Open Letter to a Young Guitarist
John Philip Dimick
who lives in Oregon. This letter is posted on his website. He
gave me permission to repost it on Usenet. -jpd]
============
Recently, a talented and creative former student told me that
after high school, he planned to set his sights on a musical
career. I wrote him a letter in reply, and afterwards I thought
the letter might be useful or interesting to anyone who is
talented, creative, and contemplating a career in music. So I
saved the letter for this column. Except for a few alterations
that I have made to make the text more readable or universal, the
following is the letter I wrote to my student, whom I will refer
to as "C":
Dear C,
I think that with your talent, creativity, and passion, it's
worth giving a musical career a shot. Let me say this, though:
There are very few ways that I know of to have a musical career,
and most of them are not lucrative. You can play in bands, in
clubs, private parties, etc., you can be a studio musician, you
can teach, or work at some combination of the above. Unless
you're very fortunate, the money is slim and the hours are
erratic. Most of the musicians I know who are considered the best
and most successful live in pretty minimal conditions, and most
of them have had a tough time having any kind of family life,
partly due to their unpredictable income and schedules. OR -- you
can hit the big time -- which means being on constant tour,
continually being in the spotlight (neither of which is as
glamorous as they seem from a distance), and always having to
hustle to stay on top. None of this is conducive to a great
family life either.
I used to hate when people gave me this very same lecture, and
you've probably heard it a million times before -- but I'm
telling you this to lead up to my main point which is this:
*There is no reason to be a professional musician unless
you absolutely love what you are doing and you are able
to keep your integrity.*
In all of the circumstances I've mentioned, there will be lots of
pressures to play music you don't believe in because you need to
make a living. Everybody has to make his or her decisions about
what he/she is willing to compromise -- but I've seen too many
musicians who started out with a passion and ended up jaded,
bored, disillusioned, and cynical because they lost touch with
the reason they started playing in the first place. I've seen too
many musicians who called a gig, "going to work." If you get to
that point, in my opinion, it's not worth it. There are too many
trade-offs. You're better off having a good paying, steady job
outside of music then a bad paying, unsteady job in music that
turns you against the very thing you love. And even if you make
lots of money with music, if it stops being *your* music, and it
becomes something that you are just cranking out, then I believe
you've given away too much.
You will be tested. You will have to make lots of decisions about
what you are willing to compromise. There will be times when you
go away from a gig feeling like a whore, and the hope is that you
will decide never to do that one again. I feel very fortunate
that for thirty years, I was able to find enough fulfillment in
teaching guitar to make that my primary means of income. That
allowed me to keep my eye on the ball and keep my musical
integrity. Any music that I have put my name on has been my own
pure artistic statement, not calculated simply to please the
masses or make money. I certainly have had my share of tests -- I
have had my gigs when I went away feeling like a whore -- but
they were all learning experiences, and over the years as I've
come to know myself better, I've been able to refine what I
produce musically, and I come closer and closer to the truth.
I say all this to you because you are more than a musician. You
are a *creative musician.* There's a big difference. I don't
think you would be happy giving up your creativity, your artistic
freedom. You know that music is much more than notes, it's a
spirit. Don't give that up. Create options for yourself so that
you are not boxed into a corner of having to make a living with
the music, even if it's making you dead inside. Also, the more
options you have, the more well-rounded a human being you become,
the more you will have to say with your music.
I hope you don't think I'm trying to discourage you. On the
contrary, I'm hoping to give you the benefit of my experience so
that if you choose to be a musician, you can walk in with your
eyes open, stay mindful of the pitfalls, and find a way to create
a life in which you are able to express your own unique
musicality, and in doing so, be able to share your self and your
gift more purely with others.
Sincerely,
Paul
Paul Chasman
pau...@teleport.com
www.guitarist.com/chasman
============
--
John Philip Dimick
j...@guitarist.com
www.guitarist.com
MondoSlug4
you've probably heard it a million times before -- but I'm
telling you this to lead up to my main point which is this:
>><< *There is no reason to be a professional musician unless
you absolutely love what you are doing and you are able
to keep your integrity.* >>
outside of music then a bad paying, unsteady job in music that
turns you against the very thing you love. And even if you make
lots of money with music, if it stops being *your* music, and it
becomes something that you are just cranking out, then I believe
you've given away too much. >>
I think you pretty much nailed it. Unfortunately it's hard to tell a 17 yr old
that. You always figure the money to support yourself will be there somehow.
I'm probably repeating myself but you start out doing it not for the money but
the"integrity" as you put it and eventually it ends up being "he/she pays the
most wins", sad as that sounds. And then doing your own gigs for none or very
little money just to get the original feeling back of why you started playing
in the first place.
Over the years I've come to have more and more respect for people that do have
"day gigs" but enjoy playing music on the side.
MondoSlug's Tunes @
http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Square/9385
Nicholas Delonas
mondo...@aol.com says...
> Over the years I've come to have more and more respect for people that do have
> "day gigs" but enjoy playing music on the side.
It was the best way to go for me.
It's a trade off, of course. I'm not as good a player as I could have
been had I been playing full time. Even so, I'm now playing *exactly*
what I want to play and I feel *zero* pressure to do anything that
doesn't please me.
That's pretty valuable.
The down side is that when I'm at work, I wish I was home writing,
playing and recording. But by the end of the day, I'm often just too
damned tired to get much done.
Oh well. You just can't win.
I feel satisfied if I get at least one musical thing done per week, such
as recording a new part on a song or something. That way I feel like I'm
making some progress at least. Toward what? I'm not sure -- a CD of my
own songs I suppose. Not sure what good that'll do, but I feel driven to
complete one anyway.
--
Nicholas Delonas
Cult V
http://www.cultv.com
Marv Jonesi
Marv Jonesi
Ron Thompson
>
> NOW you tell me! Where was your letter 35 years ago!?!?
35 years? Get real man. You were 17 BEFORE there was writing.
--
rct
The opinions above are mine and mine alone.
Ross M Stites
>In article <19990805085221...@ng-cj1.aol.com>,
>mondo...@aol.com says...
>> Over the years I've come to have more and more respect for people that do have
>> "day gigs" but enjoy playing music on the side.
>It was the best way to go for me.
Same here. My dad gave me the ole' "you've got to have a day job anyway,
so you might as well get an education and make a decent living talk" when
I was in high school. Of course, he assumed I'd loose interest in music
and become a respectable adult at some point (I'm 30 and still holding
out on the last point!:) or at least learn to play "real music".
>It's a trade off, of course. I'm not as good a player as I could have
>been had I been playing full time. Even so, I'm now playing *exactly*
>what I want to play and I feel *zero* pressure to do anything that
>doesn't please me.
You got it. I've talked to a couple of guys who've made their living
most of their lives playing music, and I really don't desire their lives.
Playing to casino crowds, lounge crowds, etc. just to put food on the
table sounds less appealling than getting up everyday to do my engineering
job.
>That's pretty valuable.
Yeah, I don't play anything that I don't want to play...though I do
wonder at times if this causes a bit of lack of drive or focus since
there's no pressure to succeed.
>The down side is that when I'm at work, I wish I was home writing,
>playing and recording. But by the end of the day, I'm often just too
>damned tired to get much done.
>Oh well. You just can't win.
Sure you do. I always think about how lucky I am to have a job that
covers all of my expenses and leaves me with enough income to aquire
excess toys, and leaves me so much free time that I can play most
nights. Plenty of people spend their entire days working to make it
to subsistance levels...
>I feel satisfied if I get at least one musical thing done per week, such
>as recording a new part on a song or something. That way I feel like I'm
>making some progress at least. Toward what? I'm not sure -- a CD of my
>own songs I suppose. Not sure what good that'll do, but I feel driven to
>complete one anyway.
I'm on the same journey. I want a CD of my own. I don't really give a
damn if it sells a single copy. I just want a representation of my
artistic output.
Ross
verkuilen john v
asked by Alex Trebek about why he wasn't a professional musician anymore:
Q. What's the difference between a professional musician and an extra
large pizza?
A. The pizza feeds a family of four.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Shadows have the saddest things to say."
--Joni Mitchell, "Sweet Sucker Dance"
Kormak
are. Some people aren't suited for much else besides music.
Musician may not be the best job in the world but it's also
not the worst. There are a lot of "Joe Jobs" or "Mac Jobs"
out there that make a being a musician, even one without
integrity, look pretty good.
Also a big thing is whether or not one can count on
any support from one's family if one embarks on a musical
career. Sometimes having a family to fall back on is more
of a blessing than having a day job to fall back on. Let's
face it, any career in the arts is a luxury. If you're living
hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't go into the arts.
But not everybody lives hand to mouth. Some people's
background is such that they can afford to be artists.
Kormak
--
Read my message board for shred/metal guitarists
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb582004
MondoSlug4 wrote ..
> << I used to hate when people gave me this very same lecture, and
> you've probably heard it a million times before -- but I'm
> telling you this to lead up to my main point which is this:
> >><< *There is no reason to be a professional musician unless
> you absolutely love what you are doing and you are able
> to keep your integrity.* >>
MondoSlug4
> << I used to hate when people gave me this very same lecture, and
> you've probably heard it a million times before -- but I'm
> telling you this to lead up to my main point which is this:
Just for the record. I didn't write the above.
Pete Kerezman
For a while in my life i hung with pro musicians, playing music was
how they made their living. It *was* their day job. To many of them
it was no different than anybody else's job, mechanic, engineer,
letter-carrier, doctor, secretary, only a job. They lived pretty
good, supported families and owned homes doing things like adding
violins to supremes records and playing in the metropolitan opera
band.
The thing is, i don't see how or where they compromised. They
seemed quite satisfied and they were very good at card games.
Texas Pete
Pete Kerezman (pete...@aol.com)
Ron Thompson
> The thing is, i don't see how or where they compromised. They
> seemed quite satisfied and they were very good at card games.
Well now thanks Pete. I thought I'd get through the day without washing the inside of my
nose with coffee.
SEFSTRAT
>any support from one's family if one embarks on a musical
>career. Sometimes having a family to fall back on is more
>of a blessing than having a day job to fall back on. Let's
>face it, any career in the arts is a luxury. If you're living
>hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't go into the arts.
>But not everybody lives hand to mouth. Some people's
>background is such that they can afford to be artists.
>
>Kormak
Eric Johnson is a great example of this...
Steve
SEFSTRAT
webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
Spencer Doidge
wrote:
>[The following letter was written by Paul Chasman, a guitarist
>who lives in Oregon. This letter is posted on his website. He
>gave me permission to repost it on Usenet. -jpd]
...
Been there, done that: Paul got it exactly right.
Teaching is a good solution for players who want a stable life. In my
youth I was taught, "Those who can't do -- teach." Nonsense. Many
teachers are fine players, and many bad players don't teach.
