Do you like playing music you don't like?

[teleharmonium]

I think there are some pretty interesting questions left hanging from this discussion.

Why should we have completely different standards for music that we listen to and music that we play ? It all hits our ears the same way, and we know what we like to hear. We know that the playing is our own subjective experience. If that double standard makes sense to us, should we then accept more double standards in other people so long as they come about due to their subjective experiences ? Or are we self indulgent in factoring in how it feels to play when we evaluate music ?

Is the point of making music to have fun, or to make good music ? If the latter, is it positive or negative to not enjoy a certain performance when you aren't satisfied with the quality ? If it leads to you fix problems based on the experience, does that change the equation ?

 

[bolophonic]

No way. If I am not into the music, then I am not into the music. At all. Money doesn't change that.

 

[Joe Louvar]

This is not one of those Zen questions, but a real one. Do you enjoy playing music that you wouldn't be all that interested in listening to?

I do, quite a bit of it. Children's music, jazz standards, indie, chamber music, classic rock... I've played a lot of songs I don't like and had fun doing it. As long as I get along with the rest of the band, there's a good crowd, it's not too much work to play the stuff, and it won't make the audience think I hate humanity or something like that, I'll play pretty much anything, even music I think is completely boring.

Don't get me wrong, I do prefer playing stuff I like if all else is equal, but I don't understand those people who really seem to only want to do songs they like, or do songs they don't like grudgingly as some form of compromise. I sometimes jokingly accuse them of just not liking music very much.

No and unless I’m getting paid a lot to play it I won’t play it either. But I like most music too.

 

[Paul M]

Often for me the situation is the opposite for me. There is music I like to listen to but I don't like to play. Some U2, for example, is extremely boring to play on bass but enjoy listening to the song as a whole.

 

[synaesthesia]

I've played all sorts in studio situations, recording all kinds of nonsense, music I would NOT llisten to for pleasure - but if it is me doing it, I listen to my performance captured on the recording, timing, tone, lines, ideas, production value, etc. In live gigs, I played in all sorts of party bands, disco bands, and whilst I wouldn't listen to these tunes ordinarily, I enjoy getting a performance out of myself. And if it is to entertain I enjoy playing it to make people laugh, sing, dance or whatever.

Also there are all sorts of stupid tunes with very interesting baselines to play, and vice versa.

 

[Curley Shadow]

Depends on what the gig pays, I love country and western if it pays enough, I won't go out and do it for $50 and publicity bwahaha

 

[Rockin Mike]

It's always more fun to be IN the music than on the outside listening in, regardless of what is being played. Country is the most noteworthy example for me. I never listen to it, but I end up playing it a lot.

+1

 

[Phalex]

Why should we have completely different standards for music that we listen to and music that we play ?

I get paid to play music. I get paid better if I play music that appeals to the non musical masses.



If that double standard makes sense to us, should we then accept more double standards in other people?


Why would you make a burger for someone else at Mc Donald's when you wouldn't feed that same burger to your dog at home?


Is the point of making music to have fun, or to make good music ?

Are we talking "Making" music as it pertains to the composition of music, or are we talking about "Making" music by causing the air to move at specific audible frequencies?

Personally, I'm not a big fan of composing, but I do like it when the dance floor is full, the drinks are free, and someone hands me a fist full of money when it's all over with.


If the latter, is it positive or negative to not enjoy a certain performance when you aren't satisfied with the quality ?

I'm not so sure the quality of the performance is tied to the quality of the music. If you perform a piece that may be "Bad" flawlessly, with feeling and three part harmony, what is the quality of that performance?

If it leads to you fix problems based on the experience, does that change the equation ?

I get free beer, see strange bewbs, play along with some very talented performers, and I get paid at the end of the night. What's the problem exactly?

 

[Rockin Mike]

There are lots of reasons to play a song, including:
1. I like it
2. The audience likes it
3. My hands like it even if my ears don't (if that makes any sense) i.e. I like playing Van Morrison a lot more than listening to it
4. Expands my horizons and I can learn new techniques.

Being inside the music while playing it is a different experience than just listening. I can appreciate the beauty of Roy Orbison's "Crying" while playing it onstage it's one of my favorites, but if it came on the radio I'd probably change the station.

 

[paganjack]

If the music is occasionally boring, I just take some time to listen more fully to the rest of the band or dance around some more! If I was playing only music that bored the crap out of me, then there would have to be some other factors to make up for it (i.e. fun bandmates, great $, etc.)

 

[HolmeBass]

Short answer: yes. Long answer: playing music is even more fun than listening to music, so it makes some sense that there would be songs that are fun to play but not really that fun to listen to.

 

[pklima]

Why should we have completely different standards for music that we listen to and music that we play ?

I get paid to play music. I get paid better if I play music that appeals to the non musical masses.



If that double standard makes sense to us, should we then accept more double standards in other people?


Why would you make a burger for someone else at Mc Donald's when you wouldn't feed that same burger to your dog at home?

I'd say it's not a double standard, but an infinite array of possible standards which are good to have because music is a means of communication and a social activity.

I mean, what you listen to alone at work is probably not gonna be quite the same as what you'd put on at a house party that's just getting going but nobody's dancing yet. You might really enjoy playing a certain song with a good pianist who knows it, but not enjoy it at all if you've got a mediocre pianist who is trying to fake it. You might enjoy playing the same song more in a certain key that's more familiar or more physically convenient.

Insisting on a single standard for all these situations just seems downright antisocial.

