To put it in pseudoscientific language:

General rule of musician rewards: The amount of money you make from music is inversely correlated to the amount of social status you gain by playing it, assuming the level of musicianship is equal.

This is just a hypothesis based on personal observation. It seems to me that as a musician you have a choice of playing for money (weddings and corporate parties, for example) or playing for the respect and admiration of people (classical, originals - especially in "artsy" genres). Maybe things are different around here but nobody looks up to wedding bands and nobody looks down on classical musicians. It seems like the less something pays the more people admire it.

From a supply and demand perspective, it makes sense that we'd get to this point - the more "other rewards" (groupies, friends who buy you drinks because you're in the band, the respect of bosses at work, being introduced as someone interesting at parties etc.) you get from music, the less money you'll take to play it.

Do you agree or disagree?

Edit: Of course sometimes you gain status mainly within a certain subculture, for example when playing in a metal band or a church choir. That complicates things somewhat, but I think doesn't invalidate the general rule in any way.

It seems to me that as a musician you have a choice of playing for money or playing for the respect and admiration of people

or you can avoid spending/wasting your time thinking in those terms and just play the music you enjoy the most, regardless of what you think it'll achieve

You hit it right on the head pklima. Once upon a time I devoted all of my education and free time to playing music and was essentially a gig whore. I got called for lots of stuff and I never turned down anything especially if it paid. Then one day I realized that all of my education and time spent practicing had turned into being able to play "Celebration" in 12 keys. I quit and now I have a very interesting and fun job and do a lot of playing on the side strictly for the fun of it and for little to no money. I find it hard to find interesting and talented composers/singer-songwriters/musicians to play with who feel the same way and want to push the envelope with experimental and progressive music. Just look on Craigslist and all of the postings are the same "Established metal band looking for bassist, read to hit studio/go on tour/gigs lined up, must be self motivated and 420 friendly".

I'd rather play for free and have my self respect and artistic integrity. No more business of music.

I have nothing against the business; I just think there's a basic choice to be made which few musicians are consciously aware of. I personally play metal and children's music. I enjoy both but I get money out of metal (most of our fans live thousands of kilometers away in richer countries) and respectability out of children's music.

I think it's a pretty valid POV. I know a guy that strictly plays weddings and good-paying gigs in general, even though he has a decently-paying day job, because, and I quote, "That's where the money is."

Oddly enough, he has a condescending attitude towards people going out to play for the h*** of it. I would rather live to play than play to live.

I think it's a pretty valid POV. I know a guy that strictly plays weddings and good-paying gigs in general, even though he has a decently-paying day job, because, and I quote, "That's where the money is."

Oddly enough, he has a condescending attitude towards people going out to play for the h*** of it. I would rather live to play than play to live.

Great points.Around here,(Atlanta),I keep running into bar owners that tell me "We can get this band for 250.00,so why should we pay you 500.00? " Club owners are more interested in paying bands as little as possible,or nothing in some cases, no matter what the quality of the music is. That's why I look for private parties or corporate functions.

I see your point, but my take is a little different. I've been playing out for almost 30 years--underage in bar bands as a 16 year old, and then originals bands, party bands, and corporates from college-->last night.

What you say seems essentially to describe how one type of musician accords status to others. Then there are professionals for whom being a solid pro is the major point of respect. Being a pro's pro involves being able to get and handle money gigs, but it's more about personal and professional maturity than money.

Additionally, the audience or general public figures a musician's status differently than either group of musicians does. Obviously, musicians respect difficult listening way more than civilians do. By a landslide, more punters respect the musicians who can energize a room and turn it into a party than ones who play serious music that doesn't touch anyone.


Those are both extremes, of course. There are a lot of dull hack "party" bands and pop groups, just as there is some truly innovative and moving music requiring massive chops.

My point is just that there are multiple sources/kinds of respect, and no one source of universal status. Above all, though, if status is what drives someone, musician probably isn't the right career. Gotta do it for the love you've got for it, not the love it'll get for you.


(I say this as someone who is currently working --among other things, and always these days primarily for the fun rather than the money-- a live-band karaoke gig and an originals band with the normal selective appeal.)

That's very true. I was thinking mostly in terms of civilian respect - nobody looks down on classical violinists!

I would agree to a certain point. I think this is very true for bar bands and less so for a national act. The cover band I'm in presently used to do a bit more technical hippy trippy sort of stuff when we first got together. We could get gigs, but didn't draw big crowds, so second and third gigs at the same place were problematic. We had a great following of local musicians, (They must have admired our musical integrity) but we added a bunch of 80's and 90's pop about 2 years ago and now we get so many offers we turn gigs down. I'm booked into early 2009 and I owe it all to playing poison and Def Leppard.

I think there's a lot of truth in it :

Playing bass for the Spice Girls = big money/little respect

Playing bass for obscure Jazz/World Music fusion - little money/big respect

:p

To put it in pseudoscientific language:

General rule of musician rewards: The amount of money you make from music is inversely correlated to the amount of social status you gain by playing it, assuming the level of musicianship is equal.

This is just a hypothesis based on personal observation. It seems to me that as a musician you have a choice of playing for money (weddings and corporate parties, for example) or playing for the respect and admiration of people (classical, originals - especially in "artsy" genres). Maybe things are different around here but nobody looks up to wedding bands and nobody looks down on classical musicians. It seems like the less something pays the more people admire it.

From a supply and demand perspective, it makes sense that we'd get to this point - the more "other rewards" (groupies, friends who buy you drinks because you're in the band, the respect of bosses at work, being introduced as someone interesting at parties etc.) you get from music, the less money you'll take to play it.

Do you agree or disagree?

Edit: Of course sometimes you gain status mainly within a certain subculture, for example when playing in a metal band or a church choir. That complicates things somewhat, but I think doesn't invalidate the general rule in any way.

absurd. so by this measure, these bands that are out there playing for free have the highest status and are the most accomplished?

what crap. In fact, if you have higher status, you get the better and bigger gigs and yeah, more money. I went from playing in bands where I walked away nightly from crappy bars with $65-$80 in my pocket to a band where i never walk away with less than $150 and frequently more. So now that I'm playing at bigger places in front of more people for more money, my status is actually lower??? huh?

And we don't do weddings.

We are accomplished at what we do. We don't do originals, but there's no trick to originals. Anyone can write and perform their own music, but it's hard to come off credibly doing popular songs.

There's something other than emo/original bands and corporate/wedding bands.

Yes, we have fans/groupies/regulars.


so I have no idea what you mean? So the less popular the band and the less money they are making, the higher status they are? Because a bunch of rednecks and artsy groupies like them, that makes them higher status?

lol

as if

absurd. so by this measure, these bands that are out there playing for free have the highest status and are the most accomplished?
Assuming equal levels of musicianship, yes. Edit: it would be even better to say "assuming everything except the style is equal" - you're equally skilled, organized, motivated etc. Of course really bad bands will get neither money nor status.

A pop covers band will make more money than an equally skilled jazz band in most places, but civilians are more impressed when they find out you play jazz. A wedding band will make even more money, but no matter how the people at the wedding enjoy it they think of the band as having status no higher than, say, the waiters.