Spencer Doidge
---------------------------------------------------
CDs and MP3s at
http://www.mp3.com/spencer_doidge
plus downloadable arrangements and compositions
for classical and fingerpicking guitar at
http://www.teleport.com/~spencerd
---------------------------------------------------
ehemin...@my-deja.com
sefs...@aol.comnospam (SEFSTRAT) wrote:
> >Also a big thing is whether or not one can count on
> >any support from one's family if one embarks on a musical
> >career. Sometimes having a family to fall back on is more
> >of a blessing than having a day job to fall back on. Let's
> >face it, any career in the arts is a luxury. If you're living
> >hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't go into the arts.
> >But not everybody lives hand to mouth. Some people's
> >background is such that they can afford to be artists.
> >
> >Kormak
>
> Eric Johnson is a great example of this...
well, I don't know his exact story, or care even. Obviously
he didn't get rich playing on that first Christopher Cross
album back in '79 and I don't know that he did a whole lot
of studio or even live work for that matter until Ah Via Musicom
started getting airplay in '89 or so.
I used to know a well-off college kid in the early '80's. He had bought
a nice vintage gretsch. he met eric johnson once, who noticed the
guitar. johnson had seen that particular guitar in a shop and wanted to
buy it, but didn't have the cash. so, obviously he wasn't just
naturally rollin' in the dough, but I don't know what he did to
support himself basically for all those years.......
>
> Steve
> SEFSTRAT
>
> webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
The Andrews
>
> Create options for yourself so that
>you are not boxed into a corner of having to make a living with
>the music, even if it's making you dead inside. Also, the more
>options you have, the more well-rounded a human being you become,
>the more you will have to say with your music.
>
This letter was a good read. I got this lecture from my father at age 16.
Actually, it went more like "...go to college, get a real degree or get the
hell out and don't ask for money". I have managed to play music here and
there,toured some, played on three different continents, made a record once,
but very shy of a musical career. Nevertheless, I'm sure my lifestyle now
outdoes 90% of pro musicians. The game I play with myself is "who really
won?" Me with the big dollars or them with the life of music? I still
don't know the answer to that question. I have compromised, though, in
relocating to Mass. (where there's lots more going on musically) to a
slightly lesser paying job (I'm a doctor) for the priviledge of learning
more about music and jamming more. I go back and forth between totally
ditching my day job and becoming a real pro musician and selling all my
guitars and quitting altogether. The future for me lies somewhere in
between. I admire the heck out of those of you who went for it and are
making a go of the lifestyle. Okay Dad, I got my "back-up position", took
me 15 years ,now what?
Clay Moore
>
> On Wed, 04 Aug 99 16:06:21 GMT, j...@guitarist.com (John Philip Dimick)
> wrote:
>
> >who lives in Oregon. This letter is posted on his website. He
> >gave me permission to repost it on Usenet. -jpd]
> Been there, done that: Paul got it exactly right.
>
> Teaching is a good solution for players who want a stable life. In my
> youth I was taught, "Those who can't do -- teach." Nonsense. Many
> teachers are fine players, and many bad players don't teach.
>
> Spencer Doidge
I think the letter was well written and contained cogent advice.
However, I don't think there's anything about being a pro musician that
can't be said about many, many fields. My dad decided to quit pursuing
music professionally in his 20s to be the responsible parent, and
embarked on a career as an art teacher in the public schools. He was
despising it, and went back to school for an advanced degree, thinking
that the degree would increase his income, status, etc., and make his
life better. For a very short while it worked; he was teaching kids in a
gifted and talented program in a regional school system, making better
money, working shorter hours. Then, budget cuts in the arts caused the
program to shut down, and he was, as they say in the UK, made redundant.
(His job was cut.) After that he was able to get a couple of
increasingly worse teaching gigs, until he finally gave up and retired.
The morals of the story are many. One, you can have a relatively stable
job in any field, even one you like, and find that it sucks the life out
of you. Two, no matter how stable the job or the field seems, it isn't.
In my dad's case the school systems began hiring young teachers straight
out of college, because they could hire them for less and they can work
them to the bone. Many buliding contractors in the 80's went bankrupt
here in town, lots of oil people in West Texas did as well. There is no
"sure thing."
In the end, no matter what it is that end up doing in life, if you find
you don't enjoy it, do something else. We don't need any more surly,
cynical ANYTHINGS -- doctors, policemen, whatever.
--
Clay Moore --
jazz guitarist, web developer
cl...@claymoore.com
http://www.claymoore.com/
To find out where I'm performing each week, sign up on my mailing list.
Go to
http://www.listbot.com/cgi-bin/subscriber?Act=subscribe_list&list_id=claymoore
Nicholas Delonas
> In the end, no matter what it is that end up doing in life, if you find
> you don't enjoy it, do something else. We don't need any more surly,
> cynical ANYTHINGS -- doctors, policemen, whatever.
Hmmm. I know some pretty surly and cynical musicians.
I specifically decided to switch careers to make more money because I
wanted to have a big family (boy was that a dumb desire). Someone who
wants to make more money isn't going to switch from music to art. That's
like jumping out of the pan and into the fire, which makes no sense.
("Oh poop! I'm not making enough money as an artist either. I know,
I'll take up acting!")
Was going for the dough the right the decision? Well as Bob Dylan said,
a bad day is thinkin' about what might have been.
It's a trade off. I would never fault a person for choosing either path.
Life is full of tough choices and their long-term consequences (costs &
benefits).
I would advise young people to keep their pants on until they've firmly
decided which way they're going and well on their way to getting there.
There is nothing that can derail a budding career in the arts as fast and
as decisively as responsibility for a child or two.
I'm not that happy in my day job, but I knew that would be the case. I'm
compensated for it. In general, fun jobs do not pay as well as not-fun
jobs (other factors being equal).
Clay Moore
>
> In article <37AA42...@claymoore.com>, cl...@claymoore.com says...
> > In the end, no matter what it is that end up doing in life, if you find
> > you don't enjoy it, do something else. We don't need any more surly,
> > cynical ANYTHINGS -- doctors, policemen, whatever.
>
> Hmmm. I know some pretty surly and cynical musicians.
I never said anything to the contrary. If you hate being a musician then
I would advise the same thing; do something else. Find something you
like. This isn't a contest to see who can be more cynical.
>
> I specifically decided to switch careers to make more money because I
> wanted to have a big family (boy was that a dumb desire). Someone who
> wants to make more money isn't going to switch from music to art. That's
> like jumping out of the pan and into the fire, which makes no sense.
>
> ("Oh poop! I'm not making enough money as an artist either. I know,
> I'll take up acting!")
No, no. You missed the point entirely. He didn't "switch from music to
art." He switched from trying to play music professionally to being a
professional teacher in the public school systems. He was influenced to
go this route because several of his aunts were public school teachers,
and they had kept their jobs during the depression. Public school
teaching is like many other "stable" professions; you've got health
insurance, paid vacations, retirement, etc. Just because he was teaching
art didn't mean there was a lot of "art" involved.
>
> Was going for the dough the right the decision? Well as Bob Dylan said,
> a bad day is thinkin' about what might have been.
>
> It's a trade off. I would never fault a person for choosing either path.
> Life is full of tough choices and their long-term consequences (costs &
> benefits).
I'm not trying to "fault" anything; I was simply using a personal
anecdote to relate how things aren't always as cut and dried as they are
made out to be. One thing that I think is an important idea to instill
in people is that you don't have to stay married to a job or a trade
just because you thought you might have liked it when you were 18. Lots
of people successfully change careers. My wife hated corporate life, and
three years ago she made up her mind to be a professional writer. Within
a year of that decision (keeping the day gig in the meantime) she had
published her first book and had written several articles for pay. She
quit her corporate day gig two years ago, and we're doing fine. She runs
into the same BS from other writers "oh, you can't actually write for a
living; it's just too darn hard!" Hah. Of course there was a ramp up
period. She had always wanted to write, but didn't try for a long time
because of the usual fears, etc. I'm not suggesting it's easy, just that
it's feasible.
>
> I would advise young people to keep their pants on until they've firmly
> decided which way they're going and well on their way to getting there.
> There is nothing that can derail a budding career in the arts as fast and
> as decisively as responsibility for a child or two.
Hey, Frank Zappa raised a family, and so do a lot of musicians. It's not
simply one or the other.
>
> I'm not that happy in my day job, but I knew that would be the case. I'm
> compensated for it. In general, fun jobs do not pay as well as not-fun
> jobs (other factors being equal).
Yes, I suppose that's true, but then you can start to measure things in
other ways. Many, if not most kids growing up in the USA get innundated
with commercial messages from an early age, and buy into the idea that
they have to have a certain amount of "stuff" to be successful. There's
no joy in growing up in a household where you have your own room, your
own TV, $100 Nikes, video games, mountain bikes, and so on, and parents
who hate their jobs and never have time to hang out with you. Where's
that at? Is it really that important for dad to drive a $30,000 car
fifty miles a day back and forth to work, just to pay for the cable TV,
the big house, etc.? Couldn't we at least entertain the possibility that
by doing something that you love and perhaps cutting out the crap that
really isn't necessary you can get along materially just fine, and maybe
have a little time left over for things that are "supposed" to be
important? You know; reading aloud, listening to good music, taking the
dogs to the park, taking a day trip to a cool spot... Eh?
Sue Hickey
I agree with the original letter, but as well with the sentiment of
following one's dream (re: "the Beatles could have been working in a British
boatyard").
Remember, working as an artist full-time, whether in the performing arts or
the visual arts, means one CAN make a living - but it's often a subsistence
lifestyle. If you want your $100-plus Nikes (made by sweatshop workers!) and
are in mass consumerism, don't become an artist...or if you have to support
a family...a subsistence lifestyle is not the way to go.
However, why not have both if time permits? Get a non-musical day job, or
teach music in the day, and try your hand at performing in your free time?
If if works out then why not take the plunge? I feel that you can have both
- but success as a performer often involves a lot of luck!
Cheers, Sue
-**** Posted from RemarQ, http://www.remarq.com/?a ****-
Search and Read Usenet Discussions in your Browser - FREE -
Jarl Sigurd
After all if a 17 year old decides to pursue a career in
music, what's to stop him from changing his mind in a few
years, shifting gears and trying something else. It's not
like he's going to be chained to a musical career for the
rest of his life. That's the beauty of being young, you can try
something, and if it doesn't work out for you, you can try
something else.
Advice like this is often accompanied with the advice
that one should get an education. I think its often a good
idea for a young person to put off post secondary education
for a few years until they have a clearcut idea of what they
want to do in life. To often young people are pushed into
school before they've decided what they want to study towards.
They wind up taking a random assortment of aimless courses,
squander a lot of time and money without achieving anything.
Often its better for them to get out into the real world and try
to earn a living in some way and then go back to school once
they've had a proper taste of life. Embarking on a career in
music should give a young person enough of that taste of life.
