Bucks!!
Pt
Some make their living at it while others do it for minimal or no pay.
I mentioned in a previous post that I always wanted to be a
professional performing musician.
After reading some of the messages I am glad that I did not choose
that as my profession.
I see too often that players won't even open their case unless they
are paid for it.
If they rehearse they want to be paid for rehearsing.
There is no fun left in their playing.
It's just business.
Those of us who are not professional musicians play out for the fun of
it.
We are lucky to get enough $ to cover our gas and a burger but we DO
have fun.
Is the Thrill gone for you?
Pt
Nate Najar
make money, learn something or have fun.
Nate
Joe Finn
> I mentioned in a previous post that I always wanted to be a
> professional performing musician.
> After reading some of the messages I am glad that I did not choose
> that as my profession.
You don't choose it. It chooses you.
> I see too often that players won't even open their case unless they
> are paid for it.
> If they rehearse they want to be paid for rehearsing.
> There is no fun left in their playing.
> It's just business.
Like so many other things in life this is not an either/or situation. Making
music, having fun and even collecting a few bucks here and there are all
part of the life.
> Those of us who are not professional musicians play out for the fun of
> it.
> We are lucky to get enough $ to cover our gas and a burger but we DO
> have fun.
Would what you describe be any less enjoyable if you could put a few hundred
in your pocket after the last tune?
I think musicians provide a valuable service and should be fairly
compensated for their efforts. People who perform for free devalue and
trivialize the service professional performers bring to the marketplace.
> Is the Thrill gone for you?
Not in the slightest. ......joe
--
Visit me on the web www.joefinn.net
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
KRosser414
ever, and I'm 42 and been playing since I was 6.
A lot of people like to put this very jive argument out there when they
themselves could never stand up to the same scrutiny. In other words, how much
of what you do for a living would you do if it were for nothing? How much
"love" are you putting out there, or is it all just about money?
Sure, there are a lot of jaded, bored professionals playing guitar out there
but there are a lot of jaded, bored people out there in all kinds of jobs.
When you find someone who really loves what they do it can be like a breath of
fresh air.
Ken R
www.kenrosser.com
Pete Kerezman
wrote:
>I think musicians provide a valuable service and should be fairly
>compensated for their efforts. People who perform for free devalue and
>trivialize the service professional performers bring to the marketplace.
People who perform for free are worth it, if you get my drift.
Even when I'm only playin' for sh*ts and grins I usually insist on
some dough to keep everybody honest. Genuine charitable causes
excepted.
Texas Pete
Gerry
wrote:
> Charlie Christian said he never opened the guitar case unless it was to
> make money, learn something or have fun.
What does that leave? Pawning it?
--
Invest wisely: Over the past 75 years, stocks have averaged annual gains of 2.3
percent under GOP administrations, compared with 9.5 under Democratic ones.
-- Jerry Heaster
Gerry
<pete...@aol.com> wrote:
> >I think musicians provide a valuable service and should be fairly
> >compensated for their efforts. People who perform for free devalue
> >and trivialize the service professional performers bring to the
> >marketplace.
>
> People who perform for free are worth it, if you get my drift.
I think I understand Joe's perspective but again I don't think it's
critical to have compensation involved with music, or any other art.
If somebody wants to play and they don't care about money I don't think
they should be dissed.
As I transitioned out of the business I started picking up a few very
avant-garde gigs at gallery-related arts joints. They were concerned
about how much money we wanted. We made it easy: we said, we show up
when we like, we play anything we like--usually not songs in an
traditional sense, we drink on a free tab, when we're tired we leave.
We insiste we not be paid a dime, nor quibble about the terms.
They thought that was great. So we did it for a few weeks at various
places and then lost interest.
GregD/oasysco
4ax.com:
I'm not in it for the $$, but I donot like to play for free and do like to
make as much as I can with my hobby. I like playing out, but not as much as
I like playing guitar for my own enjoyment.
Greg
pataud
> In article <3P3Zc.36$_g6.24@trnddc06>, Nate Najar <na...@natenajar.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Charlie Christian said he never opened the guitar case unless it was to
>>make money, learn something or have fun.
>
>
> What does that leave? Pawning it?
>
I would think that falls under making money ;)
Gerry
<pat...@jazzandjava.com> wrote:
Oops. I guess I didn't get the joke. Apparently he never took the
guitar out of the case, just like me, unless he was going to play it.
Joe Finn
"Pete Kerezman" <pete...@aol.com> wrote
> People who perform for free are worth it, if you get my drift.
>
> Even when I'm only playin' for sh*ts and grins I usually insist on
> some dough to keep everybody honest. Genuine charitable causes
> excepted.
>
> Texas Pete
Pete: Good point.
I sometimes like to say "you get what you pay for". .........joe
Joe Finn
>
> I think I understand Joe's perspective but again I don't think it's
> critical to have compensation involved with music, or any other art.
> If somebody wants to play and they don't care about money I don't think
> they should be dissed.
No argument here. It's always about the music, not the money. The only hitch
is that the best music seems like it comes from people who are involved in
this pursuit full time. Some of them make money but many others don't. I
respect the effort either way. ......joe
Joe Finn
"Joe Finn" <J...@JoeFinn.net> wrote in message
news:41354...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> "Gerry" <222...@spam.really.sucks> wrote
> >
> > I think I understand Joe's perspective but again I don't think it's
> > critical to have compensation involved with music, or any other art.
> > If somebody wants to play and they don't care about money I don't think
> > they should be dissed.
>
> No argument here. It's always about the music, not the money. The only
hitch
> is that the best music seems like it comes from people who are involved in
> this pursuit full time. Some of them make money but many others don't. I
> respect the effort either way. ......joe
> --
> Visit me on the web www.joefinn.net
The other point is that we can't very well consign artists to starvation
either. ....joe
Steve
seems to be about 1:4, respectively. I wish it was the other way around!
I have played many freebies, but not if somebody is making a profit!
I worked hard on my craft and made sacrifices to become a commercial level
player. That needs to be recognized in some way or I will feel pretty
dissed. Money is a good way to remunerate me, I feel.
I still will pull out a guitar at the family campfire though!
Hey, it's still fun for me after 44 years of worrying that thang.
BTW, I do have a day job. No sense starving the loved ones for "my art's"
sake.
-SteveYetter-
Gerry
wrote:
> > > I think I understand Joe's perspective but again I don't think
> > > it's critical to have compensation involved with music, or any
> > > other art. If somebody wants to play and they don't care about
> > > money I don't think they should be dissed.
> >
> > No argument here. It's always about the music, not the money. The
> > only hitch is that the best music seems like it comes from people
> > who are involved in this pursuit full time. Some of them make money
> > but many others don't. I respect the effort either way.
>
> The other point is that we can't very well consign artists to starvation
> either.
Good point! I wonder who was arguing for that. Sometimes wonder how
these conversations morph.
Stan Gosnell
> The other point is that we can't very well consign artists to starvation
> either. ....joe
>
Of course we can, and do so all the time. The right-wing fringe thinks the
National Endowment for the Arts should be abolished, and may well succeed.
--
Regards,
Stan
Joe Finn
"Stan Gosnell" <fake...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95577B8E07...@204.52.135.40...
My experience with public funding is very limited. The money I earn as a
musician is just about all in the private sector I think.
No matter where the money comes from I think musicians are entitled to
reasonable compensation. Lots of us have a lifetime worth of effort on this
field.
What's fair is fair. .....joe
Paul Sanwald
>people who are involved in this pursuit full time
the best music, or the only music that you happen to hear about? I know
guys that can hang with literally anyone, have worked with the best of
the best but for their own reasons have chosen other careers. Mark
Lopeman and Andrew Adair are two great examples.
I think that you don't hear a lot about the guys that aren't full time
simply because they aren't as active in putting out cds and playing
gigs and getting their name out is not a necessity for them.
I think the whole "music chooses you" thing, at least as a career path,
really only applies to about .01% of all musicians. like, for someone
like Chris Potter or Tony Williams music was an obvious career path.
but for most people it's not really that clear cut.
--paul
Joe Finn
My experience with public funding is very limited. The money I earn as a
musician is just about all in the private sector I think.
No matter where the money comes from I think musicians are entitled to
reasonable compensation. Lots of us have a lifetime worth of effort on this
field.
What's fair is fair. .....joe
--
Gerry
wrote:
> > > The other point is that we can't very well consign artists to
> > > starvation either.
> > >
> > Of course we can, and do so all the time. The right-wing fringe
> > thinks the National Endowment for the Arts should be abolished, and
> > may well succeed.