A pop covers band will make more money than an equally skilled jazz band in most places, but civilians are more impressed when they find out you play jazz. A wedding band will make even more money, but no matter how the people at the wedding enjoy it they think of the band as having status no higher than, say, the waiters.

I remember some of my highest-paid gigs as weddings, where we were treated worse than the people who cleaned the toilets IMO!! :hmm:

Now I'd rather pay a free or low-paid Jazz gig, for people who want to listen, than a well paying function, where they can't wait to get rid of you and start up the disco!! :hmm:

I remember some of my highest-paid gigs as weddings, where we were treated worse than the people who cleaned the toilets IMO!! :hmm:

Now I'd rather pay a free or low-paid Jazz gig, for people who want to listen, than a well paying function, where they can't wait to get rid of you and start up the disco!! :hmm:

You meet a better class of people eating in the kitchen. :D

We give up the money to be a star. We give up stardom to get the money. That is the way it is in the "playing music for money" business. Any comparisons to national recording and touring acts do not apply because that is a different business.

There is a lot of good information in this thread. But the attitude is not restricted to the music industry. It's the same all over. The doctor who goes to a war torn country to treat refugee orphans is a hero. The orthopedic surgeon who adds a basketball court to his home so his children's team can get more practice time is vilified. The public defender is a champion of the people but the lawyer who defends you in the automobile accident is a no-good-money-grubbing-SOB who cares only for his own bank account. Pick a profession. You can finish the analogies.

It's great to play jazz in a smoke filled club until two in the morning for a hundred bucks a night. It's also great to triple out on the weekend doing casuals for three times the rate. It comes down to this. The only respect that is really important is self respect.

Assuming equal levels of musicianship, yes. Edit: it would be even better to say "assuming everything except the style is equal" - you're equally skilled, organized, motivated etc. Of course really bad bands will get neither money nor status.

A pop covers band will make more money than an equally skilled jazz band in most places, but civilians are more impressed when they find out you play jazz. A wedding band will make even more money, but no matter how the people at the wedding enjoy it they think of the band as having status no higher than, say, the waiters.

except for the fact that lousy bands also play for nothing or next to nothing in small places.

That's the problem with your equation.

Generally, if you're playing good rooms for good money and you have a fan base, you're in higher status than anyone who has none of the above.

Sounds like the lament of bands who are sure they have "integrity", but in reality are playing stuff that few people care about, but make themselves feel better by believing that they are "higher status."

it's counter-intuitive. I don't respect bands because they play in front of 10 hippies for $20. Nor disrespect them either. Cream rises to the top. If they're not rising, they're usually not the cream.


But money as you said, isn't the only measure. Wedding bands don't gain status because they have a captive audience -- people didn't attend the wedding to hear THEM.

Not to say one should look down their nose at wedding/corporate bands either - I know some incredibly accomplished musicians that do that stuff. They have fun, the hours are good and they can make a killing. In fact, the kind of money they can get IS a sign of their abilities - the really good wedding/corporate bands snare the bigger gigs. That's life. In fact, most of them would sneer at people that play in crappy bars for the door until 2 am.

but again, I don't hold unknown, original bands who play in dives in high esteem because that's where they play. I'm sorta neutral about it. I firmly believe that no matter the type of music played (covers, originals, wedding, etc), the cream usually rises to the top within a given market.

Cream rises to the top. If they're not rising, they're usually not the cream.
.

So... Milli Vanilli, Britney Spears etc. are the "Cream" ...eh? That's not what I would call it!! :p

I think it's more a case of : throw enough manure at a wall and eventually some of it will stick! :D

This thread is demeaning

So... Milli Vanilli, Britney Spears etc. are the "Cream" ...eh? That's not what I would call it!! :p

I think it's more a case of : throw enough manure at a wall and eventually some of it will stick! :D

So I guess than Bruce Springsteen, Led Zepplin and the Beatles are a lower status than your usual, run-of-the-mill emo band playing in some hellhole in Des Moines???

I'm not equating commercial success with "respect" - God knows there have been bands and artists that are not very good and have made a lot of money -- but in general, the best musicians and bands end up successes.

Equal musicianship?? In the eye of the beholder. Besides, if you're a GREAT musician playing crap that no one wants to hear, how does this make you in a "higher status."??

You're trying to make it sound like the fewer fans you have, the better off you are?

Yeah, right. Keep telling yourself that.

Successful musicians play stuff that people want to hear. Lots of them. To pretend otherwise is delusional. Even Timothy Leary could draw 200 people by playing the bongos and chanting slogans about Viet Nam and drugs. So now he's "great"? LOL

This thread is demeaning

No, it's just an act of self-delusion

Equal musicianship?? In the eye of the beholder. Besides, if you're a GREAT musician playing crap that no one wants to hear, how does this make you in a "higher status."??




I was in that band!! You tend to draw 20 guys from other bands that wish they could get away with playing challenging crap that nobody else wants to hear.

People really seem to like cheese. Not Gouda or Brie either. People love that spray cheese in a can! You gotta give it to them. That is truly the secret to my success.

I have done a lot of different gigs. Pop, rock, jazz, blues, oldies, originals, big club, little club, festival, corporate.

It has always been my craft, practiced for the particular situation, the very best I know how, with integrity, style, and showmanship.

The only respect I've ever looked for was from myself and the guys standing next to me at the time. If the audience digs it, great. When they don't, I can't help them.

JKT

You're trying to make it sound like the fewer fans you have, the better off you are?



No - I am saying the opposite - the more fans you have generally indicates that you are playing to lowest common denominator and the basest instinct!

We all know that sex sells and most successful bands are just those who have eschewed musicianship for sex appeal! :p

Those hoards of teenage girls screaming at the Beatles weren't interested in Paul's original and distinctive bass lines!! :)

No reason a band can't do both - the good money making gigs as well as the low paying original gigs.
Do the straight gig playing covers.
And play the not so well paying gigs that let you play your own stuff.

I've never been in a band that did both, but I imagine it could be done.
It would take a group of ppl who were on the same page.

No - I am saying the opposite - the more fans you have generally indicates that you are playing to lowest common denominator and the basest instinct!

We all know that sex sells and most successful bands are just those who have eschewed musicianship for sex appeal! :p

Those hoards of teenage girls screaming at the Beatles weren't interested in Paul's original and distinctive bass lines!! :)


lol. yeah right. So if you appeal a lot of people, you're no good?

and if you appeal to no one, you are great?

I feel like I walked in on the Seinfeld episode covering Bizarro World.


Honestly, you're delusional.

I will let the guy who plays guitar for change outside the Metro stop near my building that he's held in higher esteem than Bruce.

LOL

lol. yeah right. So if you appeal a lot of people, you're no good?


It's all about "street cred", man!! :p

Bruce and QORC

The playing music for money business and the recording/touring business are not the same. If you want to argue about those acts and their merits, fine. But it has nothing to do with playing music in a club or at a bar mitzvah. Their recordings and the covering thereof are merely the material that you are playing.