Jarl Sigurd
to listen to a guitarist who has never quite figured out what
to do with his college degree in ancient languages, visit
http://geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Square/9381
Gary Watts
: Q. What's the difference between a professional musician and an extra
: large pizza?
: A. The pizza feeds a family of four.
: Jay
One of the upper level managers here at our HP site lives down the road from
me. He's a horn player ( and a fairly good one to boot). He told me the
following joke:
A son was talking to his father one day. He says to his Dad, "Dad, I want
to be a musician when I grow up".
Dad replies, " Son, you can't do both"
Gary
Gary Watts
: Also a big thing is whether or not one can count on
: any support from one's family if one embarks on a musical
: career. Sometimes having a family to fall back on is more
: face it, any career in the arts is a luxury. If you're living
: hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't go into the arts.
: But not everybody lives hand to mouth. Some people's
: background is such that they can afford to be artists.
Money and the arts are really counterpoint to each other. It's been my
experience personally that as soon as money is involved, the game changes
greatly. Not being reliant on money from your craft allows a more pure
output in some ways because you're no longer serving 2 masters.
I agree for nearly all of the original post. That said, I'm not sure that
I'd do my own musical journey much differently. I felt this incredible need
to attempt doing music in a big way and would probably have regretted not
TRYING at least. Will 17yr olds listen to 30 or 40 somethings about the
truth of life? Highly doubtful but that doesn't mean we quite trying.
The flip side is that SOME of those 17 yr olds WILL be the musicians of the
future...the future of music doesn't rest with us old farts that's for sure.
Gary
Spencer Doidge
<jarls...@geocities.com> wrote:
>I'm not sure if this is very good advice to give a 17 year old.
>After all if a 17 year old decides to pursue a career in
>music, what's to stop him from changing his mind in a few
>years, shifting gears and trying something else. It's not
>like he's going to be chained to a musical career for the
>rest of his life. That's the beauty of being young, you can try
>something, and if it doesn't work out for you, you can try
>something else.
True, but on the other side of the coin is the question: How much of
onesself to invest in a business one does not understand? Even a short
career in one's youth takes a lot of preparation. One needs to
understand that it might not pay off in all the ways one might expect.
For example, one might not realize the extent to which supply exceeds
demand.
A young musician who was special in high school or college is not so
special in the adult world of competition for gigs. It took me all the
way through my twenties to learn that the world was not going to beat
a path to my door just because I was a pretty good guitar player.
You probably can't just tell a kid all this and expect him to believe
it until he sees it for himself. It's a delicate balancing act between
neglecting altogether to give him fair warning on the one hand, and
imbuing him with pessimism and self-doubt on the other. Both can
compromise his chances for success.
Your approach seems the sound one, if you also point out the risks.
> Advice like this is often accompanied with the advice
>that one should get an education. I think its often a good
>idea for a young person to put off post secondary education
>for a few years until they have a clearcut idea of what they
>want to do in life. To often young people are pushed into
>school before they've decided what they want to study towards.
>They wind up taking a random assortment of aimless courses,
>squander a lot of time and money without achieving anything.
Sadly, this is probably true the majority of the time.
>Often its better for them to get out into the real world and try
>to earn a living in some way and then go back to school once
>they've had a proper taste of life.
Somebody give this man a cookie. He's right.
>Embarking on a career in
>music should give a young person enough of that taste of life.
This sounds workable as long as the person understands the risks and
doesn't stay too long in the biz for the wrong reasons.
>
>to listen to a guitarist who has never quite figured out what
>to do with his college degree in ancient languages, visit
>http://geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Square/9381
Spencer Doidge
Don & Nan Mitchell
because that's the element of this letter that particularly annoyed me.
Everything stated about the financial conditions of a musician's life seem
self-evident to probably everyone except a seventeen year old. And anyone
who manages to make a living--even a subsistance living--at playing
exclusively non-popular music such as jazz, classical, or folk, has my
admiration. But not because they're being true to some artistic ideal of
integrity; I admire them because they've managed to figure out how to "get
over" on the system, to give the hard high one to the status quo.
So to anyone out there who is making it, playing nothing but jazz, or
classical, or celtic fingerstyle guitar for that matter, who never does a
bar gig or a wedding or a restaurant where your just background noise, who
never does a gig that you feel is a grind, well, you've got a high-five from
me brother! Good for you! Stick it to the bastards, and more power to you!
But if you want to cop a superior attitude about it, if you somehow feel
that you are ennobled by the fact that you are not "selling out" (and as
far as I'm concerned, this smarmy, self-serving attitude is all that phrase
really means), then you can take your integrity, fold it four ways and
shove it far enough up your ass to floss your teeth with it.
I'm a foreman in a welding shop, so I don't work with tools so much anymore,
but for about 20 years I made my living sweating my guts out, eating
grinding dust, and buring holes in my body with weld splatter. I did a lot
of shitty jobs in that time, especially when I was starting out. I
considered it paying my dues. It's what being a craftsman is all about. I
respect any craftsman, but I have no use for anyone who turns his nose up at
a task and says, "that's helper work".
So, if you don't want to do bar gigs, or play pop tunes, or any other
musical jobs that are distasteful to you, then don't. Don't because you
don't want to. If you succeed, good for you.
Don
Portland, Oregon
John Sloan wrote in message <37AA85...@telusplanet.net>...
>John Philip Dimick wrote:
>>
>> [The following letter was written by Paul Chasman, a guitarist
>> who lives in Oregon. This letter is posted on his website. He
>> gave me permission to repost it on Usenet. -jpd]
>
>Thanks for posting this, John, to which I'd add this PS:
>
>Read "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand to learn more about
>artistic and individual integrity (and perhaps for some
>inspiration).
>
>John SLoan
>
Kevin OConnor
wish I would have listened to him. The last band I played in professionally
left me so bitter and scarred I almost quit for good. Just like he said in
the letter, I had to back off for awhile and remember why I was playing in
the first place. Dam good piece of advise, great letter.
John Philip Dimick
>Our original writer wrote all kinds of twaddle;
>
>>afterwards I thought
>>the letter might be useful or interesting to anyone who is
>>talented, creative, and contemplating a career in music.
>
>Well, I guess the egotism is at least consistent with the
>cross-posting of this revelatory insight.
The original author didn't post it on Usenet at all, nevermind
cross-post it. He posted the article on his own Website, where
he would rightly expect that visitors might be interested in what
he has to say on such a subject. I got his permission to post it
on Usenet, and I properly cross-posted it to three appropriate
groups.
>>You know that music is much more than notes, it's a
>>spirit.
>
>Bollocks.
Actually, I thought that was the best part of the letter.
>Music is a human language and reflects the diversity of human
>interest and experience. I've heard love, lust, death, hate,
>betrayal, joy, triumph, anger, peace, defeat, dejection,deceit
>and that's only in one opera.
>Which particular spirit did our writer have in mind, I wonder ?
The Spirit of Music, of course. You've never met it?
--
John Philip Dimick
j...@guitarist.com
www.guitarist.com
Zorro
Z____
Jarl Sigurd wrote in message ...
>I'm not sure if this is very good advice to give a 17 year old.
>After all if a 17 year old decides to pursue a career in
>music, what's to stop him from changing his mind in a few
>years, shifting gears and trying something else. It's not
>like he's going to be chained to a musical career for the
>rest of his life. That's the beauty of being young, you can try
>something, and if it doesn't work out for you, you can try
>something else.
> Advice like this is often accompanied with the advice
>that one should get an education. I think its often a good
>idea for a young person to put off post secondary education
>for a few years until they have a clearcut idea of what they
>want to do in life. To often young people are pushed into
>school before they've decided what they want to study towards.
>They wind up taking a random assortment of aimless courses,
>squander a lot of time and money without achieving anything.
>Often its better for them to get out into the real world and try
>to earn a living in some way and then go back to school once
>they've had a proper taste of life. Embarking on a career in
>music should give a young person enough of that taste of life.
>
>Jarl Sigurd
Ned Ramage
played country and western swing in bars and dance halls. Not much
money but a lot of fun. I had a brother-in-law in Nashville who was
playing with a band on the Opry. I thought I had it made.
The first lesson I learned was, in Nashville, music is serious
business. Everyone working or trying to work in music felt like every
gig could be the breakthrough. Most of the sessions I played,
primarily demo sessions, were serious affairs. I got the feeling
people were in competition with each other. Everyone was friendly but
reserved. So much for fun.
The caliber of musicianship here was astonishing. It was also obvious
that to make a really good living playing sessions you didn't have to
be just supremely talented but very patient as well. There are so
many stories about players laying down a track, thinking it wasn't
their best effort and they would fix it on the next take. The
producer says "That was perfect, thanks." The player goes away
thinking about how much he/she wishes for one more chance to do it
"right". So much for artistic standards.
Many of the jobs were with road bands. I went to a few auditions but
always was thinking I didn't want to spend my life riding around the
country on a bus and playing honky tonks. It might have been OK while
I was young but not much chance for a family or "normal" life.
I found I really enjoyed playing cocktail parties and other ambiance
gigs. We could play what we wanted and it was fun. The money was OK
but you would never be really comfortable.
So, like many others here, I made my living in the business part of
music for a while and then eventually made the move into computers.
During the late eighties/early nineties I didn't play out much at all.
Then after starting to play again and being frustrated, about 2 1/2
years ago I started taking jazz guitar lessons. The first formal
guitar lessons I ever had. After nearly thirty years of playing, I
started really learning to play the guitar.
In the not too distant future I might be willing to call myself a real
jazz guitarist but that's not the point. I get more enjoyment out of
learning and playing than I ever have before. I have a "normal" life,
a family and a job I enjoy. Even though this might not be the path
for others, it worked for me. I think if I had spent the last twenty
years as a working musician I might not enjoy music and life as much.
I consider myself very fortunate.
Ned
Al Evans
wrote:
[about his dad influencing him to become a doctor instead of a pro
musician]
> Okay Dad, I got my "back-up position", took
> me 15 years ,now what?
Now, if you can manage to get an extra couple of hours a day, you can
use it to practice instead of chasing low-paying gigs.
Now, if you get tired of the kind of music you're playing, you can just
switch to some other kind without starving.
Now, if you see and play a guitar that you just have to have, you can
simply buy it without worrying about next month's rent.
Now, if you take reasonable care of the money you make, you can look
forward to a not-too-distant day when you can "quit your day job" and
spend all your time with music, without worrying about starving.
Now you can not only afford to make music, but you can even afford to
*give it away* to people who need it.
These are only the first few advantages that come to mind, based on my
own experience and the experience of the people I'm around in Austin,
where having a good day job is an essential part of almost every
sustainable career in acoustic music.
--Al Evans--
--
Al Evans and PowerTools -- a...@powertools.com
Specializing in design and development of high-performance cross-platform
multimedia frameworks and applications for MacOS and Windows 32
Adrian Legg
Our original writer wrote all kinds of twaddle;
>afterwards I thought
>the letter might be useful or interesting to anyone who is
>talented, creative, and contemplating a career in music.
