Q: What’s the difference between a sequencer and a bar musician?
A: You only need to punch information into a sequencer once
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Do you consider yourself an artist?
- Thread starter ashtray
- Start date
Q: What’s the difference between a sequencer and a bar musician?
A: You only need to punch information into a sequencer once
I don't really see it as a binary either, but many seem to think they are a little closer to the artist side of the spectrum than they really are. This does not have to be a problem, but it certainly can be; especially when someone expects special treatment but can't actually deliver.
I also agree that where you fall along the spectrum varies with what you are going at a given moment. Playing a cover tune note note-for-note in a wedding band is more towards the service end of the spectrum. Writing an original song to suit your own creative drive and needs, without a care for what anyone else thinks is more towards the artist end of the spectrum.
imo, you're not getting any awards for either course of action. you just do what you do.
(and let's be honest: there are both hack "artists" and hack "service providers.")
Last edited:
if you’re actually an artist, it’s not usually because you’re looking for that kind of external validation anyway.
Corned beef in my home State of California was pretty good.
Corned beef in my new State of Tennessee is great!
: )
It’s interesting to see so many “service provider” musicians quick to disparage artists - whose music they often make their living covering.
I guess it’s not exactly rocket surgery to guess at the psychology behind that
It’s interesting to see so many “service provider” musicians quick to disparage artists - whose music they often make their living covering.
I guess it’s not exactly rocket surgery to guess at the psychology behind that
I must have missed it. Who in this thread has disparaged an acclaimed artist?
I certainly don't have a problem with acclaimed artists. There are many I would not want to work with, but their success warrants respect; especially if they have enjoyed repeated success over an extended time frame.
Most of us do not enjoy success at this level...or even have the opportunity to play with those who have.
I don’t see people disparaging specific acclaimed artists, I see them disparaging _artists in general_.
Some people truly deserve the title of artists and can be very nice, down to earth, and grounded. In the bass playing world, Victor Wooten and Nathan East seem to have this sort of reputation. IMHO both easily cover the full spectrum from Artist to Service Provider.
IMHO people should probably aspire to be more like these guys rather than focusing exclusively on defining themself one way or the other.
Have a good day.
it’s interesting that “established artists” are worthwhile, while people working their asses off the make art may not be.
All creations (artistic and otherwise) aren't automatically "worthwhile" just because someone worked their asses off to make it.
Some suck... and some, which might be worthwhile otherwise (like music), are presented in the wrong venue (like places where people go just to listen/dance to familiar music that they already like).
Established artists apparently created art that was well-received, and in most cases, there are actually non-artistic formulas for creating such successes.
Quality art, like beauty, is not totally subjective as some would like to think, and history has borne that out.
Last edited:
true. it's worth noting that "established artists" didn't start that way, they had to work their asses off and fail a number of times to get where they are/were.
the stories of charlie parker being laughed off the stage on his way to becoming a jazz icon is just one case of many.
i've seen people in the art scene suck and i've seen people in the service provider sector suck . . . *by my standards*—and that's all they are, is mine.
and there are some "established artists" whose work i recognize as being really good and don't like at all; there are "established artists" whose work i think is subpar; and there are people who are way under the radar that i think are great.
oh well . . .
Established artists apparently created art that was well-received, and in most cases, there are actually non-artistic formulas for creating such successes.
Quality art, like beauty, is not totally subjective as some would like to think, and history has borne that out.
sort of?
as people have noted, van gogh was not well received during his lifetime, but now has full museums devoted to his work; before he was lauded, the critics hated matisse; etc.
bach was considered a hack when he was alive and it was mendelsohn who created a bach revival that launched bach into his hallowed status. mahler is a similar case . . . and there are instances of artists being discovered after their lifetimes almost every year (month, day?).
people who were famous are now unknown . . .
i think craft can be more objective than art—but often "craft" is culturally based. for instance, i can't really tell if a folk musician in india is really good at their craft because i don't know the context well enough. all i can know is that it moves me—or not.
Obviously “worthwhile” can’t always be reduced to money and “making art” isn’t done for the same reasons as “manufacturing objects for sale”.
For example, how much was Pablo Picasso paid for “Guernica”?
How much was Bach paid for his cello suites?
Until we know that, apparently we can’t know if they were worthwhile.
In October I get to play on the stage where Mendelsohn did that - Berlin Konzerthaus. No pressure though
The core of my approach to art is that it starts with craft and cannot exist in any meaningful way without craft. Art without craft is accidental ****.
Craft is that which has become known through study and practice, is intentional and repeatable. Art rides craft into a kind of lucid dream state where the outcome is not known in advance. Craft is predictable, art surprises. The deeper the craft the more intentionally surprising the art can be.
Craft is that which has become known through study and practice, is intentional and repeatable. Art rides craft into a kind of lucid dream state where the outcome is not known in advance. Craft is predictable, art surprises. The deeper the craft the more intentionally surprising the art can be.