We have apples and oranges here, gentlemen. It is fair to compare Britney with The Beatles or Itzhak Perlman, for that matter, because they compete at the same level (but not the same dollars :D). It is not fair to compare Britney with the local jazz artists or with the wedding band. They do not compete. They are not in the same business. It is like comparing Tiger Woods with the guy who drives the cart that picks up the balls at the driving range. Same sport, different business.

BTW, I like doing both. Playing clubs is good for the ego. Playing casuals is good for the wallet. Too bad there are only seven days in a week.

I never thought in terms of status, and hope I'll never start to.
I am a musician , working on getting better every day.
Got no time for that status thing.
Enough money would be nice though .

Bruce and QORC

We have apples and oranges here, gentlemen. It is fair to compare Britney with The Beatles or Itzhak Perlman, for that matter, because they compete at the same level (but not the same dollars :D). It is not fair to compare Britney with the local jazz artists or with the wedding band. They do not compete. They are not in the same business. It is like comparing Tiger Woods with the guy who drives the cart that picks up the balls at the driving range. Same sport, different business..

Yes - there was a great British Composer, Havergal Brian, whose symphonies have now been played by many of the best European orchestras and made into many recordings.

But he died more or less in poverty - he put the scores of those symphonies away in a drawer and never got any money from them! :(

No matter what anybody says I think you have to have more respect for him as a musician than any pop star, who made millions!!

no, I know what he's saying. Apparently if you have any success at all, you have no "credibility."

It's absurd, of course, on the face it. Sounds like the cry of someone who is playing in a band who's not popular.

It's all about goals. What is "street cred" anyway?

I play for FUN. The money is a nice bonus, but mostly I play to have a good time. To be part of a well-oiled machine, playing the bejusus out of something that people are really digging.

And yeah, a little pocket change at the end of the night too.

I can't have a good time playing in front of 8 people, none of whom care what we are doing. can't do it.

Street cred? Again, in the eye of the beholder. Being a success doesn't mean you have no credibility - nor does it mean you have ANY credibility. It just means that people like what you're doing. I can't imagine how that's a bad thing.

Playing stuff that no one cares about is the musical equivalent of masturbation.

Now I'd rather pay a free or low-paid Jazz gig, for people who want to listen, than a well paying function, where they can't wait to get rid of you and start up the disco!! :hmm:


Sounds like QORC is agreeing with my previous post now! :)

We don't do originals, but there's no trick to originals. Anyone can write and perform their own music,



There might not be a trick to it but if writing original music was the only thing you had to do to be successful everyone who writes originals would be millionaires. IMO there is a trick to writing good original music that people other than the band and their friends want to hear. Also try to get 5 members in a band to agree on the finished product of an original. Sometimes not the easiest thing to do.

Playing devil's advocate :hiding: back against your statement there is no trick to playing covers because everything is already set out for you; any decent musician should be able to pick up what is already written. :) So remember, me playing devil's advocate, what is the accomplishment/creativity of being maybe the 10,000th cover band to play "Stuck in the Middle"? Not saying you play that song. :) But using it as an overall example.

Where I live most cover bands make pretty good coin even just playing bars. Original bands basically fend for themselves and play for free a lot of the time especially if they are not the headliner. A split of the door is usually negotiated between the bands with the headliner taking the biggest chunk.

No, it's just an act of self-delusion
It's apparently a failure to express myself clearly.

Sure, the cream will rise to the top in any style. But the cream of jazz will get less money and a higher place in the social hierarchy than the cream of pop. Do you disagree with that? And sure, there are styles where even the cream gets neither money nor status, such as grindcore - but I'm not claiming there's an inverse proportional relationship, only a correlation, so that doesn't disprove what I'm saying.

I don't have integrity. I have a metal band in which I play for money (the trick is to live in a poor country and have fans in rich countries) and a children's choir for which I play to gain social respectability. The former gets me no status among anyone except metalheads and some other countercultural artsy types. Among anyone else it's downright embarrassing. Both normal people and metalheads think the latter is pretty cool, though.

I play for FUN.

I can't have a good time playing in front of 8 people, none of whom care what we are doing. can't do it.

Playing stuff that no one cares about is the musical equivalent of masturbation.

+1 to those statements. Agreed.

I think some of this comes from old attitudes about inherited wealth versus having to work for a living. Things associated with inherited wealth have "high" status. Things associated with working for a living have "low" status.

Somebody living off inherited wealth can spend their time learning to play classical violin, doing charity work, or contemplating beauty and writing music. Many people see those types of activities as having "high" status.

Playing in a wedding band would be associated with having to work for a living, and so that would have "low" status.

Then there's always the "starving artist" path where somebody tries to do something "high"-minded on a low income.

I don't know that these sort of high/low value judgments have any useful meaning. I assume they come from people wanting to be associated with royalty.

here's the Deal:

Is it mass appeal vs. extraordinary artistic achievement?

No. “Superstars” have both.

“Muzos” just have the skills but not the appeal.

“Wedding singers” appeal to just about everyone. (or at least enough to get hired for social functions where they will have to entertain people that don't normally appreciate music at all)

I believe that there is always the opportunity to improve on both fronts (actual artistic skills AND "Performance/ Entertainment value"

I don't think that the two are inversely related.

Look at Stevie wonder or Sting. Both VERY well respected musicians AND incredibly popular (even among the tone deaf)

my 2 cents

I think the basic idea holds even at the highest levels of achievement, though. The biggest 10 pop stars in the world make more money than the 10 top classical musicians, but lots of people think some of the pop stars are trashy, stupid and generally not very respectable. Very few think that about top-flight classical musicians.

And, yeah, I'm a status whore using music as one of many tools to get better dates and get ahead in my day job. It helps if you want to get anywhere in a large European city, unfortunately. That's life.

Yes - there was a great British Composer, Havergal Brian, whose symphonies have now been played by many of the best European orchestras and made into many recordings.

But he died more or less in poverty - he put the scores of those symphonies away in a drawer and never got any money from them! :(

No matter what anybody says I think you have to have more respect for him as a musician than any pop star, who made millions!!

Depending on the comparison, on musicianship, absolutely.

However, there is a respect that is accorded the working man, the guy who lays bricks, or fixes our stuff, or shuffles the paper that keep society moving (albeit at a snail's pace at times) for making the money that puts a roof over his family's heads and food in their bellies. There is dignity in the work and respect is rightfully given. So it is with the working man who shuffles off to some stranger's wedding to play the Hokey Pokey for the two hundred and fiftieth time this year.

But as far as the brilliant man who dies penniless, there can be no respect for him as a business man unless there are extenuating circumstances,i.e. his intellectual products have been stolen. For instance, Tesla died a pauper. As brilliant as he was he made stupid alliances and made bad decisions in business. That was his fault. Not his partners.

Believe it or not, there can be more important things in life than music. Feeding and clothing children is one of them. This is why the working man is respected, and should be respected, in society. Now, if he is unhappy doing what he is doing, that is another argument.

