, it seemed everyone was equal and united because we were all affected by the attack on our country. It's a fleeting feeling we all get every year when this date rolls around, as we swap stories of "where were you" when it happened. It seems though we are yet again divided, along even more lines as before September 11th even happened, and I can only hope it won't take another horrific tragedy to bring back that sense of unity again.