Well, I guess the egotism is at least consistent with the cross-posting
of this revelatory insight.
It might help if our original writer could expand on the subtle
difference here between having a career and going to work ? Is having a
career somehow less materialistic and more spiritual ?
>I've seen too
>many musicians who called a gig, "going to work." If you get to
>that point, in my opinion, it's not worth it.
I call it going to work, and try to work hard at what I do.
I think work is honourable, and to do less than work hard at something
that my audience is going to part with its hard-earned dosh to support
and appreciate is to at least belittle that support and appreciation.
The Oxford English Dictionary definition is "the application of mental
or physical effort to a purpose; the use of energy"
So what is it if it isn't work ? Some kind of patronising
quasi-spiritual hang with cocktails ?
>You know that music is much more than notes, it's a
>spirit.
Bollocks.
Oops...pace Wade H.M. and Civil Discourse etc., what I meant was, I
think there just might possibly be the teensiest, weensiest,
itsy-bitsiest little flaw in this idea, and I can't quite put my finger
on it yet.
Music is a human language and reflects the diversity of human interest
and experience. I've heard love, lust, death, hate, betrayal, joy,
triumph, anger, peace, defeat, dejection,deceit and that's only in one
opera.
Which particular spirit did our writer have in mind, I wonder ?
To the young guitarist:
You don't have to accept some insipid, artsy-fartsy, bourgeois vision of
what music is and what a musician should be, but if you can stomach it
and pull it off, it's clearly not a bad market,
>be able to share your self and your
>gift more purely with others.
and keep this handy for when you need an emetic after a bad Denny's.
Nick V. Flor
But we have to remember that we live in different times. With the Internet,
we have a new medium for reaching a wide audience quickly. You don't need
the power of a big corporation to help you mass produce and mass market your
music (okay, well maybe to book tours in big stadiums).
As musicians we just need to learn how to exploit this new medium.
Just my humble opinion.
- Nick
Adrian Legg
> The Spirit of Music, of course. You've never met it?
Describe it and I'll tell you.
--
Contact info: www.adrianlegg.com
or http://www.roe.ac.uk/mjpwww/legghead.htm
Luke Brouillette
The Andrews wrote in message <7od3o9$n...@news.dx.net>...
>
>
>>
>> Create options for yourself so that
>>you are not boxed into a corner of having to make a living with
>>the music, even if it's making you dead inside. Also, the more
>>options you have, the more well-rounded a human being you become,
>>the more you will have to say with your music.
>>
>This letter was a good read. I got this lecture from my father at age 16.
>Actually, it went more like
The future for me lies somewhere in
>between. I admire the heck out of those of you who went for it and are
>making a go of the lifestyle. Okay Dad, I got my "back-up position", took
>me 15 years ,now what?
Your post seemed so sad. Please allow me to comment a little. I have had
experience with "jumping the fence" so to speak to professional musician
status when I had an opportunity to teach and develop a guitar curricullum
at a State University. I spent a lot of time exploring and developing good
ways to teach college guitar and playing gigs. It was pretty darn good for
a while and I was in a good position financially to do it. I liked my jobs
a lot. Teaching was pretty fulfilling and I was also learning a hell of a
lot. It gave me the opportunity to meet other teachers and to write my own
text (which I really believe in and still use to teach my now meager student
load). I also enjoyed doing all the playing I could - I felt like it was a
good job. Another interesting aspect - I told my Dad that I actually
enjoyed being who I was more than the actual doing the work - if that makes
any sense to you. I was enjoying peing a pro musician more than the actual
playing. Wierd, or what?
Before long ( about 3 years later) a few bad twists got into the overall
picture and the plan went bad. Instead of teaching more (which was becoming
terribly frustrating) and playing less, my teaching hours were limited by
the university, which meant picking up more work (gigs) to help support my
family. Even though I enjoyed these gigs (lots of wedding receptions) in
the beginning, more and more they made me feel like a trained animal doing
routines. In the end it was just a job and it didn'y really make me feel
special anymore.
As things would happen I got an opportunity to get in on the ground
floor of a budding TV station (the first in my little home town) doing
digital video editing. I'm happy with this as I'm in a very creative
position that pays okay and is relatively stable. Another really good part
is that I get to play jazz once a week with 2 of my friends in the top local
restaurant. It really is a very nice gig tho the money is not extrordinary
I don't have to take requests (except for the occaisional "Happy Birthday"
jazzed to the max). I occassionally take on an advanced student now
charging them the unheard of fee for around here of $35 a lesson.
The point is ( I know you were wating for the point) is that the grass
is usually greener.... Your life is not your job. The important things for
me always turn out to be my family and friends. Then if I'm lucky I get to
do some fun things along the way. My family and friends are the ones that
help make that possible.
Good luck to you and yours.
Luke
Luke Brouillette
Al Evans wrote in message <070819990907229056%a...@powertools.com>...
>In article <7od3o9$n...@news.dx.net>, "The Andrews" <and...@hsnp.com>
>wrote:
>
>[about his dad influencing him to become a doctor instead of a pro
>musician]
>
>> me 15 years ,now what?
>
>use it to practice instead of chasing low-paying gigs.
>
>Now, if you get tired of the kind of music you're playing, you can just
>switch to some other kind without starving.
>
>Now, if you see and play a guitar that you just have to have, you can
>simply buy it without worrying about next month's rent.
>
>Now, if you take reasonable care of the money you make, you can look
>forward to a not-too-distant day when you can "quit your day job" and
>spend all your time with music, without worrying about starving.
>
>Now you can not only afford to make music, but you can even afford to
>*give it away* to people who need it.
>
>These are only the first few advantages that come to mind, based on my
>own experience and the experience of the people I'm around in Austin,
>where having a good day job is an essential part of almost every
>sustainable career in acoustic music.
>
> --Al Evans--
>--
>Al Evans and PowerTools -- a...@powertools.com
>Specializing in design and development of high-performance cross-platform
>multimedia frameworks and applications for MacOS and Windows 32
Excellent Al and well spoken - much better than my reply.
Luke
Jarl Sigurd
Spencer Doidge wrote
>onesself to invest in a business one does not understand? Even a short
>career in one's youth takes a lot of preparation. One needs to
>understand that it might not pay off in all the ways one might expect.
>For example, one might not realize the extent to which supply exceeds
>demand.
>
>A young musician who was special in high school or college is not so
>special in the adult world of competition for gigs. It took me all the
>way through my twenties to learn that the world was not going to beat
>a path to my door just because I was a pretty good guitar player.
>
>You probably can't just tell a kid all this and expect him to believe
>it until he sees it for himself. It's a delicate balancing act between
>neglecting altogether to give him fair warning on the one hand, and
>imbuing him with pessimism and self-doubt on the other. Both can
>compromise his chances for success.
The problem is that while one can assess a young person's talent,
one cannot predict the kind of luck that young person will encounter
in their musical careers. Some people have the good fortune of
being in the right place at the right time and landing a gig that can
sustain them throughout life, others don't. Rather than dissuading
a young person from trying a career in music, it makes far more
sense to advise them to set a time limit on how many years they
are going to put in before they try something else. At age 25,
one can still change careers fairly easily or go back to school.
Once you're in your 30's it's not so easy.
>This sounds workable as long as the person understands the risks and
>doesn't stay too long in the biz for the wrong reasons.
This, I think, is the real reason for a lot unhappy careers in music. The
problem is not that certain people shouldn't have gone into music in
the first place but that they stayed in too long, until all of their other
options were gone. Also very few people go anywhere in music after
a certain age. A young person purseing a musical career should be
made aware that if it doesn't happen for him at a certain age, it
probably never will.
Jarl Sigurd
to listen to a guitarist who gave up his rock star ambitions at
age 21 visit: http://geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Pavilion/4085
Clay Moore
> Now you can not only afford to make music, but you can even afford to
> *give it away* to people who need it.
>
> These are only the first few advantages that come to mind, based on my
> own experience and the experience of the people I'm around in Austin,
> where having a good day job is an essential part of almost every
> sustainable career in acoustic music.
>
> --Al Evans--
Sorry, Al, but almost none of this washes. Ever hear of Danny Barnes, or
Paul Glasse, or Will Taylor, or Gene Elders? These Austinites (former,
in Danny's case) seem to have done pretty well playing "acoustic" music
for a living. For that matter, what about the musicians in the Austin
Symphony?
Now, if you want to get nit-picky, most players I know doing ANY kind of
music do supplemental work besides performing, usually teaching, but
also studio engineering, writing and arranging, and so on. For me being
a musician has always meant keeping an open mind to "multiple streams of
income." I've taught lessons -- both private and classroom -- worked in
music stores, done transcriptions and transcription editing, studio
work, and played in all kinds of bands and gigs that weren't my favorite
style of music. The difference between doing things like this and doing
a full time non-music job are many. Studying to be a doctor, from what I
understand, is more than a full-time endeavor, and takes many years to
get to the point where you have that time and money you're talking about
to *give it away*. Practicing enough hours to become an exceptionally
good musician takes a similar drive and discipline, and IMO you've got
to choose one or the other. Sure, if you want to be a hobby player or
weekend warrior no problem, but putting in the long hours of practice
day in, day out is essential somewhere in the process to playing at the
level of the full-time pros. The adult students I've taught who work
regular jobs have never come close to having the same skill levels as
the best pro players I know.
BTW, in case any of you are wondering about my (recent) web developer
moniker in my sig file, I'm doing web design and online promotion work
for musicians only. I'm learning everything I can about using the Web
for selling and promoting music, both for my own promotion and for
clients, and I'm loving it. Also, I've just about sealed a deal with a
major music publisher to do a jazz guitar transcription book. Multiple
streams of income. I'm not saying my lifestyle is the way to go and
everyone should do it; what I am saying is that it's BS that you have to
have a crappy life if you choose a career in music over something else.
paul...@donet.com
>This, I think, is the real reason for a lot unhappy careers in music. The
>problem is not that certain people shouldn't have gone into music in
>the first place but that they stayed in too long, until all of their other
>options were gone. Also very few people go anywhere in music after
>a certain age. A young person purseing a musical career should be
>made aware that if it doesn't happen for him at a certain age, it
>probably never will.
Actually, it "probably never will" anyway, if you're talking about the "big
time," national exposure, widespread airplay, five- or six-figure royalty
checks, endorsement deals, etc. And even if it does, it takes almost as
much energy to stay there as it does to get there, especially in
youth-oriented markets.
Just spent a strange week in Nashville watching a band record an album.
Their previous album is on the way to a gold record, but the band's makeup
has changed, so a portion of the industry is waiting for them to crash and
burn on this one.