I see both sides of the argument and have worked on both sides of the argument. There just cannot be any absolutes. It must be judged on a case to case basis. Playing clubs is fun. Paying bills is important, too.

Here's a clearer way to put it: you can choose to exchange your musical skill for money and status. If you choose a style which gets you more money you will receive lower status. If you choose a style which gets you higher status you will receive less money.

To each his (or her) own.

I'd rather play originals than covers. I'd rather play clubs than weddings. I'd rather play jazz than 70's hits. I'd rather play in front of a crowd than play to crickets.

Mainly, though, I'D RATHER PLAY BASS THAN DO SOMETHING ELSE!

Even though it's not my favorite gig, I enjoy playing weddings and corporate events. My job is still the same, as the keeper of the groove. If I were to get bored and stop grooving, that gig would really suck, so I keep it grooving and it's not bad at all. Besides that, the money allows me to play bass full-time, without having to have another job.

That said, I really dig mid-week afternoon jazz gigs. They usually only pay about 125-150, but I love the music. Sometimes, people pay attention. I also like to tour with avant-garde groups. Again, the pay isn't always great, but the experimental music is extremely creative, and crowds dig it.

For me, I do a lot of different kinds of gigs, and they all serve different purposes. Some make money, some help me grow as an artist, some provide exposure to larger audiences, and some just make me feel good. The big picture, though, is that I am a professional musician, and I take a lot of gigs. That's what we do, after all.

The ONLY way I can do this is to approach every gig with the same level of seriousness. If I tell someone I will sub for their wedding band, I commit to doing my homework and learning their material, just the same as I would for a high-profile band on a big outdoor stage. I commit to driving the groove. I commit to looking and behaving appropriately. I commit to having a good attitude. That's why I get a lot of calls. That's why I don't have to have another job.

Respect: Once in a while, someone will remark about the irony of seeing me one night in a club, playing intense experimental music, and watching me play "Superfreak" at a country club the next day. I'm not ashamed. I tell them that I am a bass player, and I do my best to play bass whenever I have the chance.

For being a professional musician, I get a lot of respect. It's all the respect I need.

The reason the top classical (or jazz, or other serious music) players and composers are respected is because so few people understand what they are doing. Anyone can understand what Britney is singing about. Everyone respects Einstein, but very few people know who invented the Frisbee. No one cares who did it, either. If they do know, they probably think of him as an money grubbing opportunist.

OTOH, the Frisbee has brought more pleasure to more people than the Unified Theory ever has.

Here's a clearer way to put it: you can choose to exchange your musical skill for money and status. If you choose a style which gets you more money you will receive lower status. If you choose a style which gets you higher status you will receive less money.

Binary world.

You have time. You have money. We exchange our time for money. If you want more time, you accept less money. And vice versa.

Binary world.

Look at Stevie wonder or Sting. Both VERY well respected musicians AND incredibly popular (even among the tone deaf)


Well - I have heard Jazz musicians talk disparagingly about both and I have heard both praised.

Stevie has huge respect for mostof what he has done - but I cringe every time I hear "I Just Called..." - it is so cheesy!!

Sting is a joke on many levels and many see him as a pop star who will never have real muso credentials and Wynton Marsalis has never forgiven his brother for playing with Sting! :p

The cream of jazz will get less money and a higher place in the social hierarchy than the cream of pop. Do you disagree with that?

:hmm: ... "the social hierarchy" as defined by?


Miles Davis may be the king of cool jazz in some intellectual circles and his musicianship beyond question, but how is his place in the social hierarchy higher than say Elvis Presley?

If by a social hierarchy you mean other musican types, then yeah maybe, you might set the guys who do the solo bass summits in some more exalted class than say Dusty Hill from ZZTop ... personally I would rather see ZZTop. I hold any band that have gained that level and held it for as long as they have in high esteem. In the social hierarchy of the public at large I think most folks would agree.

It's impossible IMHO to seperate ones personal point of view from what you define as social hierarchy that includes your views on doctors, lawyers, and musicians.


:) ... Interesting discussion makes you consider what ones point of reference is.

who is to say what "status" is anyway?

lots of musicians are both accomplished and successful -- therefore have status - it's hardly an either/or proposition.

besides, I play for me. I play for fun. I get off on nailing the music and having people enjoy the band and my part of it. Nothing more.

What higher purpose is there than pleasing a bunch of people with music? It's all the "status" I need.

Street creds? Having some, low-life rag-a-muffin with a goatee come up and slap me on the back and say "you rawwwwwwwwwwwwk!"?? that's status?

Nah.

Believe it or not, it happens to me too.

"Social hierarchy" on a practical level would be my coworkers, bosses, and women I meet. Being respected and on some level admired by them is useful in life. And playing the right kind of music can be just as useful at earning those things as having a good education, dressing well and having good etiquette. (I'm terrible at most of those things, by the way)

Something else which just occurred to me: with the exception of vocalists, the musicians who play pop often are practically anonymous so their reward really is mainly financial. More evidence for my hypothesis, yay.

By the way, I don't want to imply in any way that it isn't important to enjoy what one plays. You have to enjoy what you do if you're going to do a good job and stick with it for a few decades. But it isn't important to the rest of the world.

I'd probably have a lot of respect for a bassist that played with the Spice Girls. I disagree with the hypothesis.

You know, when we talk about status and musicians, it's kind of ridiculous. Isn't it a little bit like talking about who has more status, a used car salesman or a new car salesman. Or the driver of the garbage truck or the guy who empties the cans into it.

As far a society is concerned, if you want respect become a college professor. Or maybe an architect. As far as the rest of society is concerned, just about all of us are about as low as you can go. You can argue the point until the cows come home, but if you want to know where we stand, try applying disability insurance. You will find out that, if you can find a company that will sell it to you the premium will be enormous for the coverage offered. Why? Musicians and drugs. Musicians and alcohol. Musicians and deadly STD's. The lifestyle is not conducive to obtaining insurance. For a good reason. Many of our brethren lead very unhealthy lifestyles.

What was the answer the last time someone asked you what you do for a living? After you told them they laughed and asked the question again. That shows a lot of respect. And when you convince them that you can actually do it, they start asking about sex and drugs. Then you have to give them the standard five minute lecture on clean living. Yup. We get a lot of respect.

There are exceptions to the rule. But that only serves to prove the rule.

"Social hierarchy" on a practical level would be my coworkers, bosses, and women I meet. Being respected and on some level admired by them is useful in life.


Well there ya go ...

Then it would seem that by that logic the Dr. mentioned earlier that built the basketball court would be held in high esteem by those in his social hierarchy, being respected and on some level admired by them.


:) ... Goes back to what personal views dictate status and respect, be it musicians or basketball courts

It seems that it`s only musicians that argue status amongst musicians, your average Joe Shlub doesn`t give a rats *** what you play as long as he/she enjoys it.

Franky I wish more musicians around here would be more concerned about respect among their peers than making their car payments. That way there would be a lot more work for shills like me!:hiding:

I think there's a lot of truth in it :

Playing bass for the Spice Girls = big money/little respect

Playing bass for obscure Jazz/World Music fusion - little money/big respect

:p

I do not agree at all

What if i was on the road with the Spice Girls and showing some tour pics on TB....