>
> My experience with public funding is very limited. The money I earn
> as a musician is just about all in the private sector I think.
There are many artists, Bach and Beethoven among them, that might never
have been known except for the largesse of governments, churches,
royalty, individual benefactors, wealthy family members, etc.
> No matter where the money comes from I think musicians are entitled
> to reasonable compensation. Lots of us have a lifetime worth of
> effort on this field.
>
> What's fair is fair.
Clearly I agree. But since we've been discussing commerce in such a
"fair" way in these topics I should also point out that the "value of
the product" is constantly in play. "Reasonable compensation" has
changed dramatically for scriveners for copying manuscripts and writing
letters since the advent of the printing press and then the typewriter.
Since the advent of mass manufactured garments I believe that tailor's
don't have quite the careers they once did. And so forth. I assume
some can plot a diminution of the need for musicians in myriad aspects
of life since the advent of high-quality recorded music replacements.
Certainly we all agree a musician is entitled to "reasonable"
compensation, but in the never-ending jockeying for cash, management
versus labor (or "the little businessman" versus communism, if you
prefer) has long been at odds over many things "reasonable".
Pt
I am already in 2 bands and working on a jazz group project but since
I live in the sticks the bands I play with are 100 miles away.
The wedding band is close by.
They showed me some receipts and they are making good bucks plus they
are booked solid.
They are female fronted and play 80's chick music and big hair spandex
stuff.
Ugh!!
I just can't play that stuff for any amount of pay....
Well maybe...if I was paid 5 digit figures per gig.
Pt
Joe Finn
>
> the best music, or the only music that you happen to hear about? I know
> guys that can hang with literally anyone, have worked with the best of
> the best but for their own reasons have chosen other careers. Mark
> Lopeman and Andrew Adair are two great examples.
Hi Paul: I think many of us know guys like that. I know of a couple of sax
players for instance. One traveled the world, played with everybody in the
business, won polls and was nominated for a grammy award and the other one
stayed local, taught school and raised a family. They grew up together and
were good friends. As musicians they were roughly equal. The first one was
Nick Brignola. Outside of the local area the other guy's name doesn't ring
many bells. He plays as well as Nick did, too.
> I think that you don't hear a lot about the guys that aren't full time
> simply because they aren't as active in putting out cds and playing
> gigs and getting their name out is not a necessity for them.
That's my point precisely. You'll never hear a guy who doesn't get out there
and play. People who are contending with the demands of a career have that
much less time to play the music. They may never get to play those great
concerts or record that signature cd because of career demands. Putting the
music first means sacrifice.
> I think the whole "music chooses you" thing, at least as a career path,
> really only applies to about .01% of all musicians.
I'm not so sure. Most of the players I know were aware early on that music
was going to be their life. ........joe
Stan Gosnell
> My experience with public funding is very limited. The money I earn as a
> musician is just about all in the private sector I think.
>
> No matter where the money comes from I think musicians are entitled to
> reasonable compensation. Lots of us have a lifetime worth of effort on
> this field.
>
> What's fair is fair. .....joe
>
I agree with you, but I think we're in the minority. Art somehow got a bad
name during the Reagan years, and that seems to continue. It's wrong, but it
is.
--
Regards,
Stan
Don Judy
"Joe Finn" <J...@JoeFinn.net> wrote in message
news:41365...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> "Paul Sanwald" <pcsa...@gmail.com> wrote
> >
> > the best music, or the only music that you happen to hear about? I know
> > guys that can hang with literally anyone, have worked with the best of
> > the best but for their own reasons have chosen other careers. Mark
> > Lopeman and Andrew Adair are two great examples.
>
> Hi Paul: I think many of us know guys like that. I know of a couple of sax
> players for instance. One traveled the world, played with everybody in the
> business, won polls and was nominated for a grammy award and the other one
> stayed local, taught school and raised a family. They grew up together and
> were good friends. As musicians they were roughly equal. The first one was
> Nick Brignola. Outside of the local area the other guy's name doesn't ring
> many bells. He plays as well as Nick did, too.
>
>
>
> > I think that you don't hear a lot about the guys that aren't full time
> > simply because they aren't as active in putting out cds and playing
> > gigs and getting their name out is not a necessity for them.
>
> That's my point precisely. You'll never hear a guy who doesn't get out
there
> and play. People who are contending with the demands of a career have that
> much less time to play the music. They may never get to play those great
> concerts or record that signature cd because of career demands. Putting
the
> music first means sacrifice.
>
right, the guy who stayed local and had a family did the sacrificing of his
talent and maybe nature and the guy who went national global did a whole
different kind of sacrificing that involved others' lives?
dj
Don Judy
"Pt" <no...@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:62bcj01fikmom33da...@4ax.com...
So you're a would be whore that hasn't figured his rates yet? And... I don't
see anything in the description of the female fronted band that precludes
playing good music or playing music well. They can probably kick your ass on
the bandstand, love what they're doing and make good money at it.
> Pt
Greger Hoel
wrote:
>"Pt" <no...@noplace.com> wrote in message
>news:62bcj01fikmom33da...@4ax.com...
>> I just auditioned for a local wedding band.
snip
>> They are female fronted and play 80's chick music and big hair spandex
>> stuff.
>> Ugh!!
snip
>I don't see anything in the description of the female fronted band that precludes
>playing good music or playing music well.
So 80s chick music, with spandex and poodle hair, is right up your
alley, is that it?
--
_______________________________________________
Always cross a vampire, never moon a werewolf
To reach me, swap spammers get bent with softhome
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Judy
"Greger Hoel" <gre...@spammersgetbent.net> wrote in message
news:cc7ej0ho5g3869fqg...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 03:06:37 -0400, "Don Judy" <dnhj...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Pt" <no...@noplace.com> wrote in message
> >news:62bcj01fikmom33da...@4ax.com...
> >> I just auditioned for a local wedding band.
>
> snip
> >> They are female fronted and play 80's chick music and big hair spandex
> >> stuff.
> >> Ugh!!
> snip
>
> >I don't see anything in the description of the female fronted band that
precludes
> >playing good music or playing music well.
>
> So 80s chick music, with spandex and poodle hair, is right up your
> alley, is that it?
There's more factors involved in what's good to play than the perceived
setlist and he didn't even mention what they were playing really, although
if I was going to play rock and roll I wouldn't bitch about playing a bunch
of Heart. Pt rarely present things clearly, I'm tempted to say that in a
more extreme way. I could email you on that but I won't post it here.
Wedding bands play an extreme variety of music, usually tending toward what
the bride, groom, significant parents, etc want. If they work a lot they
probably do more than one type of music. Jazz players playing wedding music
will play what the play, but they aren't wedding bands per se, at least I've
never heard of a jazz only wedding band. Once again, most music isn't art,
it's craft. It's equivalent to the art or craft one sees in all these yearly
arts and craft shows. The performers playing them are very reflective of the
nature of the 'art' of performing music. You get good, you get bad, you get
country, you get swing, you get jazz, you get blues, you get rock country
pop variety bands.
This forum is about the nuts and bolts of playing jazz on guitar. If one is
thinking about compromising oneself by playing pop for money, that's not a
jazz issue. Likewise, I don't think jazz players should have pet songs they
hate. They have the nuts and bolts their to make any tune their own; if
they're good they can do that. If they're good at complaining about music,
life, etc, they will do that. I shouldn't devote this much space to this
stuff, it just seems some things have been coming up lately exposing some
attitudes I find curiously out of place. When Joe Pass was working on the
Hank Williams tunes thing with Roy Clark he sounded genuinely excited and
interested about the music and Roy Clark. He wasn't bitching about Jambalaya
or that simple country music tripe. I guess exclusion is the key to
coolness, so party on.
Gerry
<gre...@spammersgetbent.net> wrote:
> >> I just auditioned for a local wedding band.
>
> snip
> >> They are female fronted and play 80's chick music and big hair
> >> spandex stuff. Ugh!!
> snip
>
> >I don't see anything in the description of the female fronted band
> >that precludes playing good music or playing music well.
>
> So 80s chick music, with spandex and poodle hair, is right up your
> alley, is that it?
I got the impression that a "real" professional musician doesn't
quibble about content: it's putting food on the table, which is the
point. Right?
I wonder if they guy musician's have to wear spandex and poodle hair as
part of the "costume"...
Joe Finn
> You mean like Abrahamic sacrifice here, right? If I understood your story
> right, the guy who stayed local and had a family did the sacrificing of
his
> talent and maybe nature and the guy who went national global did a whole
> different kind of sacrificing that involved others' lives?