One fellow is well-off from a movie sound-track, and doesn't need this
album to be a success to guarantee his family's future income. One fellow is
a family man and seasoned professional who may be more interested in a steady
income than a star on his dressing room. One fellow is a veteran studio
guitarist who, as a member of a semi-legitimate "band" finally has a chance to
become a "featured performer" instead of just a name in the liner notes. One
fellow is a singer-songwriter almost in spite of himself, a guy who just loves
all kinds of music and digs the chance to actually make something approaching
a living off it for the first time in years. All are well over thirty, and
at least two are over forty.
A couple of them are playing the songwriter/producer game, trying to get
enough albums under their belt and their songs on enough of other people's
albums, so they can have alternate sources of income and maybe even something
coming in the mailbox even when they're not touring their own heads off.
Five years ago, they were in entirely different places. Five years from now,
they will probably be in entirely different places. At no stage in any of
their lives could someone have predicted exactly how their "careers" would
have developed, and there's no way of knowing how their "careers" will develop
from here. The best any of them can hope for is to make enough money in the
next few years to be able to stay "in the music business" when an album or
two down the road, the record company decides they're no longer "hitting the
demographic" or whatever.
I spent four days watching them act out what I always imagined was "MY" dream,
and thinking, "I couldn't do it." Not with a family I love, kids facing
college, increasing insurance rates (due to my age), etc. And they are
considered a successful band in their genre.
I guess that's one reason Nashville's always such a "hustlin'" town. Even the
guys who are on top today know they're only two poor albums from the streets,
so everybody has something going on the side. What I've said may apply to
gospel and country more than it does to pop, but due to heavy rotation, there
is probably no more room at the very "top" in pop than there is in those other
formats.
So, this person has a restaurant franchise, this person has a studio he rents
out, this person teaches seminars, this person has a publishing company, this
person does voiceovers and radio jingles, whatever. The point is that even a
lot of folks who have "made it" in music and who have a "music career" spend a
lot of time doing things other than songwriting, recording, and performing to
make ends meet so they can AFFORD to write, record, and perform. There are
only a handful of exceptions, about as many people who win the various
state lotteries every year.
There are a lot of 47-year olds who've been "in the music business" one way or
another for 30 years and still don't know if they have enough of a "career" to
get them to retirement age or get their kids in college.
The notion of a "career" in music is almost non-existent, unless you get hired
by the Lawrence Welk band and do that for forty years.
So trying to decide at age 17 whether a person has a music career, or at age
27, or at age 37, or at age 47 is NOT something any of us is equipped to do,
even for ourselves, unless we divine that we really are talentless wannabees.
The real question is, are you compelled to keep writing, recording, and
performing even when it looks like you'll never be able to do it for a
living? Does hardship in other areas of your life drive you to your
songwriting place? Do you live for the moments when you see a good song
really touch somebody's heart? Are you committed to continuous improvement,
such as taking lessons, learning new songs and styles, gigging out of your
comfort zone?
If so, what's the problem? Even if you are a musician, you may do
other things besides writing, recording, and playing music to make a living
from time to time. You and almost everyone else you've ever heard play a
guitar or even played on the radio.
If songwriting, playing guitar, and performing when you can isn't worth it
EVEN if you can never support yourself entirely or put your kids through
college on it, then you DON'T have a "music career," whatever that is.
Paul D. Race
BreakThrough Communications
If the expressed opinions are not those of management,
they probably should be.
MondoSlug4
Breakout dewd. Who's the band?
MondoSlug's Tunes @
http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Square/9385
Don & Nan Mitchell
with your sensible words as well. And now, since I can't seem to leave well
enough alone, here's a few more pennies added to the pot.
It's been my observation that any form of commercial artistic endeavor (that
is, art done with the intention of the artist getting paid for it, unlike
our cave illustrating progenitors) gets separated into two
classifications--not good or bad, but "true" art, and popular art. In the
painting world Picasso is lauded as a genius and Norman Rockwell is labeled
as an "illustrator". And I would argue that the distinction made in the
minds of the critics who say this is not the literal one that Picasso sold
to museums and private collectors, and Rockwell to magazines and calendars,
but rather one of popular taste in that the common man (me included)
scratches his head and curls his lip at the sight of a Picasso abstract, but
will thumb through a Rockwell calendar for a half hour of pleasure and
amusement.
Another example can be taken from fiction. Despite the fact that at the
time Melville wrote his books and stories, most of them were serialized in
the newspapers and magazines of the time, "Moby Dick" and perhaps "Billy
Budd" as well, are considered "literature" (= high art) as opposed to genre
fiction. They were certainly genre fiction at the time of their writing:
seafaring stories, adventure. Of course there have always been genre novels
blessed by the gods of literary criticism, and elevated to the status of
literature, as though they have transcended their humble origins: "The Fall
of the House of Usher", "War of the Worlds", "The Hounds of
Baskerville" -- but for the most part, suspense, or science fiction, or
murder mystery is not judged good or bad within its genre by the same rules
of literary critism that "literature" is, but merely dismissed as genre =
popular = inferior.
I have found no lack in the music world of this same sort of elitist
snobbery. Jazz is the music that pushes my emotional buttons the most, but
in the jazz guitar newsgroup I have read posts disparaging players for being
too traditional, not breaking new ground, or pandering to the tastes of the
common audience, until I was so nauseated I started killfiling certain
posters so I wouldn't be tempted to read their vituperative garbage and so,
keep by bloodpressure down. This attitude of codifying music as either
transcendant mysticism, or mercinary drudgery represents, to me, the same
type of supercilious divisiveness.
I do believe that musical performance can be spiritual, just as any
craft--bricklaying, carpentry, knitting, cooking--when done with enough
passion and excellence can transcend its practical origin to the level of
art. And those are the moments any craftsman worth his salt, and certaily
us musicians live for. But to define music as either a spiritual quasi-holy
calling unsullied by commercial considerations that will somehow fullfill a
person's life and complete his identity, or a form of cynical talent
prostitution, seems the words of the snakeoil salesman, to me. A flimflam.
Infusing it with a self-importance meant to bolster one's ego, or inflate
its market value. I want to angrily tear the curtain away and point at the
little man at the controls in the back of the wizard's great hall.
As to music as business: that's the world we live in. It's hard for me to
believe that this is news to anybody. If you can't take it, then get out.
And could you please keep the sniveling down until the door is closed?
Don
Portland,Oregon
Adrian Legg wrote in message
<1dw5rms.1wb...@p114.nas1.is5.u-net.net>...
>Don & Nan Mitchell <do...@usa.net> wrote something sensible at last.
>
>Our original writer wrote all kinds of twaddle; >
Joey Goldstein
paul...@donet.com wrote:
>
Yeah man. Well said.
"Survive to play another day" has always been my motto.
--
Regards:
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Composer/Bandleader/Teacher
Home Page: http://webhome.idirect.com/~joegold
Email: <joegold AT idirect DOT com>
Vivienne McLaughlin
> It's been my observation that any form of commercial artistic endeavor (that
> is, art done with the intention of the artist getting paid for it, unlike
> our cave illustrating progenitors) gets separated into two
> classifications--not good or bad, but "true" art, and popular art.
> In the
> painting world Picasso is lauded as a genius and Norman Rockwell is labeled
> as an "illustrator".
Picasso is a "fine artist" like modern master's Haring, Basquiat and Schnabel.
Rockwell is a "commercial artist". There is a distinct difference between the
two which separates the audiences and markets which these types of artists seek,
or are lauded by.
> And I would argue that the distinction made in the
> minds of the critics who say this is not the literal one that Picasso sold
> to museums and private collectors, and Rockwell to magazines and calendars,
> but rather one of popular taste in that the common man (me included)
> scratches his head and curls his lip at the sight of a Picasso abstract, but
> will thumb through a Rockwell calendar for a half hour of pleasure and
> amusement.
There is a clear distinction between these styles, defined by more "romantic"
notions of passion, spirit and feeling, in which Picasso clearly outweighs
Rockwell, and fine artists clearly subjugate commercial artists seeking to be
taken seriously. This is not to suggest that commercial artists can not be fine
artists, nor vice versa, but for someone with experience looking at paintings in
real life, not just from magazines or tv, one starts to notice a huge difference
between, say Picasso's Les Demoiselles de Avignon hanging in the MOMA, and a
Rockwell magazine cover illustration. Fine art paintings have a different scale
and character than magazine illustrations, or water colors done in a "folk" or
"commercial" style.
In music, the comparable difference is between Handel's Messiah and modern "pop"
music, which can not hold any ground next to it. This is not snobbery, but
simple human discrimination, developed from refined tastes. It is snobbery to
the uneducated, and the angry. Of course, anyone can listen to pop music for
hours, but one listening to the Messiah brings out deeper feelings and emotions,
and moves the very spirit which you seem to not put too much seriousness in.
> This attitude of codifying music as either
> transcendant mysticism, or mercinary drudgery represents, to me, the same
> type of supercilious divisiveness.
Pride is prominent among artists, and their community. And pride drives our
discriminatory tastes; to be demanding of others, as we are demanding, too, of
ourselves. And to some, particularly the angry, that is snobbery. To others, it
is passion.
> I do believe that musical performance can be spiritual, just as any
> craft--bricklaying, carpentry, knitting, cooking--when done with enough
> passion and excellence can transcend its practical origin to the level of
> art. And those are the moments any craftsman worth his salt, and certaily
> us musicians live for. But to define music as either a spiritual quasi-holy
> calling unsullied by commercial considerations that will somehow fullfill a
> person's life and complete his identity, or a form of cynical talent
> prostitution, seems the words of the snakeoil salesman, to me.
This sounds very contradictory. On the one hand you believe in the spiritual,
and thus "mundane transcending" quality of music, but in the same instance do
not believe this spiritual quality has the redeeming ability of salvation or
fulfills the will of the artist through the self actualization of this spirit
through the medium of musicianship.
> Infusing it with a self-importance meant to bolster one's ego, or inflate
> its market value. I want to angrily tear the curtain away and point at the
> little man at the controls in the back of the wizard's great hall.
The market value of an artist is determined, first by his pride and ego,
secondly by his talent. And luck has nothing to do with it, if you have a large,
healthy ego.
> As to music as business: that's the world we live in. It's hard for me to
> believe that this is news to anybody. If you can't take it, then get out.
> And could you please keep the sniveling down until the door is closed?
Business and spirituality are not too far apart, to anyone who knows how to
succeed in either.
V.
John Philip Dimick
Edward DeGenaro
commercially "viable" stuff. Not that it isn't but if we look at i as
'craft' instead....well, then the option for the original guy would be
to follow his career choice, and hone his craft and just throw stuff and
see what sticks. no different than a carpenter that is self employed. If
there's no work..he'll has to figure out some alternatives.
In hindsight I probably would've done anything rather than the music biz
roller coaster. BUT, truth be told...nothing, absolutely nothing was
going to stop me to make my living as a musician...back then.