Id be a TB superstar and probably get divorced :p

Seriously..

If I could make a living playing bass, I would, regardless of the music I'd be playing, or where I'd be playing it. Whether it's some artsy music or a covers gig, if it pays the bills, how could it be worse than working a day job? My job is pretty sweet as it is, but I'd rather play bass for a living than wholesale motorcycles, dirtbikes, and ATVs. I think people who are a holes about playing "sell out" music are just jealous that they aren't in the position to do it themselves.

In my experience, my level of musicianship has usually dictated what kind of "status" I have with the people around me. If you're playing well in a wedding band, you should feel good about yourself. If you're playing lousy in an originals band, you should be humble and work harder to get better.

Unfortunately, some people are stupid and they don't know what good or bad is. For those people, do you really care what they think? I don't.

I'd probably have a lot of respect for a bassist that played with the Spice Girls. I disagree with the hypothesis.

As a person who has indirectly worked with the spice girls (I played on a couple of remixes) I thank you for that comment. This is a discussion I have had with many fellow musicians thru the years. The idea that the only musicians with integrity are unknown,broke guy's playing music that has no wide or popular appeal is IMO wrong. I know and have worked with hundreds of hard working,studied professional musicians who have worked in situations ranging from playing in a circus band to playing in a shopping mall to playing sold out world tours.The thing is for some people having to do something they might not like or love that involves their passion(in this case music) would keep them from making that passion their sole sense of income. For others,such as myself,I learned a long time ago that I'm not going to always like what what i have to play to make a living but that is a part of making a living as a musician. Trust me if I never had to do some of the gigs I do i wouldn't but i view those gig's as part of the bigger picture of having a career.I remember going to see tribal tech in the early '90's at small club in Chicago and being blown away by their music.After the show they were going to hop back into their van(no hotel) and drive to the east coast but they were asking if a few more people could buy cd's ect so they could get something to eat......that blew me away because i had just did a corporate gig the night before that probably paid me more by myself than they made as a band that night,but that fact didn't make me better or more worthwhile than gary Willis just in a different situation

I really get a kick out of this discussion. Much of the conversation focuses on the opinions of others. I strive not to live my life for the sake of others & their opinions of me. I work hard to provide a fair trade of labor for earnings received.

The "status" and "credibility" referred to are merely a reflection of someone else's value system. Everyone has one, and it has been defined as a result of his or her upbringing. There is no way to control someone else's values, so to manipulate your own actions to achieve a higher "status" means you are pleasing someone else, not yourself.

I am currently practicing a couple of hours each night. I am taking weekly lessons ($50 per week). I have professional quality bass gear. I am not spending this time to please you or anyone else. I want to be the best that I can possibly be. I don't show off in music stores. I don't care if you are impressed with my blazing fast chops - I want to test out a product. Same principle.

If "status" is a sold-out rock show with lines of beautiful women waiting to share their bodies with you, then no, I don't have "status". I can tell you though, that I have never lost a job due to my lack of ability.

You should read Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged changed my life.

imp

As a person who has indirectly worked with the spice girls (I played on a couple of remixes) I thank you for that comment. This is a discussion I have had with many fellow musicians thru the years. The idea that the only musicians with integrity are unknown,broke guy's playing music that has no wide or popular appeal is IMO wrong. I know and have worked with hundreds of hard working,studied professional musicians who have worked in situations ranging from playing in a circus band to playing in a shopping mall to playing sold out world tours.The thing is for some people having to do something they might not like or love that involves their passion(in this case music) would keep them from making that passion their sole sense of income. For others,such as myself,I learned a long time ago that I'm not going to always like what what i have to play to make a living but that is a part of making a living as a musician. Trust me if I never had to do some of the gigs I do i wouldn't but i view those gig's as part of the bigger picture of having a career.I remember going to see tribal tech in the early '90's at small club in Chicago and being blown away by their music.After the show they were going to hop back into their van(no hotel) and drive to the east coast but they were asking if a few more people could buy cd's ect so they could get something to eat......that blew me away because i had just did a corporate gig the night before that probably paid me more by myself than they made as a band that night,but that fact didn't make me better or more worthwhile than gary Willis just in a different situation

^^^much wisdom here.

There is no perfect job. Very few people love everything about their job. When you have a great job some days still suck. That is just the way it is.

Respect comes from inside, not outside, ourselves.

...420 friendly".

:confused:

Okay, yeah, I've seen that! What does "420" signify?

(You're talkin' to an old fart here).

:confused:

Okay, yeah, I've seen that! What does "420" signify?

(You're talkin' to an old fart here).

Go to www.google.com, type in 420 and the truth shall be revealed :)

:confused:

Okay, yeah, I've seen that! What does "420" signify?

(You're talkin' to an old fart here).

Me too!


Go to www.google.com, type in 420 and the truth shall be revealed :)

Thank you Sir! Man, learn something new everyday! :D

Russ

As a person who has indirectly worked with the spice girls (I played on a couple of remixes) I thank you for that comment. This is a discussion I have had with many fellow musicians thru the years. The idea that the only musicians with integrity are unknown,broke guy's playing music that has no wide or popular appeal is IMO wrong. I know and have worked with hundreds of hard working,studied professional musicians who have worked in situations ranging from playing in a circus band to playing in a shopping mall to playing sold out world tours.The thing is for some people having to do something they might not like or love that involves their passion(in this case music) would keep them from making that passion their sole sense of income. For others,such as myself,I learned a long time ago that I'm not going to always like what what i have to play to make a living but that is a part of making a living as a musician. Trust me if I never had to do some of the gigs I do i wouldn't but i view those gig's as part of the bigger picture of having a career.I remember going to see tribal tech in the early '90's at small club in Chicago and being blown away by their music.After the show they were going to hop back into their van(no hotel) and drive to the east coast but they were asking if a few more people could buy cd's ect so they could get something to eat......that blew me away because i had just did a corporate gig the night before that probably paid me more by myself than they made as a band that night,but that fact didn't make me better or more worthwhile than gary Willis just in a different situation


Sorry - no matter what anybody says, I will always respect Tribal Tech more than the Spice Girls! :p

Go to www.google.com, type in 420 and the truth shall be revealed :)
Wow! How could I live as long as I have and never heard that!

(Oh, yeah. I was never a doper...)

Sorry - no matter what anybody says, I will always respect Tribal Tech more than the Spice Girls! :p

Well let me go out on a limb and say that both groups share the fact that the music is well crafted......now stop laughing and hear me out. besides the high level of musicianship the other thing i always liked about tribal tech was the way the song's were put together as compositions,the use of counter point, recapitulation ect was what caught my ear almost as much as the playing. Now when we worked on the spice girl tracks i had a chance to hear how the original producers put together the tracks and how well the music was arranged and produced. The point I'm making is that both groups were well produced in the light of the genre that they represent.Because I'm lucky enough to play all different kinds of music it's funny to me to hear musicians dis other genres when it might not be as easy as they think to get something right. I have seen great jazz and funk drummers try to play a pop or modern R&B groove to a click in a audition situation and fail I have seen guitarist who can shred with the best of them who can't play a relatively simple james brown style rhythm part CORRECTLY.The point is one shouldn't think that because music is less complex that it's easy to play right or that it has less merit to the people who enjoy it.

