www.CostaRicaTicas.com

I don't know a lot of people who are passionate about Brother Prolijo's line of work whereas they most definitely are about Brother Bilko's, to the point where they will work on the Cadillac assembly line or much, much worse for 8 hours so they can display their talent and passion in a no-name dive for 4...and get by on 4 hours sleep per night for months or years on end for chump change. I've never asked any hookers about how they feel about their work, and wouldn't trust the answer anyway.

_________________
"A man accustomed to hear only the echo of his own sentiments, soon bars all the common avenues of delight, and has no part in the general gratification of mankind"--Dr. Johnson
"Amen, brother"-ED

Prolijo,

I don't have your patience, so I won't do a point by point rebuttal. But feel I have a much better 'position' to talk than some. Music, even when badly played, is still 'art.' Music is not simply an economic transaction. If that's all there is to it, then Britney Spears is a much better 'musician' than Johan Sebastian Bach ever was.

As far as my having to work as a musician, it's the same argument I hear about girls becoming prostitutes. True, I could have become a beggar or a burglar. Back in 1980 when I was looking for work as a non-musician, I was totally willing to take a minimum wage job, but could not find one. You can choose not to believe that if you like.

Beyond that, I spent at least 10 years playing in bars, and believe it or not, playing what the obnoxious drunks were shouting wasn't always the key to keeping the crowd entertained and keeping the cash register ringing for the jefe. Playing to the lowest common denominator isn't necessarily the road to riches.

I spent 10 plus years doing whatever it took (trying) to keep from getting fired. My former 'trade' has been replaced almost entirely by DJs who can be totally tone deaf and make a living. From an economic standpoint, a DJ is much more efficient than a bunch of guys who spent years learning to play.

To some people, music is a commodity and nothing more. Others care about it and think it has value beyond what it earns at the till. I am in the latter category. Sue me if I play too long...

_________________
"The only normal people are those you don't know very well." Joe Ancis

You seem to be drawing universal conclusions based on one guy that you know, hardly the way I`d approach the subject... A lot of musicians love money and are willing to adapt to get it, even if the old bar crowds call them "sell outs." Many big name bands are businesses and follow shrewd business models, doing what they need to do to appeal to teenybopper markets, the crowd that historically buys the most music. The whole "starving artist" phenomenon may have a counter culture appeal to it while preserving some self-esteem in the face of unrealized goals, but many of the same, truth be known, would surely prefer to experience fortune and fame, or at least have rent money...

I may have this wrong but the phenomenon Brother Express321 is talking about became much more prevalent when the producers and other more money-oriented types retook pop music from the artists. One of the great sometimes overlooked things the Beatles did was wresting such control unto themselves and the Rolling Stones whatever else you might think of them were always a self-controlling self-directing blues-based band. The Grateful Dead never trimmed their sails for any "trend of the day". Jimi Hendrix was not exactly brought to heel.The Beach Boys later always did it their way. And so it goes with all those that truly created. It was the lesser-talented 2nd-tier and 2nd and later generations desperate for success in and of itself that "sold out" and how much of their stuff will live for the ages? On the MOBO side of the house there was primarily Motown (a top-down controlled group if there ever was one) but also all the great music Curtis Mayfield, Willie Dixon, and the Memphis crowd (Stax/Volt and Hi Records) and of course Atlantic Records put out--maybe producer-shaped but not essentially changing the artists to fit a preconceived "sound"--production in its best sense. The same is true in C & W music though to a lesser extent--Nashville had much more a death grip on what got cut and played but the whole "Outlaw Country" movement lives to this day.
Oh and BTW the "big name bands" (the arena rock crowd) mostly were put together by outsiders (agents and such) specifically to appeal to a demographic--amazing numbers of them can't hardly play a lick and need studio musicians to cut their records for them, the bands subsequently learning the licks by rote by watching the true artists play their stuff. This isn't universally true--others are mere case studies in slick, cynical commercialism but they at least could play (Fleetwood Mac, anyone?).