Ed
nudeg...@webtv.net
http://www.geocities.com/~nudeguitars/
Nothing in music is difficult, only unfamiliar... Kenny Werner
theory at: http://members.xoom.com/Terrizar/chordsub.htm
Bob Ashley
> It's been my observation that any form of commercial artistic endeavor (that
> is, art done with the intention of the artist getting paid for it, unlike
> our cave illustrating progenitors) gets separated into two
> classifications--not good or bad, but "true" art, and popular art. In the
> painting world Picasso is lauded as a genius and Norman Rockwell is labeled
> as an "illustrator". And I would argue that the distinction made in the
> minds of the critics who say this is not the literal one that Picasso sold
> to museums and private collectors, and Rockwell to magazines and calendars,
> but rather one of popular taste in that the common man (me included)
> scratches his head and curls his lip at the sight of a Picasso abstract, but
> will thumb through a Rockwell calendar for a half hour of pleasure and
> amusement.
In a manner you sum up the whole postmodern critical project. It's been
going on for near four decades now, albeit, largely within the
claustrophobic cloisters of the university. Nowadays you'd as likely find
a Phd student developing a dissertation on Rockwell as Picasso, or
neither, but instead an unknown 'spray-paint' performance artist from New
Guinea.
>
> Another example can be taken from fiction. Despite the fact that at the
> time Melville wrote his books and stories, most of them were serialized in
> the newspapers and magazines of the time, "Moby Dick" and perhaps "Billy
> Budd" as well, are considered "literature" (= high art) as opposed to genre
> fiction. They were certainly genre fiction at the time of their writing:
> seafaring stories, adventure. Of course there have always been genre novels
> blessed by the gods of literary criticism, and elevated to the status of
> literature, as though they have transcended their humble origins: "The Fall
> of the House of Usher", "War of the Worlds", "The Hounds of
> Baskerville" -- but for the most part, suspense, or science fiction, or
> murder mystery is not judged good or bad within its genre by the same rules
> of literary critism that "literature" is, but merely dismissed as genre =
> popular = inferior.
>
Same deal in literary criticism. Any English lit prof who'd be foolish
enough to judge even a cereal box cartoon as illegitimate literature would
surely be dealt a painful sentence. Relativity is the watchword these
days. What is, or isn't art, is always a local franchise. This extends to
literary criticism where there exist as many theory hats as heads to wear
them. No one is wrong these days. Truth is relative too. Some people don't
like it at all. Me? I love it. The uncertainty all round, 'out there',
mirrors the uncertainty I experience of my own selfhood everyday. This
seems to me to be a natural state of affairs whereas the quest for truth
(modernism, logical positivism, etc.) have been exposed for the neuroses
that they are.
> I have found no lack in the music world of this same sort of elitist
> snobbery. Jazz is the music that pushes my emotional buttons the most, but
> in the jazz guitar newsgroup I have read posts disparaging players for being
> too traditional, not breaking new ground, or pandering to the tastes of the
> common audience, until I was so nauseated I started killfiling certain
> posters so I wouldn't be tempted to read their vituperative garbage and so,
> keep by bloodpressure down. This attitude of codifying music as either
> transcendant mysticism, or mercinary drudgery represents, to me, the same
> type of supercilious divisiveness.
>
I don't know much about jazz. But maybe, like classical music culture, it
finds itself with one foot still mired in the transcendental muck of
modernism. Most of the 20th-C has monumentalized the artist, and one of
the traits of this dour person was to reject, react, replace the
'traditional', that to which you refer above. Your postmodern sensibility
should rail against this 'elitism', the recurrent charge which many
artists in the 60s brought before the priests of 'high' art. Myself, I
find it quite comical when those of modernist 'high' art sensibility waltz
into newsgroups like military braggarts, swaggering, condescending,
answering to nothing but the applause of their own ego. It is a case where
'high' art descends and 'cyberculture' ascends for cyberculture has become
too sophisticated, too 'relativistic', too inclusive, for 'high' art to
cope with. In this comical sense, irony pervades for the transcendental,
sulking, alienated modern elite artist is reduced to nothing more than a
caricature of himself (I do not say 'herself' for one of things modernism
did was to slap women around). Meanwhile pop culture rules.
Occasionally we will experience one of these histrionic modernist
monstrocities come here complete with their own parade and tickertape
self-aggrandizement. They usually 'stoop' to tell we ignorami that we
should 'respect' and bow before the altars of Segovia and the like. I
could understand this were it c1963 or earlier. They never last in
newsgroup culture since they abhor the relativistic onslaught that might
dent their essentialist armour. And the onslaught never lets up.
> I do believe that musical performance can be spiritual, just as any
> craft--bricklaying, carpentry, knitting, cooking--when done with enough
> passion and excellence can transcend its practical origin to the level of
> art.
This is a modernist credo, but you have the good sense to carefully
qualify it below.
And those are the moments any craftsman worth his salt, and certaily
> us musicians live for. But to define music as either a spiritual quasi-holy
> calling unsullied by commercial considerations that will somehow fullfill a
> person's life and complete his identity, or a form of cynical talent
> prostitution, seems the words of the snakeoil salesman, to me.
Welcome to the postmodern critique. You have begun to 'deconstruct' the
modernist project. Andy Warhol would kiss you.
Regards,
Rib
Mark
<jarls...@geocities.com> wrote:
>a certain age. A young person purseing a musical career should be
>made aware that if it doesn't happen for him at a certain age, it
>probably never will.
Ah, so I guess Bob Seger becoming famous at 36, Patti Smith making it
at 39, Joe Pass being in his 40s and 50s and doing his best work then,
and Ralph Towner taking up the guitar in his 30s, all that doesn't
count.
James M. Hahn
Luke,
Is your text still available for purchase? Thanks Jim
Willie K. Yee, MD
Adrian Legg wrote:
>
> John Philip Dimick <j...@guitarist.com> wrote:
>
> > The Spirit of Music, of course. You've never met it?
>
> Describe it and I'll tell you.
>
If you have to have it described for you, don't mess with it.
- with profound apologies to Satchmo
--
Willie Kai Yee, M.D.
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry
wy...@mhv.net
http://www1.mhv.net/~wyee/index.html
21 Tricor Ave.
New Paltz, NY 12561
(914) 255-0660
"We are the Universe trying to understand itself."
-- Minbari saying --
Peter Inglis
Should be the end of the story ..... but it wont be
; < )
Peter Inglis
Read about "The Whole Guitarist" at http://www.migman.com.au/aes
Mark wrote in message <37acf1b0...@news.msy.bellsouth.net>...
Zorro
And the answer is: "When one begins to derive a cash flow from music which
exceeds the cash flow of one's present career". If you go out and get
yourself a guitar and say : "Now I'm going to be a musician and make a
career in music", then you will probably be hanging out on the street corner
with a couple guys who went out years ago and bought a basketball and said:
"Now I'm gonna be an NBA player".
Norman Dryden
Mark wrote in message <37acf1b0...@news.msy.bellsouth.net>...
>On Sat, 7 Aug 1999 11:08:27 -0700, "Jarl Sigurd"
><jarls...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>>a certain age. A young person purseing a musical career should be
>>made aware that if it doesn't happen for him at a certain age, it
>>probably never will.
>
>Ah, so I guess Bob Seger becoming famous at 36, Patti Smith making it
>at 39, Joe Pass being in his 40s and 50s and doing his best work then,
>and Ralph Towner taking up the guitar in his 30s, all that doesn't
>count.
>
appears in the initial statement.
Norman
Bob Ashley
> Bob Ashley wrote:
> >
> > Truth is relative too. Some people don't
> > like it at all. Me? I love it. The uncertainty all round, 'out there',
> > mirrors the uncertainty I experience of my own selfhood everyday. This
> > seems to me to be a natural state of affairs whereas the quest for truth
> > (modernism, logical positivism, etc.) have been exposed for the neuroses
> > that they are.
John Sloan wrote:>
> Well, Bob, all I can say is not everyone is as certain
> about that as you are ....
Yes, certainty about uncertainty is certainly a stupid position to take
isn't it. I should have qualified my certainty with the appropriate
resignation, recognizing the face of certainty's failure.
You know where I come down on big R 'Reason'. I think it's just our latest
word for 'God', since Reason has no objective reality and exists
absolutely nowhere in the universe except in the minds of human beings.
This is the 'reasonable' view; it follows reason's own precept of doubt.
Naturally, reason must, to be reasonable, cast doubt upon itself, that is,
look to its own unkempt, that is, irrational, backyard.
As you know, this rarely happens, just the like priests who told us not to
sin while they lusted after our wives, our daughters, even our sons. But
resignation presides once again, for I realize that we cannot do with such
useful tools as Reason...or God, for very long without going bonkers.
Everything is so uncertain...I think. Is that better?
Regards,
Rib
Joey Goldstein
You guys can talk all you want but I ain't quitting!
Erik Johannesson
>appears in the initial statement.
>
>Norman
>
Wars must have started because of people reading to fast! ;)
mz
other half, like it or not.
Mark Zandveld
TzarZaltan
>
> Ah, so I guess Bob Seger becoming famous at 36, Patti Smith making it
> at 39, Joe Pass being in his 40s and 50s and doing his best work then,
> and Ralph Towner taking up the guitar in his 30s, all that doesn't
> count.
If Bob Seger, Patti Smith and Joe Pass had all left music at age
25, would civilization be any worse off?
TzarZaltan-way better guitarist than Joe Pass
http://geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Pit/3787
Don & Nan Mitchell
Vivienne McLaughlin wrote in message <37ACD2A0...@bellsouth.net>...
>Picasso is a "fine artist" like modern master's Haring, Basquiat and
Schnabel.
>Rockwell is a "commercial artist". There is a distinct difference between
the
>two which separates the audiences and markets which these types of artists
seek,
>or are lauded by.
>
"romantic"
>notions of passion, spirit and feeling, in which Picasso clearly outweighs
>Rockwell, and fine artists clearly subjugate commercial artists seeking to
be
>taken seriously. This is not to suggest that commercial artists can not be
fine
>artists, nor vice versa, but for someone with experience looking at
paintings in
>real life, not just from magazines or tv, one starts to notice a huge
difference
>between, say Picasso's Les Demoiselles de Avignon hanging in the MOMA, and
a
>Rockwell magazine cover illustration. Fine art paintings have a different
scale
>and character than magazine illustrations, or water colors done in a "folk"
or
>"commercial" style.
First of all--brrrrrr! It's gettin' a little chilly in here! (Actually,
I'm having a lot of fun with this.) Anyway, I'm not sure I understand what
you mean by subjugate. Certainly you don't mean that fine artists are
conquering or enslaving commercial artists, so you must be using that word
in metaphorical sense. Could you please elaborate?
As to being taken seriously, well, taken seriously by whom? If you're
saying that commercial artists aren't taken as seriously by the audience and
market of the the fine artists as fine artists are...well, uh...yeah.
Um, of course?