I regularly play corporate dates/weddings/etc., and I and regularly see other players on those gigs who work with country artists of the Reba McEntire stature, blues/R&B artists like Delbert McClinton and Gatemouth Brown, guys who have worked with (or currently work with) folks like Bonnie Raitt, the Brian Setzer Orchestra and Lyle Lovett, artsy guys like Adrian Belew, jazz guys like Maynard Ferguson and Stanley Turrentine...

For that matter, at least one band leader I work with has 2 (count 'em, TWO) grammy awards sitting on the console in his home studio. I generally play bar mitzvahs with him. A couple of the keyboard players I see on those gigs have been the music directors for either broadway shows or touring productions of broadway shows. A gig is a gig; when you're making house payments and putting kids through college, not only do you take what's offered, but you make it a musical experience for all concerned - the client, the other musicians and the audience.

If the folks y'all hang out with look down on the guys doing corporate work, you need to hang out with a different group of folks.

I regularly play corporate dates/weddings/etc., and I and regularly see other players on those gigs who work with country artists of the Reba McEntire stature, blues/R&B artists like Delbert McClinton and Gatemouth Brown, guys who have worked with (or currently work with) folks like Bonnie Raitt, the Brian Setzer Orchestra and Lyle Lovett, artsy guys like Adrian Belew, jazz guys like Maynard Ferguson and Stanley Turrentine...

For that matter, at least one band leader I work with has 2 (count 'em, TWO) grammy awards sitting on the console in his home studio. I generally play bar mitzvahs with him. A couple of the keyboard players I see on those gigs have been the music directors for either broadway shows or touring productions of broadway shows. A gig is a gig; when you're making house payments and putting kids through college, not only do you take what's offered, but you make it a musical experience for all concerned - the client, the other musicians and the audience.

If the folks y'all hang out with look down on the guys doing corporate work, you need to hang out with a different group of folks.

^^^Much wisdom from one who knows.

... you make it a musical experience for all concerned - the client, the other musicians and the audience...If the folks y'all hang out with look down on the guys doing corporate work, you need to hang out with a different group of folks.
As usual, "the voice of experience" . . .

Well said, Dave . . . and good luck (to the wife) next Sunday . . .

As usual, "the voice of experience" . . .

Well said, Dave . . . and good luck (to the wife) next Sunday . . .
Thanks, and good luck to you with the project you worked on - are you coming up to LA for it?

If the folks y'all hang out with look down on the guys doing corporate work, you need to hang out with a different group of folks.
'Round here that would require avoiding just about all non-musicians, and the vast majority of musicians under 30...

Deriving your self-worth from the opinions of others is a road to hell. Be carefull.

Do what you like, love yourself and play music to make people happy.

'Round here that would require avoiding just about all non-musicians, and the vast majority of musicians under 30...

No bad thing...

Thanks, and good luck to you with the project you worked on - are you coming up to LA for it?
No . . . the "unpopular" fields' winners don't get ANY air-time, so, what's the point? I might watch it on TV, but I'll probably just check the internet every so often . . .

talk to 'ya later . . .

I don't want to drag this topic into talk about generic non-musical status. I don't derive my self-worth from it, it's just something useful in life. Just like money.

Since I enjoy playing pretty much all music except rock and jazz (improvising quickly fries my brain so I tend to stick to the dull and predictable) and after a few raises at work playing metal for money is gradually losing its appeal, I figured I might as well play something "with class" that regular middle-aged folk can respect.

And I think to play something with more class you often have to take less money. It's a tradeoff.

Dunno. Ask Nathan East. I'll bet he pulls down $500K a year.

Sorry - no matter what anybody says, I will always respect Tribal Tech more than the Spice Girls! :p

Well let me go out on a limb and say that both groups share the fact that the music is well crafted......now stop laughing and hear me out. besides the high level of musicianship the other thing i always liked about tribal tech was the way the song's were put together as compositions,the use of counter point, recapitulation ect was what caught my ear almost as much as the playing. Now when we worked on the spice girl tracks i had a chance to hear how the original producers put together the tracks and how well the music was arranged and produced. The point I'm making is that both groups were well produced in the light of the genre that they represent.Because I'm lucky enough to play all different kinds of music it's funny to me to hear musicians dis other genres when it might not be as easy as they think to get something right. I have seen great jazz and funk drummers try to play a pop or modern R&B groove to a click in a audition situation and fail I have seen guitarist who can shred with the best of them who can't play a relatively simple james brown style rhythm part CORRECTLY.The point is one shouldn't think that because music is less complex that it's easy to play right or that it has less merit to the people who enjoy it.

Wasting your time - see bold part! :p

I regularly play corporate dates/weddings/etc., and I and regularly see other players on those gigs who work with country artists of the Reba McEntire stature, blues/R&B artists like Delbert McClinton and Gatemouth Brown, guys who have worked with (or currently work with) folks like Bonnie Raitt, the Brian Setzer Orchestra and Lyle Lovett, artsy guys like Adrian Belew, jazz guys like Maynard Ferguson and Stanley Turrentine....

I think it's funny how the people who are saying that all music is equal, still know which guys get more respect!! :)

I'll chime in with the others.

Deriving your self-worth from the opinion of others is dangerous.

All the "respect" I need is when people are digging what I'm doing and having fun, no matter what I'm playing.

I don't need the "respect" of some nameless group of musical nobodies to be happy with my craft.

...Deriving your self-worth from the opinion of others is dangerous...
Deriving your self-worth from the opinion of others is . . . stupid and/or foolish!

But deriving your self-worth from how much money you make, is even more dangerous/foolish!! :hmm:

I think it's funny how the people who are saying that all music is equal, still know which guys get more respect!! :)
If you were more familiar with Dave's posts on various topics you'd realize that HE deserves "more respect", too!

And I don't really think that he said "that all music is equal" . . . I think he was pointing out the fact that really there's only two types of music, "good" and "bad" . . . and that the best musicians (of all genres) always try to make ANY gig a "good musical experience", or as he said, "make it a musical experience for all concerned - the client, the other musicians and the audience."

Don't get so hung-up in the differences between musics, Bruce . . . IMO ALL musics have value . . . and when done well, deserve respect and admiration.

And if you'all check out my profile, you'll see that I've been "practising what I preach" for a long time, now . . . playing and recording "good" music, of many genres . . .

But deriving your self-worth from how much money you make, is even more dangerous/foolish!! :hmm:
Agreed . . .

FWIW, I personally derive my sense of self-worth from within myself . . . I know when I'm being REAL . . .

But deriving your self-worth from how much money you make, is even more dangerous/foolish!! :hmm:

No one here is saying they are deriving their self-worth from money. only YOU are saying that you derive "self-worth" from others.

money? It's a nice bonus. It helps my NET worth - but not my self-worth.