_________________
"A man accustomed to hear only the echo of his own sentiments, soon bars all the common avenues of delight, and has no part in the general gratification of mankind"--Dr. Johnson
"Amen, brother"-ED

Yes, Brother Srilm, as did their musical heart and soul, Smokey Robinson--and he was married to Berry Gordy's sister. I think it was the midnight move to Hollywood that was the final crusher.
BTW, it took a cheesy-ass outfit like Malaco Records in Mississippi to keep the soul flame burning. Their new 6-CD box The Last Soul Company: Malaco: a 30-year Retrospective collects the best and obscurities. A must for the True Believer. Available lightly used on Amazon.com for about $40.

_________________
"A man accustomed to hear only the echo of his own sentiments, soon bars all the common avenues of delight, and has no part in the general gratification of mankind"--Dr. Johnson
"Amen, brother"-ED

That is because as a musician you want to share YOUR soul...and you want the audience to come hear you play what you want to play.

The dream is to be playing your own music and that people will come from miles around to hear you play and to thin that you are great...no musician dreams about playing what they consider "hacky" music...

Being a musician is not about making a buck..of course when you are young you daydream about being like Megadeth(if you are a metal guy like me) and getting rich by playing what you love,but when you fail at that and you end up in bars just trying to catch a tiny portion of that dream to just TRY to hang on to that dream a little longer,it is a drag to hear everyone asking if you know "Enter Sandman"....(which is the Mustang Sally of Metallica songs.)

Yes,I am a frustrated musician myself.And you don't want it to be a job like any other..you want it to be everything you dream about every since you first heard "Jukebox hero" as a Ch*ld on the radio...You really can't try to apply logic/reason to it...it is a dream,not the daily grind.

Mustang Sally and Enter sandman just remind you of the futility of the industry..an industry where Britney Spears makes millions and your random genius musician has to keep a job in construction to pay the bills.

You want the audience to love it,but you want them to love what you offer,because that is reaffirming that other people "get" what you have to offer.

I guess a good way to look at it is like Bilko said...art...an artist creates the art,then hopes it will sell...because if it sells well,it seems to reaffirm that his art is beautiful to others..but there are still artists that sit on the side of the road and draw caricatures of tourists for $5 a pop just to make a living.Not very satisfying though.

Sounds good, makes sense that, when called on your method, to increase your numbers from one to "hundreds." Don`t worry though, it`s the internet and no one will know any difference....




This is just romantic horseshit, like 90% of the musicians in a given town are homeless... Even if this be so the same would rather be paid well for their art. Others would like to give up their day job.

Decent analysis JazzboCr. Producers, promoters, etc. are without a doubt huge factors. However I`d say we deceive ourselves if we think bands like the Stones, Beatles, and some others who actually or seemingly avoided "selling out" at times aren`t also in the game for the money. Concepts such as working for the love of the music, to share one`s soul, and to make big bucks don`t have to be mutally exclusive.. And, even if it starts out as just for fun and self-expression, new motives can be added in a hurry once serious money and all it buys are tasted. Not to mention that even the "starving artists" often have their tip jar out, so it`s difficult to make the sweeping exclusions of financial motivations, that some on this thread seem to want to do....

There is a dramatic difference between"...would rather be paid well for their art..." and "would bend their talents to the prevailing mode so as to be paid well." There is one nexus between hookers and musicians--luck plays such a tremendous part in whether one gets picked for the night/ for stardom. That's the only tangential area I can see.
Brother Express321--Brother Bilko has presented credentials as a player, and Brother Srilm and I have shown to be informed listeners. What, pray tell, are yours?

_________________
"A man accustomed to hear only the echo of his own sentiments, soon bars all the common avenues of delight, and has no part in the general gratification of mankind"--Dr. Johnson
"Amen, brother"-ED

And who is disagreeing with that? You have set up a straw man argument for yourself and knocked it down, but it has nothing to do with the heart of my objection. That`s the most common manuever in internet debate... I challenged all the personal experience, "I know 100s musicians and their motives are this, that, etc." (was initially just one) assertions, while all but completely excluding financial motivations. May work around a bar room table after several beers but I couldn`t resist calling the b.s. here...




Thanks for sharing your opinion. It would be fair to say as well that such an outlook could make a rather soothing balm for one who has failed. "Well, I`m just unlucky. The system is rigged. They just don`t know good art." Maybe, maybe not in some cases...



