Making music vs Performing It

[Jace-BeOS]

Boy, this thread's subject has... shifted.

you gonna pass that bong humphrey?

But, my dear sir, 'twas never passed to me!

[Jace-BeOS]

Absolute garbage. [...]
Funny thing is, I am just as turned off by the virtuosos. Like those metal guys who actually think you need to hear a guitar solo that lasts for more than a minute. As you can probably figure out, Jazz is not something I enjoy.

Me either (and I feel the same about virtuoso guitarists), but this is where we get to discussions of taste. There are people who love jazz (and virtuoso guitarists) and would pay to see live performances. If enough people like a thing, or enough people are lead to think a thing is worth paying to see live (some of which may feel differently, in the end, if they dislike it), then that's all there is to it. Tickets sell, people pay into the market, and Ticketmaster is happy (and maybe the performers make money for the month's rent, but maybe not).

But how many of the attendees return for the next show, and how many of them purchase the associated goods being promoted by the live show (like recordings and whatever else the artists are trying to make money selling)? Which artists are living off performing, which are living off sales of recordings, and how many make not one cent on their music at all? Is live performance required to make an income on music? Seems to be the case, from the limited observations I've made as a casual observer of professional musicians (and some publications and musicians saying exactly that).

It's not fair. What we like isn't the only stuff to be rewarded with success. In fact, a lot of the music I've discovered in the last decade is no longer even being published by the artists because they made no money (some of them seem not to be doing music at all). Countless interesting projects are starved of income while the recording companies are stuffing ever more manufactured pop divas down the pipe to the closed-format radio stations. Marketing tells them this works, and I guess their accountants agree.

It's frustrating when what we think of as our good taste is shunned by the majority.

[herodotus]

Absolute garbage. [...]
Funny thing is, I am just as turned off by the virtuosos. Like those metal guys who actually think you need to hear a guitar solo that lasts for more than a minute. As you can probably figure out, Jazz is not something I enjoy.

Me either (and I feel the same about virtuoso guitarists), but this is where we get to discussions of taste. There are people who love jazz (and virtuoso guitarists) and would pay to see live performances. If enough people like a thing, or enough people are lead to think a thing is worth paying to see live (some of which may feel differently, in the end, if they dislike it), then that's all there is to it. Tickets sell, people pay into the market, and Ticketmaster is happy (and maybe the performers make money for the month's rent, but maybe not).

But how many of the attendees return for the next show, and how many of them purchase the associated goods being promoted by the live show (like recordings and whatever else the artists are trying to make money selling)? Which artists are living off performing, which are living off sales of recordings, and how many make not one cent on their music at all? Is live performance required to make an income on music? Seems to be the case, from the limited observations I've made as a casual observer of professional musicians (and some publications and musicians saying exactly that).

It's not fair. What we like isn't the only stuff to be rewarded with success. In fact, a lot of the music I've discovered in the last decade is no longer even being published by the artists because they made no money (some of them seem not to be doing music at all). Countless interesting projects are starved of income while the recording companies are stuffing ever more manufactured pop divas down the pipe to the closed-format radio stations. Marketing tells them this works, and I guess their accountants agree.

It's frustrating when what we think of as our good taste is shunned by the majority.

Nah. I have been living with this for 30 years. You get used to it.

But in my heavily treated basement studio, the only music I can hear is the stuff I want to hear. Whenever I get sick of being a home owner, I remind myself of this, and I stop whining (that's 'whinging' for you Brits).

[vurt]

we brits both whine and whinge.
its the weather.

[herodotus]

we brits both whine and whinge.
its the weather.

We have had over 6 feet of snow fall on us so far this year.

[vurt]

ive seen folk out and about in vests n shorts, just because it wasnt pissing down, people think thats summer.

[herodotus]

ive seen folk out and about in vests n shorts, just because it wasnt pissing down, people think thats summer.

I had an Irish friend tell me how many rainless days there are in a year. I don't remember the exact number, but it shocked the hell out of me.

That's the thing about Minnesota: we get cold winters but the rest of the year is actually pretty nice. All 5 months of it.

[vurt]

if we get any actual sunny days people start dieing.
its not temperature, its the glowing orb in the sky, they think its an alien invasion, the shock kills them

[jancivil]

There are people who love jazz (and virtuoso guitarists) and would pay to see live performances. If enough people like a thing, or enough people are lead to think a thing is worth paying to see live (some of which may feel differently, in the end, if they dislike it), then that's all there is to it.

SurPRIZE surPRIZE surprize[/gomer]

[...]Which artists are living off performing, which are living off sales of recordings, and how many make not one cent on their music at all? Is live performance required to make an income on music? Seems to be the case, from the limited observations I've made as a casual observer of professional musicians (and some publications and musicians saying exactly that)..

Johnny McLaughlin sez he is barely breaking even on a record these days.

Here's something to resent or instead be edified and expanded by:



Since we're letting it all hang out now, I'll be frank.

Anti-virtuous is clearly an aspect of anti-intellectualism.

[deastman]

Since we're letting it all hang out now, I'll be frank.

Anti-virtuous is clearly an aspect of anti-intellectualism.

While I agree with this statement, there is also something to be said for taste and self-restraint. Playing as many notes as possible, as fast as possible, for as long as possible, might be satisfying for the virtuoso performer, but not necessarily so for the audience. Of course tastes vary, so I’m not speaking in absolutes. I tend not to enjoy that sort of thing, personally. But I’m not in favor of what I perceive to be the dumbing down of culture and society as a whole.

[bermudagold]

I stand edified and expanded....thanks for that....the visuals, the full moon, the water, the music....I can only imagine what it was like to experience that in person.....I didn't find any of that tasteless or grandstanding for what its worth.....especially considering coltrane himself thought it was worthwhile to get lost in that arrangement for 57 minutes once!

[donkey tugger]

Since we're letting it all hang out now, I'll be frank.

Anti-virtuous is clearly an aspect of anti-intellectualism.

While I agree with this statement, there is also something to be said for taste and self-restraint. Playing as many notes as possible, as fast as possible, for as long as possible, might be satisfying for the virtuoso performer, but not necessarily so for the audience. Of course tastes vary, so I’m not speaking in absolutes. I tend not to enjoy that sort of thing, personally. But I’m not in favor of what I perceive to be the dumbing down of culture and society as a whole.

About right. There's virtuosity to and end - i.e. to play great music, and then there's wanking;

[jancivil]

virtue in huge chunks

[vurt]

i offer...

[jancivil]