I don't know about this "Abrahamic" thing. The sacrifices a musician makes
are pretty well know though. Lots of guys spend years on the road. This
takes a toll on your personal life. There are also periods of down time when
your money gets funny. A lot of working musicians live in pretty humble
circumstances; they forgo the security of the day job for the sake of the
music. That's the sacrifice I'm referring to. ...joe
Paul Sanwald
certainty for me that music would pay the bills. that's all I meant.
--paul
Don Judy
"Paul Sanwald" <pcsa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ch7h2q$l...@odah37.prod.google.com...
> I certainly knew I was going to be a musician, but it was never a
> certainty for me that music would pay the bills. that's all I meant.
> --paul
>
work, not enough, whatever. I can play what I want at home and with friends
at jams and parties. I can make money using the craft end of the deal in a
number of different ways.I can work at other jobs if necessary, and I have,
but not a lot. The amount of money I've paid into SS is embarrassingly
small. I'm actually optimistic about the whole thing, the playing part, and
think it's a shame the way the business can tear people down personally.
Families come apart as a result. This I know personally. And I don't whine
about it and I've never seen you do it either.
dj
Don Judy
"Joe Finn" <J...@JoeFinn.net> wrote in message
> "Don Judy" <dnhj...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > You mean like Abrahamic sacrifice here, right? If I understood your
story
> > right, the guy who stayed local and had a family did the sacrificing of
> his
> > talent and maybe nature and the guy who went national global did a whole
> > different kind of sacrificing that involved others' lives?
>
>
> I don't know about this "Abrahamic" thing. The sacrifices a musician makes
> are pretty well know though. Lots of guys spend years on the road. This
> takes a toll on your personal life. There are also periods of down time
when
> your money gets funny. A lot of working musicians live in pretty humble
> circumstances; they forgo the security of the day job for the sake of the
> music. That's the sacrifice I'm referring to. ...joe
>
> --
> Visit me on the web www.joefinn.net
>
and those at home. The night life that accompanies even the local musician
is a wolf at the door. Those at home have certain niceties sacrificed. They
wind up being a part of the sacrifice. Abraham was willing to sacrifice
Isaac's very life.
And once again, I admire that you've been able to do it well.
dj
Don Judy
"Gerry" <222...@spam.really.sucks> wrote in message
news:020920040758577468%222...@spam.really.sucks...
> In article <cc7ej0ho5g3869fqg...@4ax.com>, Greger Hoel
> <gre...@spammersgetbent.net> wrote:
>
> > >> I just auditioned for a local wedding band.
> >
> > snip
> > >> They are female fronted and play 80's chick music and big hair
> > >> spandex stuff. Ugh!!
> > snip
> >
> > >I don't see anything in the description of the female fronted band
> > >that precludes playing good music or playing music well.
> >
> > So 80s chick music, with spandex and poodle hair, is right up your
> > alley, is that it?
>
> I got the impression that a "real" professional musician doesn't
> quibble about content: it's putting food on the table, which is the
> point. Right?
I haven't said real or professional once. Those are your words. You claim an
incredible ability to understand things, a wonderful command of words and
communication but... oh you finish it.
> I wonder if they guy musician's have to wear spandex and poodle hair as
> part of the "costume"...
>
Spandex? Pretty funny. I'd wear it, but who would really want to look at
that? Could be a problem and I'm in fair shape. Poodle hair? Costume. I
could have poodle hair halfway to the moon with what I have now. I dunno,
I've played pit jobs where we greased the hair, wore pegged pants. Everyone
was pretty much right there with the idea. We had a good time, lots of
smiles. But then I've done theater on the stage too, although only local
stuff. I understand that me on stage isn't me the person, it's a part I
play. We're probably not as far apart as it seems. Still, I would never
refer to anyone as jackasses and drunks as if some small portion of a night
of their life defines their being. I know I've been a drunken jackass on
occasion, it would be hypocritical.
Don
Pt
wrote:
>
>"Paul Sanwald" <pcsa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>. And I don't whine
>about it and I've never seen you do it either.
>
>dj
>
I hope you don't think I'm whinning.
For the first time in my life I have the time to do the things I want
to do.
Namely play music on stage.
I am in 2 regular gigging bands and I love every minute of it.
The only music I don't like to listen to or play is 80's chick songs.
I would love to be playing jazz full time but at least for now that
ain't going to happen.
Although I do throw in an occasional jazz tune at my gigs.
I have never been happier with my accomplishments.
I am doing what I want and I love every minute of it.
Can you say that?
Pt
thomas
> > The only hitch is that the best music seems like it comes from
> >people who are involved in this pursuit full time
>
> the best music, or the only music that you happen to hear about? I know
> guys that can hang with literally anyone, have worked with the best of
> the best but for their own reasons have chosen other careers. Mark
> Lopeman and Andrew Adair are two great examples.
Eddie Henderson is apparently a practicing psychiatrist.
There was a first rate pianist in San Francisco who was
also a psychologist or something, but I'm spacing his
name right now.
Don Judy
I wasn't referring to you Pt. I can clearly see you love to play.
dj
Joe Finn
> I certainly knew I was going to be a musician, but it was never a
> certainty for me that music would pay the bills. that's all I meant.
> --paul
I know exactly what you mean. I think I knew I would be a musician before I
knew what bills were. .......joe
--
Visit me on the web www.joefinn.net
>
Gerry
<dnhj...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Wedding bands play an extreme variety of music, usually tending
> toward what the bride, groom, significant parents, etc want. If they
> work a lot they probably do more than one type of music. Jazz players
> playing wedding music will play what the play, but they aren't
> wedding bands per se, at least I've never heard of a jazz only
> wedding band.
I'm not sure of the utility of saying a "jazz player" does or doesn't
do one thing or another. Jazz players may well have regular wedding
bands they work with and/or market.
> Once again, most music isn't art, it's craft.
Once again I don't agree in any such sweeping statements. "Most" would
indicate you know how much there is and where all of it is categorized.
I would doubt that.
> It's equivalent to the art or craft one sees in all these yearly arts
> and craft shows. The performers playing them are very reflective of
> the nature of the 'art' of performing music. You get good, you get
> bad, you get country, you get swing, you get jazz, you get blues, you
> get rock country pop variety bands.
Bro! This didactic attitude is really quite inspiring.
> This forum is about the nuts and bolts of playing jazz on guitar.
That's one thing that it's about. Another thing it's about is almost
anything else jazz guitarists consider a functional part of their
lives--like getting enough jobs to stay alive as a musician, in order
to stay alive as a jazz player.
> If one is thinking about compromising oneself by playing pop for
> money, that's not a jazz issue. Likewise, I don't think jazz players
> should have pet songs they hate.
I don't think jazz players should decide what other jazz players should
like, think, or eat for lunch.
> They have the nuts and bolts their to make any tune their own; if
> they're good they can do that. If they're good at complaining about
> music, life, etc, they will do that. I shouldn't devote this much
> space to this stuff, it just seems some things have been coming up
> lately exposing some attitudes I find curiously out of place. When
> Joe Pass was working on the Hank Williams tunes thing with Roy Clark
> he sounded genuinely excited and interested about the music and Roy
> Clark. He wasn't bitching about Jambalaya or that simple country
> music tripe. I guess exclusion is the key to coolness, so party on.
You're welcome to your opinions. It's surprising that the rest of us
are not. It's nice to know that if I don't like Jamalaya that says so
very many things about me, my maturity, that I pursue "coolness" over
something apparently better than coolness and so forth.
You seem to be carping about people who are too exclusionary in their
thinking, but in the process you sure make a lot of exclusinary
statements.
Gerry
<dnhj...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > So 80s chick music, with spandex and poodle hair, is right up
> > > your alley, is that it?
> >
> > I got the impression that a "real" professional musician doesn't
> > quibble about content: it's putting food on the table, which is the
> > point. Right?
>
> I haven't said real or professional once. Those are your words.
That was my phrase, yes. We've been talking about players that pay the
bills. That's usually considered a professional.
Kevin Van Sant
wrote in message <020920040758577468%222...@spam.really.sucks> :
>
>I got the impression that a "real" professional musician doesn't
>quibble about content: it's putting food on the table, which is the
>point. Right?
>
I definitely DO quibble about content. I won't take any gig that
would mean playing music I feel disingenuous about. Picking up my
guitar should never be less than a joy, I'd much rather sacrifice
potential income than to corrupt my enjoyement of playing music by
taking gigs that I would dread. For me that means only playing jazz
music except for the occasional theatre gig which I'll do because I've
always liked musicals. I guess I may be fortunate to be able to pay
the bills playing only jazz, but OTOH I've put a lot of time and
effort into getting myself in this position, I wouldn't be able to do
it if I hadn't made a number of choices a long time ago. One of them
was to only play music I love so that playing music would never be "a
job" even though it happens to be my profession.