Okay, so playing the guitar in a bar band or knowing who Barry Gordy is pulls rank here and allows one to assert what they like without challenge? I find statements like the ones below, that come absent any kind of proof plenty questionable and have stated why, in that the statements are far too sweeping and simplistic and reflective of "talking out of one`s ass," a phenomenon most common on monger boards. But such observations and analysis are the only "credentials" I really need, along with the fact that I have a valid account here...

Why does Jim Ed Brown always sing Pop a Top .

_________________
Always nice to wake up and see what will happen today

I have one question - and I freely admit I am not a musician or music aficionado - Why does the relative difficulty in playing a song have anything at all to do with whether or not it is good? Just because a song can be played by less skilled musicians makes it crap?

I freely admit I am not a musician or pretend to be a real music aficionado, but as a would-be music afficionado I could try to answer your questions. For the music afficionados, and I suppose for the musicians too, the relative difficulty in playing a song is important, because it showcases the technical proficiency of the players (and therefore the talent to be admired). Musicians are music afficionados too, and this is why there are some performers who are regarded as musician's musicians (musicians whose popularity among fellow musicians is even greater than it is among the general public, or may even be widely unknown outside of music circles, e.g. Art Tatum for jazz piano, Delbert McClinton for Texas R&B, Ry Cooder, Dave Bromberg for folk-blues, and the list goes on). Sometimes it takes a fellow musician to appreciate what goes into being able to play a particular piece, but one can also be a musician's musician just due to the versatility of their playing or their ability to improv instead of just playing a standard by rote. That all explains why LISTENERS (and would-be music afficionados like myself) can appreciate HEARING a more technically difficult piece and SEEING it performed. I suspect for SOME "afficionados" it is also a little about looking down their noses at the listeners with more plebian tastes.

Not being a musician at all myself, I could only GUESS why a musician would prefer to PLAY more technically difficult pieces of music. Maybe they like the challenge. Maybe they like showing off what they can do. Maybe it pleases them when they can play songs that lesser musicians can't. HOWEVER, if it were me at least and I was a WORKING musician, while I might enjoy playing those technical pieces for fun while relaxing with friends or just knocking around, I think I'd appreciate being able to play songs that I could knock off in front of an audience with little practice and little thought and which didn't twist my fingers into knots. I'd be satisfied to be able to stretch myself every other song, or maybe even less, rather than having to play ENTIRE sets night after night of the more difficult stuff. But then I'm NOT a musician, would-be or not, working or otherwise, and I don't even pretend to be.

Personally, for me, just because a song is simple to PLAY doesn't necessarily make it bad to LISTEN to. If it is a catchy tune or has meaningful lyrics, I can appreciate it. In fact there are times when I want to LISTEN to (really listen to) involved and challenging music (like Ornette Coleman) and other times where I'd rather just HEAR something light, breezy and familiar or even just background. What makes those simpler songs go bad, and I think this is where GT was mainly coming from, is if the song is OVER PLAYED and you just get sick of hearing it ALL the time. If you look back, GT's complaint was really mainly about MS being a grossly overworked song (not it being simple) and he was only speculating that the bands THEMSELVES played it as much as they did because it was so easy to play. Overplaying can ruin even the best of songs for musician and listener alike (not that I'm saying MS was ever the best of songs or not).

The word is "plebeian" and was used to excellent effect in a rhyme in "Cry Me a River".

_________________
"A man accustomed to hear only the echo of his own sentiments, soon bars all the common avenues of delight, and has no part in the general gratification of mankind"--Dr. Johnson
"Amen, brother"-ED

Was it really necessary to correct my typo/spelling? If so, I'm sure you could find a lot more errers in my posts . Also, did the Ella reference really add anything to the discussion or was this really all just more about a chance for you to drop another name? The point that counts, really the only point, is that you knew what I meant. However, I do find it interesting that, out of my entire post, that was the only sentence you picked up on.
----
BTW, before you go and correct my grammar next, yes I know I just ended a sentence with a preposition (and used the passive voice to boot), but that is what I sometimes LIKE to end my sentences with. So, too bad!