I don't derive my self-worth from anyone or anything outside myself. I derive ENJOYMENT from playing for people and making people happy with my music. I derive my own self-worth from within myself - am I as good as I can be? Am I getting better at what I do? Am I satisfied with my performance. Period.


Again, you live in some bizarre world where anyone who is successful in music has no status, and the losers are actually the ones with "integrity" - whatever that means.

You can keep arguing, but I haven't seen too much support for your position.

No . . . the "unpopular" fields' winners don't get ANY air-time, so, what's the point? I might watch it on TV, but I'll probably just check the internet every so often . . .

talk to 'ya later . . .
Oh, my wife's band is in two of the 'unpopular fields', but nevertheless, we're going. There's a nominees party the night before, and there's the post-show party. THAT's why we're going... :hyper: :hyper:

Even better, my wife and I will be escorting the 13 year old daughter of the rhythm guitar player to the aturday night party, so we'll be able to ask her, "Who's that guy over there?" She'll likely know, where we'd be clueless...

'Round here that would require avoiding just about all non-musicians, and the vast majority of musicians under 30...

That doesn't sound like a bad thing, then. :)

No one here is saying they are deriving their self-worth from money.


Well the whole thread is about status vs money!

only YOU are saying that you derive "self-worth" from others.

Nope - I never said that and it's not what I think - can you find a quote...? Or are you just making assumptions?

I don't derive my self-worth from anyone or anything outside myself. I derive ENJOYMENT from playing for people and making people happy with my music. I derive my own self-worth from within myself - am I as good as I can be? Am I getting better at what I do? Am I satisfied with my performance.


Exactly the same for me!



Again, you live in some bizarre world where anyone who is successful in music has no status, and the losers are actually the ones with "integrity" - whatever that means.


Nope - you just made that up - I never said that and I think you must be reading somebody else's posts or misunderstanding the argument! :hmm:

Nope - you just made that up - I never said that and I think you must be reading somebody else's posts or misunderstanding the argument! :hmm:
I never said anything like that either... just that some styles are better for acquiring money and others better for social climbing. Making no judgements, just an observation.

The key is to be good enough to be in the "Big Money/Big Respect" category. Like U2 or the Talking Heads. Why settle for one or the other?! ;)

Oh, my wife's band is in two of the 'unpopular fields', but nevertheless, we're going. There's a nominees party the night before, and there's the post-show party. THAT's why we're going...
Understood . . . and have a good time, you'all have earned that right . . .

Playing stuff that no one cares about is the musical equivalent of masturbation.

Exactamundo....

Of course, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with masturbation - just realize the reality of the situation.

I'm new to this board, and still relatively new to playing bass on a semi-pro level, but I've got 20+ years of varied semi-pro musical experience (performance, composing, whatever, for money). I find it really weird that so many of these threads on this board go back to stroking your own ego, lack of self-worth, and deriving your opinion of yourself from others.

Threads about 'what's the best compliment you've ever received', 'more money vs more status', 'are you a bassist or a musician', people calling guitar players 'guitards', threads whining about people that play 'guitar hero' that give bass players no respect, people worrying that if they play with a pick someone might not think they are a 'bass player', bass players being 'failed guitarists', 'bass offs', and on and on.

I hope most of the bass playing community does not have these problems, and these threads are being created by middle school kids, because a lot of posters seem to be completely out of their minds.

Play because YOU a) like it - you like the sound, the purchasing of equipment, the research, the process, performance, the education, b) it makes you money which you rely on some or all of your income for, or c) any combination of the two. Quit worrying about labels and what others may think. If you play originals because that's what you like, good for you. If you play covers because you need to pay the bills, good for you. If you're a fill in, a full timer, single bander, multi-bander, a multi-instrumentalist, a weddings guy, a corporate guy, a weekend warrior, a part-time player, a soloist, a 2 finger, 3 finger, 4 finger, slapper, popper, fixed hand, floating hand, floating thumb, double thumb, picker, whatever, good for you. Play it with your ass for all I care. Do it for you and quit whining about some 16 year old guitar hero player that doesn't know anything. Quit worrying about who respects you.

Now, if you play for what you like, and you don't rely on the income, you can do what you want, but for those that play and use the money as part or all of their income, you already know that you play some stuff that you don't like to pay the bills, good for you guys too. If you can sleep at night, then you're doing the right thing.

Man...

I hope most of the bass playing community does not have these problems, and these threads are being created by middle school kids, because a lot of posters seem to be completely out of their minds.


I completely concur. They are, however, great for procrastination.

imp

Again, you live in some bizarre world where anyone who is successful in music has no status, and the losers are actually the ones with "integrity" - whatever that means.

You can keep arguing, but I haven't seen too much support for your position.
__________________
+1 This is the most rediculous theory I've heard in a long time. Being a starving artist doesn't make you anything but hungry. :eyebrow:

I play in some extremely uncommerical bands and I do it because I love it. The respect and adulation of the status quo, whether musicians or the general population is a non-issue. Music is an art and art is about communicating something. As long as I'm accomplishing that, even on a modest level, then I'm validated in what I'm doing.

Everything else is just overthinking it.

Does this mean that guys like play in all imaginable genres of music and earn their good living from gigs and recording like Nathan East and Lee Sklar are not respected? I disagree with the premise of the OP but I understand the desire to play what we want rather than what is commercially viable.

I think the misunderstanding in this thread is that from my own point of view, I can say who I respect for their playing, attitude, musicality, compositional skill etc.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with my own sense of self-worth or need for respect - in fact, personally I never even think about this and just play music that I like and find interesting/enjoyable - but the point is that the two things are completely separate!

this thread has no point. It never did.

And some people are very good at missing the point....? :p

But that has absolutely nothing to do with my own sense of self-worth or need for respect - in fact, personally I never even think about this and just play music that I like and find interesting/enjoyable - but the point is that the two things are completely separate!


It's all about "street cred", man!! :p

notice the difference between your two posts. You don't care what people think? This post above indicates that you DO care. A great deal.

Street cred? Means that you care what "people on the street" care about -- that's where you get your "respect."

What crap, which is what you're full of.


Again, your original point boils down to this - "if you are a success, you have no integrity."

Sounds like the whine of someone who plays music that no one cares about.

So once again, you flip-flop your own position. No one here agrees with your POV and this thread thus has no point whatsoever.

Give it up.

Again, your original point boils down to this - "if you are a success, you have no integrity."
Neither Bruce nor I have said that at any point.

I can have the same amount of success in a genre which will give me money and no respectability or success in a genre which doesn't pay but which helps me gain social status which can be just as useful as money in many ways (especially as I make most of my money from a day job). Equal success, I enjoy playing both equally, but the way in which society rewards me for playing them is totally different.

Being one of the top 1000, top 10 bassists in classical music does not carry with it the same rewards as being in the top 1000 or top 10 pop bassists. The difference is probably even more pronounced for the average amateur.