I can't possibly imagine ever having a day gig, but I know I'd rather
do that than play 80's spandex big hair music... or beach music for
that matter.
_________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
jazz guitar
http://www.kevinvansant.com
to buy my CDs, hear sound clips, see videos, and get more info.
Alternate site for recent soundclips
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/kevinvansant_music.htm
Pt
wrote:
>I wasn't referring to you Pt. I can clearly see you love to play.
>
>dj
>
Guess I misunderstood you Don.
Yeah!
I do love to play.
At this time in my life it is the most important thing in my life.
Pt
Tom Lippincott
Joe Finn <J...@JoeFinn.net> wrote in message
>
> "Paul Sanwald" <pcsa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ch7h2q$l...@odah37.prod.google.com...
> > I certainly knew I was going to be a musician, but it was never a
> > certainty for me that music would pay the bills. that's all I meant.
> > --paul
>
> I know exactly what you mean. I think I knew I would be a musician before
I
> knew what bills were. .......joe
>
same for me. I think serious musicians who have day jobs tend to get a bit
bent out of shape at the suggestion that full time musicians tend to be the
best players, which is an understandable reaction. I don't know if I can
technically consider myself a full time musician since I teach now as well,
but I've at least never done anything to make a living that didn't involve
music in some way. There is a certain degree of pride I have always felt in
the fact that I make all my money from music; it's not the easiest thing in
the world to do. But at the same time, the main reason I've never even
considered doing anything else is that I'm not really good at much else, and
certainly not interested in anything else enough to spend time getting good
at it.
I'm a little envious sometimes of people like Paul or Mark Kleinhaut who are
really dedicated musicians, but don't have to worry about paying the bills
with their music, and all the issues that come with that. I've been
teaching private students, and more recently a jazz improv class and a
rhythm section workshop, at a college for about two years now, and to some
extent this seems like a good compromise for me; I "sort" of have a day job.
I make enough teaching now that if I really wanted to I could stop gigging
(though I probably wouldn't have any money left at the end of the month).
It's nice to actually feel comfortable turning down gigs that I don't really
want to do. I used to take some pretty awful gigs so that I could make the
rent at the end of the month. On the other hand, unlike some people, I
almost always felt like the worst day as a musician was still better than
the best day having a non music job. I think that's the crux of the matter;
some people can stand, or even enjoy, doing a job that doesn't involve
music; I don't think I could. But Charles Ives, Cannonball Adderly, Charles
Mingus, Tal Farlow, Wes Montgomery, and Bob Berg all didn't seem to mind.
--
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
8 string guitar audio samples at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/3/tomlippincottmusic.htm
Gerry
<kvan...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I definitely DO quibble about content. I won't take any gig that
> would mean playing music I feel disingenuous about. Picking up my
> guitar should never be less than a joy, I'd much rather sacrifice
> potential income than to corrupt my enjoyement of playing music by
> taking gigs that I would dread. For me that means only playing jazz
> music except for the occasional theatre gig which I'll do because I've
> always liked musicals. I guess I may be fortunate to be able to pay
> the bills playing only jazz, but OTOH I've put a lot of time and
> effort into getting myself in this position, I wouldn't be able to do
> it if I hadn't made a number of choices a long time ago. One of them
> was to only play music I love so that playing music would never be "a
> job" even though it happens to be my profession.
>
> I can't possibly imagine ever having a day gig, but I know I'd rather
> do that than play 80's spandex big hair music... or beach music for
> that matter.
Very very well stated indeed, Kevin.
Gerry
<tomlip...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
What a lot of great ideas you've proffered that are worthy of
discussion. Honestly.
> I think serious musicians who have day jobs tend to get a bit bent
> out of shape at the suggestion that full time musicians tend to be
> the best players, which is an understandable reaction. I don't know
> if I can technically consider myself a full time musician since I
> teach now as well, but I've at least never done anything to make a
> living that didn't involve music in some way. There is a certain
> degree of pride I have always felt in the fact that I make all my
> money from music; it's not the easiest thing in the world to do. But
> at the same time, the main reason I've never even considered doing
> anything else is that I'm not really good at much else, and certainly
> not interested in anything else enough to spend time getting good at
> it.
If circumstances provided the evidence you might well change your view.
As a wise (and prescient) player once told me, "Someday you'll have to
get a straight job. When you do--for God's sake don't get a good one,
or you'll stay." My exit from the biz: I had a ganglion cyst on my
left wrist and my doctor (none other than Dr. Gunn of Dallas Cowboy's
fame) said I should take six months off to see what would happen. I got
a temporary straight job, they loved me and rapid promotions and
remuneration. I fucked up.
> I'm a little envious sometimes of people like Paul or Mark Kleinhaut
> who are really dedicated musicians, but don't have to worry about
> paying the bills with their music, and all the issues that come with
> that. I've been teaching private students, and more recently a jazz
> improv class and a rhythm section workshop, at a college for about
> two years now, and to some extent this seems like a good compromise
> for me; I "sort" of have a day job.
It's not a "sorta" day job. I know a lot of musicians for whom this
provided an exit from professional performance and even for private
exploration. It happens. I also had some friends who exited to radio.
Close, but not close enough. I might think that teaching at a serious
level would be musically rewarding it its ways. I ponder it.
> I make enough teaching now that if I really wanted to I could stop
> gigging (though I probably wouldn't have any money left at the end of
> the month). It's nice to actually feel comfortable turning down gigs
> that I don't really want to do. I used to take some pretty awful
> gigs so that I could make the rent at the end of the month. On the
> other hand, unlike some people, I almost always felt like the worst
> day as a musician was still better than the best day having a non
> music job.
Not me. Maybe I've just played a lot of gigs in which the crux of it
all was loading, unloading, "confronting" a strip-bar crowd for the
exact kind of "boogie" they wanted, and all the rest. Sure, if I
isolated just the work, the actualy boogie, I'd agree. But all the
shleping, driving, negotiating. That stuff certainly demonstrates how
focused and dedicated a player is, but it's not musical.
Sometimes the extra-musical just dominates. That's not to say there
aren't nights in which I'd love to play the rest of my life on that one
perfect set when the ambience, weather, crowd, and music were all in
micro-second sync.
> I think that's the crux of the matter; some people can stand, or even
> enjoy, doing a job that doesn't involve music; I don't think I could.
You don't have kids? There's reward in work everywhere. It's just
particularly nice when we can *pick* it based on our skills and/or
circumstance. 150 years ago most of us would be farmers.
> But Charles Ives, Cannonball Adderly, Charles Mingus, Tal Farlow, Wes
> Montgomery, and Bob Berg all didn't seem to mind.
I'm not sure that they wouldn't have preferred a musical job--but of a
specific kind.
Pt
wrote:
>Not me. Maybe I've just played a lot of gigs in which the crux of it
>all was loading, unloading, "confronting" a strip-bar crowd for the
>exact kind of "boogie" they wanted, and all the rest. Sure, if I
>isolated just the work, the actualy boogie, I'd agree. But all the
>shleping, driving, negotiating. That stuff certainly demonstrates how
>focused and dedicated a player is, but it's not musical.
Playing music is the icing on the cake.
Too bad it takes so damm long and so much work to make the cake.
Pt
Don Judy
"Gerry" <222...@spam.really.sucks> wrote in message
> In article <EOGdnfQqlPM...@comcast.com>, Don Judy
> <dnhj...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Wedding bands play an extreme variety of music, usually tending
> > toward what the bride, groom, significant parents, etc want. If they
> > work a lot they probably do more than one type of music. Jazz players
> > playing wedding music will play what the play, but they aren't
> > wedding bands per se, at least I've never heard of a jazz only
> > wedding band.
>
> I'm not sure of the utility of saying a "jazz player" does or doesn't
> do one thing or another. Jazz players may well have regular wedding
> bands they work with and/or market.
Say what you will. Sure, a big market can support that. In this day and age,
a market can be anywhere. Planes, internet, and all that. Very inspiring.
Anybody who's good enough and desires to be up there can do it. I love to
play. I may not be good enough or ambitious enough or imaginative enough
about pursuing quality jobs. I love the music I play, and I play and have
played a varied lot.
> > Once again, most music isn't art, it's craft.
>
> Once again I don't agree in any such sweeping statements. "Most" would
> indicate you know how much there is and where all of it is categorized.
> I would doubt that.
