Musicians without the desire of recognition?

[Curtybob]

This was brought up in another thread, and it started me thinking about whether or not it's even possible.

I can see the situation of an individual that plays only for him/herself, and only behind closed doors (with no audience) as being able to claim that he/she isn't playing for the adoration of other people.... but I think once you let someone else hear you, or even tell someone that you play, it is for recognition.

[FreaqyFrequency]

The closest thing I can think of is what my mentor refers to as the self-actualized man.

The majority of people do things for attention and respect from others. They get their energy from affirmation and appreciation. However, the self-actualized man (or woman) is motivated most by his own pleasure in doing something, and so does not need attention from others to thrive, though he does appreciate it.

A self-actualized man is able to find motivation largely from within, without being dependent on sources from without. That person is very rare, and is to be treasured if you can find one.

-Sean

[bkbirge]

You might like this movie that explores that concept:Tous les matins du monde

It is a fictionalized account of some real musicians and is one of my favorite flicks (and should be for every musician).

[awakefie]

Our singer avoids recognition. He's painfully shy and is borderline phobic on large crowds. He rarely talks to the crowd, doesn't mingle before or after, etc...

Fortunately for us he has a very likable persona and a quiet charisma. People remember him.

He'd rather play in my garage than on a stage. He mainly gigs for the comraderie. He will gig once, maybe twice a month. If he does it for recognition and ego he hides it well.

Now the lead guitarist, that's another story all together...

[Liko]

Originally Posted by Curtybob

This was brought up in another thread, and it started me thinking about whether or not it's even possible.

I can see the situation of an individual that plays only for him/herself, and only behind closed doors (with no audience) as being able to claim that he/she isn't playing for the adoration of other people.... but I think once you let someone else hear you, or even tell someone that you play, it is for recognition.

I don't think any worthy artist on this planet doesn't want their art to be seen by the public. Now obviously a novice artist doesn't want their CURRENT work to be exposed, but even then they are working toward creating something of both beauty and quality that they will want shown.

With that in mind, I don't think a love of recognition equates to a desire for recognition. We all like to be appreciated. It's human nature. The only entity that wouldn't like it is one who couldn't understand it when he gets it, and I don't think there's a human who has reached the age of reason who cannot understand an honest compliment when given.

What matters in such cases is whether someone does what they do more for the recognition than because they like it. You see so many teenagers go "let's form a band and get filthy rich while women show us their boobs!", and not nearly as many going "let's form a band and have fun jamming with each other!". I don't think you'll ever find a musician that hates music, nor will you ever find a band that will never walk on stage because they can't stand the sound of applause. However, there's usually more of one than the other. Sting has an agreement of sorts with his audiences; he'll play what they like if he gets to play what he likes. On the other hand, Pat Benatar's concerts are pretty much hit after hit, solely for the audience. Obviously both like what they do, but one's philosophy is a little more self-centered with regards to the performance than the other's. Both of them are filthy rich, but Sting's audience is a bit more select, while practically every rocker likes "Hit Me With Your Best Shot". Thus, it might be surmised that Sting's still in it more for the music, while Pat's still in it more for the money.

I guess I will end on a philisophical note a la "tree falling in the forest"; is art without audience really art? Art is what you make it, but at least one person must look at what's been created and see beauty in it in order to be art. Every great artist has had a patron; someone has either commissioned the artist to do something, or has bought what the artist has done and thus encouraged him to do more.

[Phalex]

Originally Posted by Liko

With that in mind, I don't think a love of recognition equates to a desire for recognition. We all like to be appreciated. It's human nature. The only entity that wouldn't like it is one who couldn't understand it when he gets it, and I don't think there's a human who has reached the age of reason who cannot understand an honest compliment when given.

+1!

[Curtybob]

+2... I think that whole post was great.

[Lesfunk]

You must be talking about bassists!

[FreaqyFrequency]

+3.You should post more Liko!

[dave64o]

Originally Posted by Lesfunk

You must be talking about bassists!

While I have no real evidence to back it up, I'll bet that describes a large percentage of the bass playing population.

[Curtybob]

Originally Posted by dave64o

While I have no real evidence to back it up, I'll bet that describes a large percentage of the bass playing population.

I respectfully disagree. Way too much crying about the "guitard" getting all the limelight to be motivated by anything else but recognition.

[Lesfunk]

Originally Posted by Curtybob

I respectfully disagree. Way too much crying about the "guitard" getting all the limelight to be motivated by anything else but recognition.

That's not the bass player population. That's the talkbass.com whining teenager garage band population
Real bass players know their place in the music and understand that most of the time (in Popular Music) they play a supporting (back seat) role.