Of course being successful within a genre is better for both your income and status than being average; but we are strictly talking about differences between styles.

Integrity has nothing to do with it, either. If I chose to be a status whore and play music to climb the social ladder and gain middle-class respectability, how would I have more integrity than if I chose to play for cash instead?

The only respect that counts is self respect...all others can kiss my...please feel free to use your imagination.

notice the difference between your two posts. You don't care what people think? This post above indicates that you DO care. A great deal.

Street cred? Means that you care what "people on the street" care about -- that's where you get your "respect."



Wow - talk about proving my point!! :p

So -look at that second quote you made - notice anything?

Like a little smiley -indicating a joke...:eyebrow:?

As I said - some people are very good at missing things!! :p

I will let the guy who plays guitar for change outside the Metro stop near my building that he's held in higher esteem than Bruce.
LOL

It's all about "street cred", man!! :p

See - the above - QORC talks about a guy busking outside of the metro - he's on the street - he has "Street Cred"

THAT's a JOKE !!

(For information purposes)

Below, THIS is gratuitous personal abuse and against forum rules ...(again for information purposes!)


What crap, which is what you're full of.



Doesn't it spoil it when you have to explain everything? :p

obviously subtleties escape you.

I said UNDER YOUR RIDICULOUS PROPOSITION that a guy playing for change outside of metro has more "integrity" than a successful musician.

Just proving how stupid your whole point of view is.

Again, I'm sorry you're not a success. But that neither makes you "good" nor indicates that you have "respect", "street cred" or "integrity" or anything else that comes from people outside of yourself.

nor does being a "success" mean you're a sell-out or have no integrity.

the whole thread is retarded. What are you? 16??

Go whine to the Board Mods -- that's the last refuge of someone who can't support their own point of view. Maybe you can complain to your Mom too.

Just let it die. Your POV is silly. Virtually everyone here has said so.

Wow - somebody really can't take a joke! :eyebrow:

But should I really be surprised when that comes from somebody whose profile lists their Myspace page as :

"attentionwhoreasschasingnogoodunoriginalcoverband"


:p

again, sorry no one likes your music.


Please move on.

I said UNDER YOUR RIDICULOUS PROPOSITION that a guy playing for change outside of metro has more "integrity" than a successful musician.
Hmmm... Let's look at street musicians.

'Round here the professional street musicians (classical accordion players, violinists and South American Indians) make considerably more money than most members of the philharmonic. Once again, we see that one gets more money, the other has higher status.

At the low-skill end, the kids and bums playing for change make about what an unskilled manual laborer does per hour, though they usually work much shorter hours. They probably don't have it together enough to get bar gigs, but maybe in certain bars they could play for free. Again, playing on the street means more money (very little money but more than zero), playing in bars means no money but a little more respectability (again, not much but at least you're not a thinly veiled beggar).

Sure, there are exceptions and areas where it doesn't apply - if you play porngrind you can be the world's most successful porngrind band and you make no money and even your biggest fans will think you're an immature idiot. But the existence of an overall pattern seems obvious.

I agree with most of the others here. Bruce and PKLIMA - please just let it go. Nobody here seems to agree with you. Your arguments are both childish and tiresome.

I agree with most of the others here. Bruce and PKLIMA - please just let it go. Nobody here seems to agree with you. Your arguments are both childish and tiresome.

Sorry - if you are talking 'childish' - there is only one contender!! :p

And as far as I can see only one person is actually arguing!! :eyebrow:

again, sorry no one likes your music.
.

But "attentionwhoreasschasingnogoodunoriginalcoverband " are such an international sensation...? :p

click on the link. does it go anywhere? I made that up ages ago as tongue-in-cheek response to another thread.

I'm not surprised you're focusing on this. It's pretty much what you have left since you can't support your own point of view. Attacking me doesn't bolster your position.

It just shows what you are. A goofy kid with a keyboard.

I'm done with this thread. It's too moronic for words - which reflects its author.

caio.

There are some seriously crazy notions in this thread. Wow!

click on the link. does it go anywhere? I made that up ages ago as tongue-in-cheek response to another thread.


So - you can get some jokes then - just not other people's!! :p



It just shows what you are. A goofy kid with a keyboard.


I've probably been on TB longer than you've been playing bass and in bands before you were born! ;)

Sting is a joke on many levels and many see him as a pop star who will never have real muso credentials

Berklee doesn't think so. They gave him an honorary doctorate along with these other very popular musicians:

Count Basie, David Bowie, Duke Ellington, Dizzy Gillespie, Billy Joel, Quincy Jones, B.B. King, Patti Labelle, Loretta Lynn, Pat Metheny, Bonnie Raitt, Sting, James Taylor.

Ray Charles used to say that there is no such thing as "bad music" as long as it is performed correctly (without mistakes) The only "Bad Music" is music poorly performed.

In fact true genius (in my opinion) is to write simple music that is easy to play, accessible to generations of listeners, yet unquestionably original.

Maybe that's why Sting has won Grammys in nearly every category (including Jazz, and best instrumental, and song of the year) and the why the Police was last years top earning artists.

If that's a joke, where's the punch-line?

my 2 cents.

I saw the Police live in 1979 and have been a big fan for many years!! :)

But did you see Sting "acting" in Dune etc. and what about his tantric sex claims...:eyebrow:

:D

I saw the Police live in 1979 and have been a big fan for many years!! :)

But did you see Sting "acting" in Dune etc. and what about his tantric sex claims...:eyebrow:

:D

Stings performance in dune was a million times better than anything Elvis ever acted in, and his sex claims are not crazy, in fact one would be so lucky to be able to practice said techniques enough to make them work!!!

If you get to 'work on sex' a fair bit instead of being stoked just to have it, more power to ya. :p I got my form down on a couple of positions, and am good with that.

As for people who don't beleive he has real music creds.....u serious?

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/images2/dune032206.jpg

<paul hogan voice>'that's not a knife......well....neither is this really.......' </voice>

But did you see Sting "acting" in Dune etc. and what about his tantric sex claims...:eyebrow:

:D

That's neither here nor there.

But it is funny! :D

Hence....joke! :)






PS (edit) seeing that photo of Sting above, really makes me laugh out loud!! :D

Okay, boys, so why am I reading this instead of practicing?
See y'all later. I'm off to play.

again, this has run it's course. Closed until can be reviewed / pruned

I used to think that people would value me as a bassist if my band was entertaining and people enjoyed themselves. I played a wide variety of music and made about 1/2 my living at it, but I got tired of playing dance music. Now I play for a narrower group of people interested in the type of music I perform -- jazz chamber music, essentially. That seems to suit us both. I have always enjoyed playing for an audience, and I've always felt that if I performed well I deserved to be paid. But I find I enjoy knowing that people are listening, and this matters more than "status." The musicians I enjoy most play for a fairly narrow, but highly selective audience. I work toward a similar situation.

sort of like Spinal Tap, in which the manager indicates that they went from playing venues with 10,000-20,000 seats to those playing 1,500 seats, and claims that the band's popularity isn't fading - their appeal is just "more selective."