>
The percentages say I'm right and you're just arguing. C'mon Gerry. Quit
being silly. You don't really have to be pissed either. I'm not saying
anything any different than what's being said in another thread here.We all
carry these attitudes forward from when we realize there's something in us
that makes us be musicians, before we even learn what bills are. And dues.
And schlepping bigass speakers and B3s and leslies. And hitting late nights
and being beat beyond relief. It's carried forward, along with prejudices
about tunes and types of music. I shouldn't have said juvenile. Just may
have been pissed. Just came from a rehearsal. 10 tunes in 1 hour down. 3
part harmony, arrangements, solos for all, pretty much without a hitch.
> > It's equivalent to the art or craft one sees in all these yearly arts
> > and craft shows. The performers playing them are very reflective of
> > the nature of the 'art' of performing music. You get good, you get
> > bad, you get country, you get swing, you get jazz, you get blues, you
> > get rock country pop variety bands.
>
> Bro! This didactic attitude is really quite inspiring.
Yeah, I'm learning from you.
> > This forum is about the nuts and bolts of playing jazz on guitar.
>
> That's one thing that it's about. Another thing it's about is almost
> anything else jazz guitarists consider a functional part of their
> lives--like getting enough jobs to stay alive as a musician, in order
> to stay alive as a jazz player.
>
> > If one is thinking about compromising oneself by playing pop for
> > money, that's not a jazz issue. Likewise, I don't think jazz players
> > should have pet songs they hate.
I should say I don't think it's a compromise issue either but I'm not
telling anybody that. Or I guess I am.
> I don't think jazz players should decide what other jazz players should
> like, think, or eat for lunch.
They make recommendations for sure.
> > They have the nuts and bolts their to make any tune their own; if
> > they're good they can do that. If they're good at complaining about
> > music, life, etc, they will do that. I shouldn't devote this much
> > space to this stuff, it just seems some things have been coming up
> > lately exposing some attitudes I find curiously out of place. When
> > Joe Pass was working on the Hank Williams tunes thing with Roy Clark
> > he sounded genuinely excited and interested about the music and Roy
> > Clark. He wasn't bitching about Jambalaya or that simple country
> > music tripe. I guess exclusion is the key to coolness, so party on.
>
> You're welcome to your opinions. It's surprising that the rest of us
> are not. It's nice to know that if I don't like Jamalaya that says so
> very many things about me, my maturity, that I pursue "coolness" over
> something apparently better than coolness and so forth.
It says that your opinion isn't necessarily correct. Big deal., Just a
reminder. I might do it every time, I might say, SOS and everybody
recognizes it. Maybe you don't like that. I don't hold anything to be cooler
or better than anything else. That's really what I've been saying. Then I
get someone saying yeah, but you don't think my attitude is valid. And
that's right. I don't.
> You seem to be carping about people who are too exclusionary in their
> thinking, but in the process you sure make a lot of exclusinary
> statements.
>
Yeah. How about that. I don't like that. You're probably a likable guy, your
sound clip sound fine... But I like the music. It's exclusionary attitudes
about music I don't like. As a lover of so many eclectic musics I'd think
you'd be right there. But I do understand to a point. There's some stuff I
have difficulty recognizing as music but it certainly isn't Ipanema or Satin
Doll.
Don Judy
"Kevin Van Sant" <kvan...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:294fj05gpqq9rfulg...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:58:57 -0700, Gerry <222...@spam.really.sucks>
> wrote in message <020920040758577468%222...@spam.really.sucks> :
>
>
> >
> >I got the impression that a "real" professional musician doesn't
> >quibble about content: it's putting food on the table, which is the
> >point. Right?
> >
>
> I definitely DO quibble about content. I won't take any gig that
> would mean playing music I feel disingenuous about. Picking up my
> guitar should never be less than a joy, I'd much rather sacrifice
> potential income than to corrupt my enjoyement of playing music by
> taking gigs that I would dread. For me that means only playing jazz
> music except for the occasional theatre gig which I'll do because I've
> always liked musicals. I guess I may be fortunate to be able to pay
> the bills playing only jazz, but OTOH I've put a lot of time and
> effort into getting myself in this position, I wouldn't be able to do
> it if I hadn't made a number of choices a long time ago. One of them
> was to only play music I love so that playing music would never be "a
> job" even though it happens to be my profession.
>
> I can't possibly imagine ever having a day gig, but I know I'd rather
> do that than play 80's spandex big hair music... or beach music for
> that matter.
Good points, Kevin. I'd just point out that it isn't a given that any
particular type of musical job is a compromise. It can be, it might almost
certainly be, and I think for you there would be compromise in a lot of
things if you took certain types of jobs. Enjoy life. It's short. I do.
Music saved my life early on and I love the shit out of it. So sue me.
dj
Joe Finn
"Tom Lippincott" <tomlip...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> On the other hand, unlike some people, I
> almost always felt like the worst day as a musician was still better than
> the best day having a non music job. I think that's the crux of the
matter;
> some people can stand, or even enjoy, doing a job that doesn't involve
> music; I don't think I could.
Tom, you are a man after my own heart.
> But Charles Ives, Cannonball Adderly, Charles
> Mingus, Tal Farlow, Wes Montgomery, and Bob Berg all didn't seem to mind.
They were among the handful of exceptions that prove the rule.
.......joe
P.S. Watch out for that hurricane.
Gerry
<dnhj...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Once again, most music isn't art, it's craft.
> >
> > Once again I don't agree in any such sweeping statements. "Most" would
> > indicate you know how much there is and where all of it is categorized.
> > I would doubt that.
> >
> The percentages say I'm right.
You didn't cite any percentages. And there aren't any to cite.
--
dunlop212
would be competing with working musicians. Last night I played a jazz
guitar duo show in a convalescent home. Low volume, low pressure, a
big living room with a bunch of folks who can't go out any more. Lots
of chatting between tunes about music (some of these folks were
musicians years ago). Home by 8:00, no smell of cigarette smoke, no
kissing up to club owners, no "marketing."
Pt
wrote:
Sounds like a great gig.
Ishould do that before I become a member of the audience.
I am getting older.
Just had a B day and it has me thinking.
If I live that long what will I do when I am really old?
Do they allow guitars in nursing homes?
Come to think of it I will be in there with other boomers.
Maybe we can start a band?
One never knows what the future holds.
I only hope my future includes my guitar.
Pt
Tom Lippincott
Gerry <222...@spam.really.sucks> wrote in message
> In article <4vNZc.5373$Np2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Tom Lippincott
> <tomlip...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
But
> > at the same time, the main reason I've never even considered doing
> > anything else is that I'm not really good at much else, and certainly
> > not interested in anything else enough to spend time getting good at
> > it.
>
> If circumstances provided the evidence you might well change your view.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here; you menioned 150 years ago
most of us being farmers. Of course, that's true, but things are what they
are; I can't really know what the Civil War era Tom Lippincott would do, but
in my current incarnation, even if I lost all 4 limbs I'd have to try to
find something to do that involved music. Either that or become a will work
for food guy.
I've been teaching private students, and more recently a jazz
> > improv class and a rhythm section workshop, at a college for about
> > two years now, and to some extent this seems like a good compromise
> > for me; I "sort" of have a day job.
>
> It's not a "sorta" day job. I know a lot of musicians for whom this
> provided an exit from professional performance and even for private
> exploration. It happens.
Well, I don't know anyone who has ever completely quit playing because they
got a (music) teaching gig, but I certainly know people who haved become
jaded and cynical and let their chops slack off after going the college
music school route. I'm determined to not let that happen. Part of the
reason I say "sort of" day job is that I'm not full time. Right now I'm
teaching 3 days a week and at the moment it's feeling like a little too
much.
I almost always felt like the worst
> > day as a musician was still better than the best day having a non
> > music job.
>
> Not me. Maybe I've just played a lot of gigs in which the crux of it
> all was loading, unloading, "confronting" a strip-bar crowd for the
> exact kind of "boogie" they wanted, and all the rest. Sure, if I
> isolated just the work, the actualy boogie, I'd agree. But all the
> shleping, driving, negotiating. That stuff certainly demonstrates how
> focused and dedicated a player is, but it's not musical.
>
> Sometimes the extra-musical just dominates. That's not to say there
> aren't nights in which I'd love to play the rest of my life on that one
> perfect set when the ambience, weather, crowd, and music were all in
> micro-second sync.
again, I think it's just different people have different tastes and
tolerances.
>
> > I think that's the crux of the matter; some people can stand, or even
> > enjoy, doing a job that doesn't involve music; I don't think I could.