As to the different scale that fine art has to commercial art, is it
like 1 to 4? One inch = one foot? (Sorry, I'm used to reading
blueprints.) How about character? If you mean qualities or features that
distinguish one person, group, or thing from another....well, uh...yeah.
What was you point again?
These terms all seem so unspecific and subjective, and that's one of the
things I'm getting at. For many years now my thumbnail, practical
definition of art has been: celebration of life and nature. If a work of
art--a painting, a musical performance, a novel, a film--moves me somehow,
thrills me, or makes me think, I am at some level celebrating life. So,
when I look at one of the illustrations that Wyeth did for the classic
edition of "Treasure Island" with his bold use of color and light, and his
slight exagerations of perspective, well, I don't know why or how (and I
don't much care) but I am moved. I can almost smell the sea and the teak of
the deck, hear the cry of the gulls overhead and the slosh of the swells on
the bow, and in those grizzled, rag-covered
visages of pirates echo a kind of happy parody of masculine ideal. For me
it has functioned as art. When I look a Matisse, however, and no such
emotions or sensory details are evoked, when I instead find myself glancing
at my watch and wondering how much longer it's goint to be until
lunch...call me a dunce and a cretin, but I don't care who stamped it with
their seal of approval, for me, at that moment it did not function as art.
To the person standing next to me enraptured with its beauty, it's art.
Great! I'm happy for her. I would infer from your statement below that
you would consider my immaginary Matisse viewer's tastes more discriminating
and refined and my reaction to it the product of an angry, ignorant baffoon.
Okay. Whatever. Perhaps someday my tastes will be discriminating and
refined enough to appreciate Matisse, or Picasso, or
(Hallelujah!) Handel's Messiah, though I suspect there are issues of
capricious personal preference running too deeply in me to allow this. But
if I ever do, I just hope to God that I can still appreciate Wyeth
illustrations,
Jackie Chan movies, Joe Haldeman and Elmore Leonard novels, and Led
Zeppelin, James Taylor, and Diana Krall CDs.
>
>In music, the comparable difference is between Handel's Messiah and modern
"pop"
>music, which can not hold any ground next to it. This is not snobbery, but
>simple human discrimination, developed from refined tastes. It is snobbery
to
>the uneducated, and the angry. Of course, anyone can listen to pop music
for
>hours, but one listening to the Messiah brings out deeper feelings and
emotions,
>and moves the very spirit which you seem to not put too much seriousness
in.
>
>> This attitude of codifying music as either
>> transcendant mysticism, or mercinary drudgery represents, to me, the same
>> type of supercilious divisiveness.
>
>Pride is prominent among artists, and their community. And pride drives our
>discriminatory tastes; to be demanding of others, as we are demanding, too,
of
>ourselves. And to some, particularly the angry, that is snobbery. To
others, it
>is passion.
>
>> I do believe that musical performance can be spiritual, just as any
>> craft--bricklaying, carpentry, knitting, cooking--when done with enough
>> passion and excellence can transcend its practical origin to the level of
>> art. And those are the moments any craftsman worth his salt, and
certaily
>> us musicians live for. But to define music as either a spiritual
quasi-holy
>> calling unsullied by commercial considerations that will somehow fullfill
a
>> person's life and complete his identity, or a form of cynical talent
>> prostitution, seems the words of the snakeoil salesman, to me.
>
>This sounds very contradictory. On the one hand you believe in the
spiritual,
>and thus "mundane transcending" quality of music, but in the same instance
do
>not believe this spiritual quality has the redeeming ability of salvation
or
>fulfills the will of the artist through the self actualization of this
spirit
>through the medium of musicianship.
>
I'm having a little trouble with your use of gobbledy-gook jargon (self
actualization ?), but let me see if I can clarify. When I'm playing a
restaurant gig, and I'm doing a swing tune on solo guitar with a walking
base, and I see somebody eating dinner, not looking at me, maybe he's
talking to his wife, but this diner is tapping his foot to my music--I know
I'm just background noise, but I'm doing something I love to do, getting
paid a little bit for it, and evidently adding a bit to this fellow's
enjoyment of his meal. Let's say the next tune I do is a vocal. My own
preference would be a bossa, maybe "How Insensative", but I can tell from
the room that "You"ve Got a Friend" will go over better, a song I've been
doing since I was 14. But I do it, and I do it the best that I can. And I
was right, it goes over well, it goes over so well that people stop eating
and applaud. And I can dig it. I'm happy, they're happy. Maybe they're
remembering, the way I remember making out with my girlfriend as a teenager
to the song, and in a very very small way something happened and satisfied
my little, personal definition of art, maybe a microscopic drop of
spirituality was squeezed out.
Now let's shift the scene to the way I imagine something I read about
recently might have gone down. I know it's just a little thought
experiment, but see if it washes. John Williams is doing a concert today,
but he doesn't want to hang around his hotel room, or the concert hall.
He's a little jet-lagged, but antsy too, so he goes shopping. He's walking
around town, in and out of the department stores, maybe buys himself a new
pair of shoes or a belt, sees he's running short on time, but he's pretty
hungry. So he runs into Burger King, wolfs down a Whopper and fries, and
beats it on back to the concert hall just in time to change and make his
entrance on stage. And of course he's fuckin' brilliant, top of his form.
He brings tears to people's eyes. Some are in awe of his technical
perfection. Yeah, there's a contingient there who tisk, shake their heads,
and criticise that his playing is cold and unmusical, but for the most part
everyone there was very moved, and they are very happy. Lots of emotion,
lots of art, and a bucketfull of spirituality. But is his life fullfilled?
Has he been redeemed through the self actualization of spirituality through
the medium of his musicianship? Um...I don't think so. His life is
enriched, as are those of his listeners. He's happier, maybe. Making good
money at it too, I bet. It's great, but it's still just music. Why pretend
it's more than it is unless you're trying to scam somebody?
Don
Portland, OR
>V.
>
Peter Inglis
Peter Inglis
Read about "The Whole Guitarist" at http://www.migman.com.au/aes
TzarZaltan wrote in message <37ADDC...@eudoramail.com>...
<snip>>TzarZaltan-way better guitarist than Joe Pass
>http://geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Pit/3787
Jeff Rossman
>
> On Sat, 7 Aug 1999 11:08:27 -0700, "Jarl Sigurd"
> <jarls...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >a certain age. A young person purseing a musical career should be
> >made aware that if it doesn't happen for him at a certain age, it
> >probably never will.
My take on this is that as long as you can accept the living
standards that most often come with making your living solely as a
musician... then do that until the day you die.
However, the real question is how long can and should you subject
other people to supporting you, either competely or partially, while you
wait to "make it". It is not fair to spouses and/or parents to continue
to sacrifice their careers or retirement to support an "aspiring"
musician now in his/her forties or even older. I know many people
who are in such positions (on both ends) and in all cases the
supported musician is extremely selfish and self-centered and doesn't
realize the sacrifices that others make for him.
Jeff Rossman
DJMangin
>who are in such positions (on both ends) and in all cases the
>supported musician is extremely selfish and self-centered and doesn't
>realize the sacrifices that others make for him.
>
they should give them a case of "tough love" and that may show them the
light...
No Busking
...
> However, the real question is how long can and should you subject
>other people to supporting you, either competely or partially, while you
>wait to "make it".
<snippage>
> know many people
>who are in such positions (on both ends) and in all cases the
>supported musician is extremely selfish and self-centered and doesn't
>realize the sacrifices that others make for him.
Well, musicians aren't terribly unique in that regard...sounds more like an
excuse than a cause. There are lots of people who's sense of entitlement
leads them to take those who care the most for granted. A few of them are
musicians, but I know a lot that aren't...
I wonder...are your acquaintances self-centered because they're musicians,
or were they attracted to music because their attitude might be written off
as an "artists privilege"? Would the result have been the same if they'd
chosen another profession?
Cheers,
--
Michael Pugh
Don & Nan Mitchell
Bob Ashley wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Don & Nan Mitchell wrote:
>Same deal in literary criticism. Any English lit prof who'd be foolish
>enough to judge even a cereal box cartoon as illegitimate literature would
>surely be dealt a painful sentence. Relativity is the watchword these
>days. What is, or isn't art, is always a local franchise. This extends to
>literary criticism where there exist as many theory hats as heads to wear
>them. No one is wrong these days. Truth is relative too. Some people don't
>like it at all. Me? I love it. The uncertainty all round, 'out there',
>mirrors the uncertainty I experience of my own selfhood everyday. This
>seems to me to be a natural state of affairs whereas the quest for truth
>(modernism, logical positivism, etc.) have been exposed for the neuroses
>that they are.
I've tried to argue against elitism and what one of my working buddies many
years ago called "putting on the dog." It was a reaction to what I feel is
a fatuous view of what it means to be a musician. But I hope that you and
whoever else might have read these little ditties don't get the impression
that I think all this stuff is good. Just because I desire to pop the
bubble of "high" art, and beg for a measure of respect for popular art,
doesn't mean I think there's no such thing as bad art. To that notion I
quote Sturgeon's law: ninety percent of EVERYTHING is crap!
Don
Portland, OR
>Regards,
>
>Rib
>
Vicki & David Eastwood
>
> Mark wrote:
> >
> > Ah, so I guess Bob Seger becoming famous at 36, Patti Smith making it
> > at 39, Joe Pass being in his 40s and 50s and doing his best work then,
> > and Ralph Towner taking up the guitar in his 30s, all that doesn't
> > count.
>
> If Bob Seger, Patti Smith and Joe Pass had all left music at age
> 25, would civilization be any worse off?
>
How would we know?
Bob Ashley
<snip>
> years ago called "putting on the dog." It was a reaction to what I feel is
> a fatuous view of what it means to be a musician. But I hope that you and
> whoever else might have read these little ditties don't get the impression
> that I think all this stuff is good. Just because I desire to pop the
> bubble of "high" art, and beg for a measure of respect for popular art,
> doesn't mean I think there's no such thing as bad art. To that notion I
> quote Sturgeon's law: ninety percent of EVERYTHING is crap!
I like Sturgeon's law, however, in a move of self-application we'd have to
resign ourselves to accepting that, likewise, this law is probably crap
in ninety percent of it applications.
Regards,
Rib
twang
Vicki & David Eastwood wrote in message <37AF7D55...@prodigy.net>...
>TzarZaltan wrote:
>>
>> Mark wrote:
>> >
>> > Ah, so I guess Bob Seger becoming famous at 36, Patti Smith making it
>> > at 39, Joe Pass being in his 40s and 50s and doing his best work then,
>> > and Ralph Towner taking up the guitar in his 30s, all that doesn't
>> > count.
>>
>> If Bob Seger, Patti Smith and Joe Pass had all left music at age
>> 25, would civilization be any worse off?
Hell yes.
Any civilization that loses part of it's art is worse off.
What will you suggest next, that the novels of vonnegut and hemingway were
inconsequential?
Screw Grandma Moses, who needs her paintings!
Where on earth are you going with this sort of question?
Deciding who's made valuable contribution according to what criteria?
Twang!
Spencer Doidge
>one cannot predict the kind of luck that young person will encounter
>in their musical careers. Some people have the good fortune of
>being in the right place at the right time and landing a gig that can
>sustain them throughout life, others don't.
Johnny Carson once said, "The harder you work, the luckier you get."
One's chances of being in the right place at the right time increase
if one is in lots of places at lots of times. I wasn't too good at
that because I don't like to travel and change jobs a lot. The chances
get even better if one chooses wisely which places to be and when to
be there. That's the part I never figured out. I probably would have
if I had been out and about more. One thing I notice about busy
performers: they like to get out and press the flesh.
>Rather than dissuading
>a young person from trying a career in music, it makes far more
>sense to advise them to set a time limit on how many years they
>are going to put in before they try something else. At age 25,
>one can still change careers fairly easily or go back to school.
>Once you're in your 30's it's not so easy.
Oh I don't know. I got my bachelor's degree when I was 47, and it paid
off in spades. It's more a matter of how you organize your life. We
ran a home business that my wife operated while I quit working and
blasted through the program in 9 straight terms without a break. I
advise that one do at least most or all of the basic undergrad
requirements without a major at a young age, so later it will only
take two years or so to complete a degree.
>
>This, I think, is the real reason for a lot unhappy careers in music. The
>problem is not that certain people shouldn't have gone into music in
>the first place but that they stayed in too long, until all of their other
>options were gone.
Yes, that's what I observed too.
>Also very few people go anywhere in music after
>a certain age. A young person purseing a musical career should be
>made aware that if it doesn't happen for him at a certain age, it
>probably never will.
That depends on what you mean by "it." Now in my 50's, I have music
doing a lot more for me than it does for most commercially successful
performers. No amount of money can buy the benefits I'm getting out of
it now. I thank my good fortune that I was never successful!
Spencer Doidge
---------------------------------------------------
CDs and MP3s at
http://www.mp3.com/spencer_doidge
plus downloadable arrangements and compositions
for classical and fingerpicking guitar at
http://www.teleport.com/~spencerd
---------------------------------------------------
Jack Brighton
>From: paul...@donet.com
>Subject: Re: When to Quit Music as a Career!
>Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 16:06:39 UNDEFINED
>The real question is, are you compelled to keep writing, recording, and
>performing even when it looks like you'll never be able to do it for a
>living?
>Paul D. Race
>BreakThrough Communications
Very well stated. For some of us, making music is a calling, whether or not
we can pay the mortgage with it. We simply can't not play. I'm not gonna
claim that I deserve the cash and the fame that go with marketable music
stardom. But I am going to go on making music that moves me and other people,
and that resonates with something deeper. That's what called me, and I have
to answer.
Peace,
Jack Brighton
Producer, Focus 580
WILL-AM 580/NPR
University of Illinois
ja...@uiuc.edu
Watson Davis
Legg) wrote:
>John Philip Dimick <j...@guitarist.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The Spirit of Music, of course. You've never met it?
>
>Describe it and I'll tell you.
It stands... oh... about yay high. It's got a ruddy complexion and
lots of acne scars. It speaks with a lisp and its teeth are bad.
Watson
Michael L Kankiewic
One once met e fellow who said "I hate music".
I thought it was a strange statement.
MK
John Sessoms
--
John Sessoms
So MANY guitars, so little money... (SIGH!)
Note: I can barely speak for myself, so don't go gettin'
any ideas that my words represent the views of anyone else.
104#s
Never quit. I took 20 years off to raise my kids and teach
them, sing in choirs, sing in the church, learn to sight
read, listen to Miles for years and learn about silence.
When I came back...because the male musicians kept asking me
too I made a contribution to jazz in a geographic area of
the states that has not experienced much jazz. A tough job.
I didn't really see it that way until we had brought a very
hungry audience some world class jazz. Don't ever quit. But
don't think that if you don't make the big time it doesn't
count. It all counts. Keep practicing and keep playing.
Try to get paid for what you do. No free gigs. And be true
to the music. vox88
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Guitarman (Reza)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Reza Ganjavi
Email: gan...@dtc.ch
Homepage: www.dtc.ch/reza
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
104#s wrote in message <9344262...@www.remarq.com>...
jrw
Good post.
Glenn
Please do not cross post to multiple newsgroups.
Re: Open Letter to a Young Guitarist
Glenn
Jarl Sigurd,
Please quit your cross postings.
Glenn
Ross M Stites
>John Philip Dimick,
Why not? This was relevant in all of the newsgroups it was posted in.
Ross
Glenn
Then you should post it separately to each individual newsgroup. I was just
always under the assumption that cross posting is not appreciated. If you
read the charter for each individual group it will probably state this.
David Moss
Glenn <1@2.3> wrote...
Sorry, Glenn, the cross-posting irritates the hell out of me too but it
doesn't
seem to be against the rules. Here's a quote from one of the official FAQs:
>Usually, it is sufficient to post any article to a single newsgroup; the
>one that's most relevant to the subject of your article. If the article
>is really relevant to multiple newsgroups, then "cross-post" to the
>relevant newsgroups by posting the article only once with all newsgroups
>named on the "Newsgroups" header line.
>By posting a single article to all the newsgroups you wish to reach, the
>news software is able to transfer a single copy. Furthermore, users with
>"smart" newsreaders will see the article only once. Making separate
>postings of your article for each newsgroup you wish to reach tends to
>annoy readers rather than emphasize the message content as well as waste
>computational resources.
The rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz charter (now on the web at
http://www.wpi.edu/~kgh/index.html) is no help either, it doesn't
mention cross-posting. The only clause we could invoke to defend
ourselves is: "Discussion of other jazz instruments not related to
guitar OR other styles of guitar playing are not an appropriate topic."
David
Ross M Stites
>Glenn <1@2.3> wrote...
>> >Why not? This was relevant in all of the newsgroups it was posted
>in.>Ross
Glenn, I haven't gotten your response yet, so I'll just respond to
this one and address both of you...
>>
>> Then you should post it separately to each individual newsgroup. I was
>just
>> always under the assumption that cross posting is not appreciated. If you
>> read the charter for each individual group it will probably state this.
Why would that be preferable? I've been around for about 10 years on
various newsgroups and have never heard this before. It always seemed
best to post things to relevant newsgroups and crossposting is a good
idea, so long as it stays relevant. If it were totally off topic for
one of the groups I could certainly see your point, and would totally
agree. At least these are all guitar groups!:) How many times do you
see something posted across 3 or 4 totally unrelated groups?
[snip]
>The rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz charter (now on the web at
>http://www.wpi.edu/~kgh/index.html) is no help either, it doesn't
>mention cross-posting. The only clause we could invoke to defend
>ourselves is: "Discussion of other jazz instruments not related to
>guitar OR other styles of guitar playing are not an appropriate topic."
I don't really know how that applies to the discussion of making a living
(or not as the case may be) out of guitar playing.
Btw, check your newsreader. Most will let you kill specific threads, so you
could just do this and skip it all.
Ross
Daniel & Kristen
Couldn't resist,
Daniel
Daniel & Kristen
1) It adds posts to an aready busy newsgroup.
2) One of the special things about this n.g. is that it's insulated from
the inflammatory comments that often characterize other newsgroups. Cross
posting circumvents this insulation and opens us up to crap from other
n.g.s.
3) When the threads leave our subject designation they simply become a nuisance.
Please stop cross posting. RMMGA is special place on the internet and we
all have to work to keep it that way.
I'm going to an RMMGA Get Together tomorrow night. How many other n.g.s
can claim a membership so comfortable with one another that they're willing
to allow each other into their homes en masse?
Thoughtfully and with respect,
Daniel
JB
Stop whinging - AND - stop your own crossposting.
JB
John Sheehy
"David Moss" <david...@ifia.fzk.de> wrote :
>>By posting a single article to all the newsgroups you wish to reach, the
>>news software is able to transfer a single copy. Furthermore, users with
>>"smart" newsreaders will see the article only once. Making separate
>>postings of your article for each newsgroup you wish to reach tends to
>>annoy readers rather than emphasize the message content as well as waste
>>computational resources.
Yep. I hate when I have to read the same post in multiple newsgroups.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Thomas F Brown
Daniel & Kristen <DanielN...@wclynx.com> wrote:
>When there is more fruit than beer on the stage. :-)
Reminds me of a gig I played at a gay cowboy bar in LA.
Erik Johannesson
MstrCREED
living.....
BRY
John Sheehy
jsh...@mindspring.com (John S. Shinal) wrote :
> Web based news browsers waste a lot more time than any
>crossposts. You can load either 2K of text with a good newsreader, or
>a 200K graphical rendering of the same message with a Web style
>browser...which do you suppose wastes less time ?
And what about all the people who quote the entire post they are
replying to with several levels of reply, including the .sigs, and
comment on little or none of it in particular. Those are some of the
biggest hard disk and bandwidth killers of all.
John Sheehy
"Erik Johannesson" <er...@telia.com> wrote :
>You know, you actually don't have to.
>
>
>>Yep. I hate when I have to read the same post in multiple newsgroups.
I also hate when people put the reply before the quote!
Anyway, if I turn on the feature in my newsreader to find all duplicate
posts with different Message-IDs, it becomes unbearably slow.
John Sessoms
--
Norman Dryden
'whinge'.
If you wish to whiz - first know thyself
Regards
Norman
John Sessoms wrote in message <37B495E6...@nospam.pagesz.net>...
Zorro
Especially that 2Below jerkyboy.
Erik Johannesson wrote in message ...
>You know, you actually don't have to.
>
>
>>Yep. I hate when I have to read the same post in multiple newsgroups.
Lord Fjuckhead
Zorro wrote:
--
Death Metal Motherfucking Music Association -
http://listen.to/deathgrind/
Heidenlarm - http://www.evilmusic.com - Coming Soon?
Gortician - http://members.tripod.com/~cynner/gor1.htm
High-C, foole -
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/2296/high1.htm
alt.music.hardcore - http://members.tripod.com/~AMHardcore
>what the fuck r arby´s?
>
>A fast food place here. I worked there in high school and I jerked off into
a
>guy's sanwich once. He took it and never brought it back to complain, so I
am
>assuming he ate my cum.
>/\v{(..)}v/\
>-Artie Philie (Milhouse. Indecision. the Black People.)
Ian Young
which are usually a sort of tan color, and smell like sherry casks.
...at least, that's what I'm told.
Adrian Legg wrote in message
<1dw6e7n.oq...@p30.nas1.is5.u-net.net>...
>John Philip Dimick <j...@guitarist.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The Spirit of Music, of course. You've never met it?
>
>Describe it and I'll tell you.
>
>
>--
>Contact info: www.adrianlegg.com
>or http://www.roe.ac.uk/mjpwww/legghead.htm
>
>