>
> You don't have kids?
nope, nor a significant other. Part of the reason for that is what I
mention above. My feeling is that if things ever worked out with the right
person, I'd be more than happy to do whatever it takes to support a family,
but until or unless that happens, I'm staying single so that I won't feel
obligated to do that. I do think that the college teaching thing seems to
work out fairly well for a lot of people who want to have a family and still
"live the life" as Joe Finn would say. I know a lot of musicians who teach,
even full time, and maintain inspiration and energy in their music and music
career.
There's reward in work everywhere. It's just
> particularly nice when we can *pick* it based on our skills and/or
> circumstance. 150 years ago most of us would be farmers.
>
> > But Charles Ives, Cannonball Adderly, Charles Mingus, Tal Farlow, Wes
> > Montgomery, and Bob Berg all didn't seem to mind.
>
> I'm not sure that they wouldn't have preferred a musical job--but of a
> specific kind.
>
perhaps, but again, the point was just that different people have different
needs and wants. Part of why I never moved to New York is that I know I'd
probably at least at some point have to do something non-musical to make
ends meet. I know lots of people have done things like that; Mingus as I
understand it, was a mail carrier for a while, and Bob Berg drove a cab.
One time when I was going through one of my periodic "should I move to NY"
things, I got a chance to hang out with Dave Weckyl and asked him what he
would do if he were me. He said something along the lines of "I would have
moved to NY already years ago and already done whatever it took," which is
pretty much I think what he did. It made me realize I'm just not that kind
of guy.
Tom Lippincott
Joe Finn <J...@JoeFinn.net> wrote in message
> P.S. Watch out for that hurricane.
> --
> Visit me on the web www.joefinn.net--
don't have to tell me twice! so far it looks like it's going to hit a good
bit north of me. I wouldn't be suprized if I lose electricity for a while,
but I should be okay otherwise. My hurricane shutters are up so I feel like
I'm in a cave right now.
Pt
<tomlip...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>Joe Finn <J...@JoeFinn.net> wrote in message
>news:4137d...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>> P.S. Watch out for that hurricane.
>> --
>> Visit me on the web www.joefinn.net--
>
>don't have to tell me twice! so far it looks like it's going to hit a good
>bit north of me. I wouldn't be suprized if I lose electricity for a while,
>but I should be okay otherwise. My hurricane shutters are up so I feel like
>I'm in a cave right now.
Good luck
Be safe!
Pt
Gerry
Lippincott <tomlip...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > at the same time, the main reason I've never even considered
> > > doing anything else is that I'm not really good at much else, and
> > > certainly not interested in anything else enough to spend time
> > > getting good at it.
> >
> > If circumstances provided the evidence you might well change your
> > view.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here...
You said you're not really "good at much else". If by virtue of
circumstances you became "good at something else" then you might well
enjoy doing a day job related to it. Like Mom needs an operation, and
an uncle gets you on at the ad agency. Etc. Suddenly you ARE good at
something else.
> > > I've been teaching private students, and more recently a jazz >
> > > improv class and a rhythm section workshop, at a college for
> > > about two years now, and to some extent this seems like a good
> > > compromise for me; I "sort" of have a day job.
> >
> > It's not a "sorta" day job. I know a lot of musicians for whom
> > this provided an exit from professional performance and even for
> > private exploration. It happens.
>
> Well, I don't know anyone who has ever completely quit playing
> because they got a (music) teaching gig, but I certainly know people
> who haved become jaded and cynical and let their chops slack off
> after going the college music school route. I'm determined to not
> let that happen.
From what I know of you, there's not really much chance of that
happening. But everybody's commitment level is different. When you
get a music-related day job (as we're describing teaching), then you
get a few kids, and maybe even a second job, all "hobbies", even ones
that are critical to our psyches, can slip.
I know it's been done, but I'm not sure how one has a family and works
music professionally solely, without a significant other making a
pretty conspicuous pay check. "She helped me through the lean years"
was fine for me for about seven years. Then I got sick of being a 30%
mooch.
> > > I almost always felt like the worst day as a musician was still
> > > better than the best day having a non music job.
> >
> > Not me. Maybe I've just played a lot of gigs in which the crux of
> > it all was loading, unloading, "confronting" a strip-bar crowd for
> > the exact kind of "boogie" they wanted, and all the rest. Sure, if
> > I isolated just the work, the actualy boogie, I'd agree. But all
> > the shleping, driving, negotiating. That stuff certainly
> > demonstrates how focused and dedicated a player is, but it's not
> > musical.
> >
> > Sometimes the extra-musical just dominates. That's not to say
> > there aren't nights in which I'd love to play the rest of my life
> > on that one perfect set when the ambience, weather, crowd, and
> > music were all in micro-second sync.
>
> again, I think it's just different people have different tastes and
> tolerances.
Right. And then people discuss those tastes. Like we're doing now.
> > > I think that's the crux of the matter; some people can stand, or
> > > even enjoy, doing a job that doesn't involve music; I don't think
> > > I could.
> >
> > You don't have kids?
>
> nope, nor a significant other. Part of the reason for that is what I
> mention above. My feeling is that if things ever worked out with the
> right person, I'd be more than happy to do whatever it takes to
> support a family, but until or unless that happens, I'm staying
> single so that I won't feel obligated to do that.
There were a few times in my life when I had the opportunity to take a
hard left, get married, make a family, and I backed out rapidly seeing
a potential demise to my music/career. One of the reasons I haven't
pursued the domestic norm was because of music. I assume that's one of
the reasons my passion remains.
> > > But Charles Ives, Cannonball Adderly, Charles Mingus, Tal Farlow,
> > > Wes Montgomery, and Bob Berg all didn't seem to mind.
> >
> > I'm not sure that they wouldn't have preferred a musical job--but
> > of a specific kind.
>
> perhaps, but again, the point was just that different people have
> different needs and wants.
I know. I'm pointing out that we can't really KNOW what Ives' needs
and wants were--just what circumstances life provided him. There's some
inference that what life deals us is a choice. Sometimes it is, the
rest of the time it isn't.
> Part of why I never moved to New York is that I know I'd probably at
> least at some point have to do something non-musical to make ends
> meet. I know lots of people have done things like that; Mingus as I
> understand it, was a mail carrier for a while, and Bob Berg drove a
> cab.
Still both of them predominantly lived musical lives.
> One time when I was going through one of my periodic "should I move
> to NY" things, I got a chance to hang out with Dave Weckyl and asked
> him what he would do if he were me. He said something along the
> lines of "I would have moved to NY already years ago and already done
> whatever it took," which is pretty much I think what he did. It made
> me realize I'm just not that kind of guy.
It's good when one knows one's limitations in that and other regards. I
did move to NY to try my hand at that and found it formidable.
Additionally I thought it better to go to Texas for a music gig than to
carry on in NYC where it was obvious I'd have to hustle a day gig
(something I'd never really had at that point in life), or find a
nurse.
It might have demonstrated more drive to be a lifetime career as a
musician if I had gotten a day-job in NYC, than a show-band gig in
Dallas.
Joe Finn
"Tom Lippincott" <tomlip...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> I do think that the college teaching thing seems to
> work out fairly well for a lot of people who want to have a family and
still
> "live the life" as Joe Finn would say. I know a lot of musicians who
teach,
> even full time, and maintain inspiration and energy in their music and
music
> career.
Almost everybody I know teaches at least now and then. I don't really see
the instructor/player role as a conflict. I see it as helping to bring the
younger generation along. I had instructors that meant the world to me and
were very important to my development. I don't mind taking a little time
know and then to help younger players grow. ........joe
Gerry
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <4138e...@corp.newsgroups.com>, Joe Finn <J...@JoeFinn.net>
wrote:
> Almost everybody I know teaches at least now and then. I don't really
> see the instructor/player role as a conflict. I see it as helping to
> bring the younger generation along.
More; it is a noble pursuit and when good players can teach it is an
important part of the "tradition", if you will. In fact one can
almost correlate it to a obligational thing: anybody that has spent a
lifetime sifting and studying and playing and composing music should
pass something on.
> I had instructors that meant the
> world to me and were very important to my development. I don't mind
> taking a little time know and then to help younger players grow.
I haven't had a student proper in 25 years. I just realized I have to
start giving lessons. I'm not sure I can get a student that I care
for, but I guess you have to shop for students like I always recommend
shopping for teachers: keep trying till you find one you like!
That's cool, Joe. You've turned my ahead around on this one. Honestly.
Tom Lippincott
Gerry <222...@spam.really.sucks> wrote in message
> You said you're not really "good at much else". If by virtue of
> circumstances you became "good at something else" then you might well
> enjoy doing a day job related to it. Like Mom needs an operation, and
> an uncle gets you on at the ad agency. Etc. Suddenly you ARE good at
> something else.
>
sure, but I can't imagine liking it (though I've been wrong before). I
think in order to be REALLY good at something, you pretty much have to like
doing it quite a bit. I've gotten into "nurture vs. nature" arguments
around here before because I tend to think that at least a lot of the really
great musicians happen to like playing music more than most people, and thus
enjoy practicing for countless hours enough to actually do it. While I do
concede that there seem to be some people who have more of a "natural
ability" at something than most others, I think talent tends to be way
overrated.
> > Well, I don't know anyone who has ever completely quit playing
> > because they got a (music) teaching gig, but I certainly know people
> > who haved become jaded and cynical and let their chops slack off
> > after going the college music school route. I'm determined to not
> > let that happen.
>
> From what I know of you, there's not really much chance of that
> happening.
thanks for saying so; this subject is something that's been on my mind a lot
lately as my teaching schedule has gotten more busy.
But everybody's commitment level is different. When you
> get a music-related day job (as we're describing teaching), then you
> get a few kids, and maybe even a second job, all "hobbies", even ones
> that are critical to our psyches, can slip.
yeah, I can see that. As for myself, I would hope that if I ever did find
myself in that situation, I would feel like the tradeoffs were worth it.
> >
> > again, I think it's just different people have different tastes and
> > tolerances.
>
> Right. And then people discuss those tastes. Like we're doing now.
no argument there
> > perhaps, but again, the point was just that different people have
> > different needs and wants.
>
> I know. I'm pointing out that we can't really KNOW what Ives' needs
> and wants were--just what circumstances life provided him. There's some
> inference that what life deals us is a choice. Sometimes it is, the
> rest of the time it isn't.
>
that's getting into a pretty gray area. Some people would contend that
everything is a choice on some level.
> > Part of why I never moved to New York is that I know I'd probably at
> > least at some point have to do something non-musical to make ends
> > meet. I know lots of people have done things like that; Mingus as I
> > understand it, was a mail carrier for a while, and Bob Berg drove a
> > cab.
>
> Still both of them predominantly lived musical lives.
>
right; I suppose it could be argued that I am not as committed to music as
they were.
> It might have demonstrated more drive to be a lifetime career as a
> musician if I had gotten a day-job in NYC, than a show-band gig in
> Dallas.
perhaps.
Tom Lippincott
Joe Finn <J...@JoeFinn.net> wrote in message
>
> Almost everybody I know teaches at least now and then. I don't really see
> the instructor/player role as a conflict. I see it as helping to bring the
> younger generation along. I had instructors that meant the world to me and
> were very important to my development. I don't mind taking a little time
> know and then to help younger players grow. ........joe
>
> --
> Visit me on the web www.joefinn.net
I agree wholeheartedly. As much as the relative financial security of
teaching is attractive to me, the main reason I am continuing to do it is
what you state above.
Pt
<tomlip...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I
>think in order to be REALLY good at something, you pretty much have to like
>doing it quite a bit.
I spent close to 40 years doing electrical construction work.
I liked it but I liked playing music much more.
I was a REALLY good electrician but not that good of a musician.
Even though I had been playing a guitar for more years then I spent
doing electrical work.
But the times they are-a-changin'!
Pt
Gerry
Lippincott <tomlip...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > I know. I'm pointing out that we can't really KNOW what Ives' needs
> > and wants were--just what circumstances life provided him. There's some
> > inference that what life deals us is a choice. Sometimes it is, the
> > rest of the time it isn't.
>
> that's getting into a pretty gray area. Some people would contend that
> everything is a choice on some level.
Like much philosophy, all shoes are one-size-fits-all; it's just a
question of how bady they hurt when your foot has been crammed into it.
For instance: My mom needed an operation, I broke my wrist and my wife
delivered triplets and then came down with a kidney desease, so I CHOSE
to get a night job at 7-11 instead of medical school. Sure, it was a
choice. But the circumstances of life can certainly stack the deck of
choices decidedly.
I don't know why Ives lived the life he did. But to imply that if he
had loved music more he would have been a professional composer is just
invention. We don't know that. Likewise to indicate that every
musician who ever worked a day job has less resolve than those who
didn't disregards too much about the specifics of individual lives for
me.
While we all make the choices we usually base them on the *unique*
circumstances we're accorded in life. Some of them can be quite
limiting.
Holger Weber
"Tom Lippincott" <tomlip...@bellsouth.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:E_2_c.80961$0o5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
-snip-
> Well, I don't know anyone who has ever completely quit playing because
they
> got a (music) teaching gig, but I certainly know people who haved become
> jaded and cynical and let their chops slack off after going the college
> music school route. I'm determined to not let that happen. Part of the
> reason I say "sort of" day job is that I'm not full time. Right now I'm
> teaching 3 days a week and at the moment it's feeling like a little too
> much.
-snip-
> Tom Lippincott
Sometimes it's hard for us to step back and realize just how privileged we
are. Working for a few months at a meat-processing factory or similar will
take care of that ;)
Holger
Tom Lippincott
Gerry <222...@spam.really.sucks> wrote in message
> For instance: My mom needed an operation, I broke my wrist and my wife
> delivered triplets and then came down with a kidney desease, so I CHOSE
> to get a night job at 7-11 instead of medical school. Sure, it was a
> choice. But the circumstances of life can certainly stack the deck of
> choices decidedly.
>
> I don't know why Ives lived the life he did. But to imply that if he
> had loved music more he would have been a professional composer is just
> invention. We don't know that.
well, from what I've read of Ives, I think it was pretty widely known that
he made a conscious decision at one point to work as an insurance salesman
and not depend on music at all for his income, precisely so that he would
have complete artisitic freedom in his music. I can't help but wonder if
his example is a harbinger of things to come. In my more pessimistic
moments I wonder if someday it simply won't be possible to make a living as
an artist of any sort.
Likewise to indicate that every
> musician who ever worked a day job has less resolve than those who
> didn't disregards too much about the specifics of individual lives for
> me.
I certainly wasn't suggesting that; if anything I was wondering if the
opposite might be true, at least in many cases. Someone who is so dedicated
to a career as a jazz performer that they work a day job to make ends meet
while trying to get their career off the ground certainly sounds like
someone who is more dedicated to a career as a jazz performer than someone
like me, who would rather be able to play for a living right now, and
always.
At any rate, I do really think that with very few exceptions (like perhaps
getting hit by a meteorite), everything we do and that happens to us in life
is based on choices we make. I remember getting into a bit of a spat with
someone here once on a similar subject who said something along the lines of
"just wait til you have 5 kids and a wife to support." As though getting a
woman pregnant wasn't a choice; did the guy get kidnapped by aliens and have
semen extracted or something? I don't mean to sound insensitive. I know it
happens to the best of us, and there but for the grace of the nerd gods go
I.
>
> While we all make the choices we usually base them on the *unique*
> circumstances we're accorded in life. Some of them can be quite
> limiting.
>
I will definitely give you that; every situation is different and the lot in
life each of us is given makes the choices we're faced with quite different.
That makes me think of the line from the Lord of the Rings that goes
something like "that (our lot in life) is not for us to decide; all we have
to decide is what to do with the time given us."
Someone who is born with AIDS in a poverty stricken part of Africa probably
won't be worrying too much about how to balance a jazz career with a family,
and it may be a bit petty given that fact to be agonizing over such things.
But quite a few of the really driven musicians I know (who were lucky enough
to be born in the US or another wealthy country) are the type of people who
would probably do whatever it takes to make a career as a performer happen,
even if it possibly involved letting some people in their lives down in one
way or another. History is certainly rife with examples of this.
Tom Lippincott
Holger Weber <hg_weber...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:2q0dbgF...@uni-berlin.de...
You're certainly right about that. I didn't mean to sound like I was
whining. What a typical self obsessed egotistical American! (heh) I fully
realize that in the big scheme of things, I'm a pretty lucky so and so. It
helps to be reminded of that every once in a while.
Pt
<tomlip...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>Holger Weber <hg_weber...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
>news:2q0dbgF...@uni-berlin.de...
>You're certainly right about that. I didn't mean to sound like I was
>whining. What a typical self obsessed egotistical American! (heh) I fully
>realize that in the big scheme of things, I'm a pretty lucky so and so. It
>helps to be reminded of that every once in a while.
You're a young guy Tom, and you have done well.
You are one of a very few who is actually doing the things you want to
do.
I hope it continues for another 40 years.
Pt
Tom Lippincott
Pt <no...@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:4jlnj0ptmkk26j83r...@4ax.com...
thanks; I hope so too. It was really inspiring to see Les Paul still going
strong at 89 at the Guitar Congress this past summer.
Pt
<tomlip...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>thanks; I hope so too. It was really inspiring to see Les Paul still going
>strong at 89 at the Guitar Congress this past summer.
Les Paul was my first and formost guitar idol.
Pt
paul
>
> > But Charles Ives, Cannonball Adderly, Charles
> > Mingus, Tal Farlow, Wes Montgomery, and Bob Berg all didn't seem to mind.
>
>
> They were among the handful of exceptions that prove the rule.
you can add lee konitz, warne marsh, walter bishop, mccoy tyner and a
lot of other people to that list.
--paul
paul
>
> same for me. I think serious musicians who have day jobs tend to get a bit
> bent out of shape at the suggestion that full time musicians tend to be the
> best players, which is an understandable reaction.
yeah this is pretty much right, at least for me :). A lot of my
personal reaction has to do with the guys on this newsgroup. I have a
ton of respect for Dan, Mark and Jack, and all those guys have day
gigs and really seem to stay dedicated to the music. I really look up
to that and have a lot of respect for their work ethic (goes without
saying that I also have a ton of respect for fulltimers like yourself,
joe and kevin). I guess it's the semantics that bothers me. I think
that most musicians are fulltime because they're good, and they're not
necessarily good because they're fulltime. does that make sense?
--paul
Hans van Leeuwen
"Tom Lippincott" <tomlip...@bellsouth.net> schreef in bericht
news:%43%c.89591$0o5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> thanks; I hope so too. It was really inspiring to see Les Paul still
going
> strong at 89 at the Guitar Congress this past summer.
>
> --
Les already was a millionaire in 1950...;-)
H.
Mark Kleinhaut
Thanks Paul, your sentiment is appreciated. There seems to be a full range
of players, from great ones to hacks, that are either full time or part-time
and it seems that one's vocation often has little to do with anything. One
would think that one MUST be good (to some basic level of the meaning of
that word) to be a full timer, but that is hardly the case at all. Maybe
in NYC the bar is higher (though my informants tell me otherwise), but out
hear in the country some "pro" are as lame-ass as can be. Of course, most
part-timers are no better:)
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Paul Sanwald
--paul
Gerry
<pcsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > But Charles Ives, Cannonball Adderly, Charles Mingus, Tal Farlow,
> > > Wes Montgomery, and Bob Berg all didn't seem to mind.
> >
> > > They were among the handful of exceptions that prove the rule.
>
> you can add lee konitz, warne marsh, walter bishop, mccoy tyner and a
> lot of other people to that list.
Just to restate, I'm not sure that ALL of them didn't mind and greatly
("some people can stand, or even enjoy, doing a job that doesn't
involve music"). For the most part we only know they did it, not how
much they enjoyed/hated/preferred it.
Pt
From inventions?
Pt
Marc Sabatella
> > > Mingus, Tal Farlow, Wes Montgomery, and Bob Berg all didn't seem
to mind.
> >
> > They were among the handful of exceptions that prove the rule.
>
> you can add lee konitz, warne marsh, walter bishop, mccoy tyner and a
> lot of other people to that list.
Well, of course most musicians at some point in their careers did
something besides music. More relevant might be to ask which musicians
still had the day jobs when they became successful, and also which
continued to hold on to their day jobs even after achieving success in
music. Excluding "teaching" as the day job, I think you're mostly down
to Denny Zeitlin. Mingus if you count "pimping".
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Paul Sanwald
Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> Well, of course most musicians at some point in their careers did
> something besides music. More relevant might be to ask which
musicians
> still had the day jobs when they became successful
all the musicians I mentioned had day jobs after they had become
successful, with the exception of walter bishop. apparently lee konitz
took several breaks from the music industry, and from what I understand
worked as a property manager.
--paul
Max Leggett
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>> > > But Charles Ives, Cannonball Adderly, Charles
>> > > Mingus, Tal Farlow, Wes Montgomery, and Bob Berg all didn't seem
>to mind.
>> >
>> > They were among the handful of exceptions that prove the rule.
>>
>> you can add lee konitz, warne marsh, walter bishop, mccoy tyner and a
>> lot of other people to that list.
>
>Well, of course most musicians at some point in their careers did
>something besides music. More relevant might be to ask which musicians
>still had the day jobs when they became successful, and also which
>continued to hold on to their day jobs even after achieving success in
>music. Excluding "teaching" as the day job, I think you're mostly down
>to Denny Zeitlin. Mingus if you count "pimping".
Mingus? You sure? Jelly Roll, yes, but Mingus?
Jack A. Zucker
--
Experience a revolutionary way to approach the instrument.
Introducing Sheets of Sound for Guitar
"Let the music govern the way you play guitar instead of the guitar
governing the way you play music!"
Check it out at:
http://www.sheetsofsound.net
"Tom Lippincott" <tomlip...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4vNZc.5373$Np2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> Joe Finn <J...@JoeFinn.net> wrote in message
> news:41378...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> >
> > "Paul Sanwald" <pcsa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ch7h2q$l...@odah37.prod.google.com...
> > > I certainly knew I was going to be a musician, but it was never a
> > > certainty for me that music would pay the bills. that's all I meant.
> > > --paul
> >
> > I know exactly what you mean. I think I knew I would be a musician
before
> I
> > knew what bills were. .......joe
> >
>
> same for me. I think serious musicians who have day jobs tend to get a
bit
> bent out of shape at the suggestion that full time musicians tend to be
the
> best players, which is an understandable reaction. I don't know if I can
> technically consider myself a full time musician since I teach now as
well,
> but I've at least never done anything to make a living that didn't involve
> music in some way. There is a certain degree of pride I have always felt
in
> the fact that I make all my money from music; it's not the easiest thing
in
> the world to do. But at the same time, the main reason I've never even
> considered doing anything else is that I'm not really good at much else,
and
> certainly not interested in anything else enough to spend time getting
good
> at it.
>
> I'm a little envious sometimes of people like Paul or Mark Kleinhaut who
are
> really dedicated musicians, but don't have to worry about paying the bills
> with their music, and all the issues that come with that. I've been
> teaching private students, and more recently a jazz improv class and a
> rhythm section workshop, at a college for about two years now, and to some
> extent this seems like a good compromise for me; I "sort" of have a day
job.
> I make enough teaching now that if I really wanted to I could stop gigging
> (though I probably wouldn't have any money left at the end of the month).
> It's nice to actually feel comfortable turning down gigs that I don't
really
> want to do. I used to take some pretty awful gigs so that I could make
the
> rent at the end of the month. On the other hand, unlike some people, I
> almost always felt like the worst day as a musician was still better than
> the best day having a non music job. I think that's the crux of the
matter;
> some people can stand, or even enjoy, doing a job that doesn't involve
> music; I don't think I could. But Charles Ives, Cannonball Adderly,
Charles
> Mingus, Tal Farlow, Wes Montgomery, and Bob Berg all didn't seem to mind.
> --
> Tom Lippincott
> Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
> audio samples, articles, CD's at:
> http://www.tomlippincott.com
> 8 string guitar audio samples at:
> http://www.soundclick.com/bands/3/tomlippincottmusic.htm
>
> > --
> > Visit me on the web www.joefinn.net
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Hans van Leeuwen
"Pt" <no...@noplace.com> schreef in bericht
news:17lrj0phgpfp0cuha...@4ax.com...
Maybe after 1951 .He already had some solo hits in the 40's (Lover) and in
1951 the smash hit 'How high the moon' with Mary Ford.
Hans
Paul Sanwald
something outside of music?
"Wes once said, 'You know, I don't have to play.' He meant that
he wasn't going to die if he couldn't play the guitar. I learned a lot
from that statement. He had a large family and he was going to do
whatever it took to fulfill his responsibilities. Playing came so damn
easy to him. He was always just smiling and laughing like it was
nothing. He was one of those unique human beings who understands the
qualities that make good music. He didn't try to impress anyone. Even
though he practiced, he didn't have to do it 18 hours a day. I've never
seen anyone like him."
-ted dunbar
--paul
Joe Finn
"thomas" <tomb...@jhu.edu> wrote
>
> Eddie Henderson is apparently a practicing psychiatrist.
> There was a first rate pianist in San Francisco who was
> also a psychologist or something, but I'm spacing his
> name right now.
Denny Zeitlin.
http://www.jazzpolice.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=4491
great player. ........joe
Marc Sabatella
> successful, with the exception of walter bishop.
Ok, that's definitely news to me. Do you know what their jobs were,
when they held them, and if they had these jobs because they liked doing
them or because they were desperately broke and weren't getting enough
gigs and had no choice?