 

[bassinplace]

I like about 90-95% of the music that I hear. I will try to play things that I don't find as interesting because I feel it will deepen my appreciation of music overall and build chops so when I play the stuff I really dig, it's just that much better. Which brings to mind a lyric from a Minutemen song that I think applies in this context, "A richer understanding, of what's already understood".

 

[teleharmonium]

Why should we have completely different standards for music that we listen to and music that we play ?

I get paid to play music. I get paid better if I play music that appeals to the non musical masses.

Right, I can see that. I was asking more about our own assessment of how good the music is intrinsically according to our own personal taste as opposed to whether we enjoy the experience itself of playing it (not the extra musical benefits that can come from it including $).


If that double standard makes sense to us, should we then accept more double standards in other people?

Why would you make a burger for someone else at Mc Donald's when you wouldn't feed that same burger to your dog at home?

I wouldn't (but as a long time vegetarian non dog owner I could be missing your point). But I am arguing against having a double standard for what I like to listen to and what I like to play. I make little or no distinction. I don't think music is about how it feels to play it. I think it's about how it feels to hear it, even to me as a player.

Is the point of making music to have fun, or to make good music ?

Are we talking "Making" music as it pertains to the composition of music, or are we talking about "Making" music by causing the air to move at specific audible frequencies?

Personally, I'm not a big fan of composing, but I do like it when the dance floor is full, the drinks are free, and someone hands me a fist full of money when it's all over with.

I don't think my answer would change for either of those types of "making music". But I am asking just about the music making itself, and not any other results that come about from it like the drinks and payment. The full dance floor, I would see as part of the music making experience because it's a real time relationship with the audience and the music.



If the latter, is it positive or negative to not enjoy a certain performance when you aren't satisfied with the quality ?

I'm not so sure the quality of the performance is tied to the quality of the music. If you perform a piece that may be "Bad" flawlessly, with feeling and three part harmony, what is the quality of that performance?

That depends on whose opinion is that the piece is bad, but it is not related to my question which presumes we are talking about our own subjective opinion about the quality. Consistently relying on our own opinion is the only way we can even get close to an apples to apples comparison (and even that is admittedly suspect).

My question is really about whether the point is the music itself or the experience of making it.

If it leads to you fix problems based on the experience, does that change the equation ?

I get free beer, see strange bewbs, play along with some very talented performers, and I get paid at the end of the night. What's the problem exactly?

I'm talking about musical problems - could be wrong tempo, wrong changes, missed cues, clumsy feel, individual mistakes in execution or in knowing the tune. Anything that could go wrong; it doesn't matter which, for the purpose of the question.

 

[the yeti]

yes.

 

[Phalex]

Why should we have completely different standards for music that we listen to and music that we play ?



Right, I can see that. I was asking more about our own assessment of how good the music is intrinsically according to our own personal taste as opposed to whether we enjoy the experience itself of playing it (not the extra musical benefits that can come from it including $).


If that double standard makes sense to us, should we then accept more double standards in other people?




I wouldn't (but as a long time vegetarian non dog owner I could be missing your point). But I am arguing against having a double standard for what I like to listen to and what I like to play. I make little or no distinction. I don't think music is about how it feels to play it. I think it's about how it feels to hear it, even to me as a player.

Is the point of making music to have fun, or to make good music ?



I don't think my answer would change for either of those types of "making music". But I am asking just about the music making itself, and not any other results that come about from it like the drinks and payment. The full dance floor, I would see as part of the music making experience because it's a real time relationship with the audience and the music.



If the latter, is it positive or negative to not enjoy a certain performance when you aren't satisfied with the quality ?



That depends on whose opinion is that the piece is bad, but it is not related to my question which presumes we are talking about our own subjective opinion about the quality. Consistently relying on our own opinion is the only way we can even get close to an apples to apples comparison (and even that is admittedly suspect).

My question is really about whether the point is the music itself or the experience of making it.

If it leads to you fix problems based on the experience, does that change the equation ?



I'm talking about musical problems - could be wrong tempo, wrong changes, missed cues, clumsy feel, individual mistakes in execution or in knowing the tune. Anything that could go wrong; it doesn't matter which, for the purpose of the question.

I gotcha! I like to play music, and I like to listen to music. I'm not really all that zealous about either though.

 

[teleharmonium]

I'd say it's not a double standard, but an infinite array of possible standards which are good to have because music is a means of communication and a social activity.

I mean, what you listen to alone at work is probably not gonna be quite the same as what you'd put on at a house party that's just getting going but nobody's dancing yet. You might really enjoy playing a certain song with a good pianist who knows it, but not enjoy it at all if you've got a mediocre pianist who is trying to fake it. You might enjoy playing the same song more in a certain key that's more familiar or more physically convenient.

Insisting on a single standard for all these situations just seems downright antisocial.

Yes that would be, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the criteria we use internally in our own personal evaluation of each piece music.

Whether we like a song itself is a separate question from whether we are happy with a specific performance of it. There is no contradiction in liking a tune, liking the way you play it today with one group, and not liking the way it was played another time with another group.

I'm asking about, for any one real world performance - does it make sense to like it because you played it when you would not like it if you were in your car and it came on the radio ?

And if your answer is yes, how does that relate to other double standards ?

Most people tend to not like blatantly subjective double standards in other people - you know, like someone that often says other people should work harder but is themselves lazy, because their own experience of trying to get things done does not conform to the results they say should occur - this is a core concept in most peoples value systems.

So I'm trying to focus on exactly what criteria people use to make an exception to that basic value for themselves when it comes to music.

 

[turbo chicken]

I tell my band all the time... "Dood I don't care... I'll play anything as long as I can technically play it... put my vote with the drummer?"

 

[bucephylus]

Tele, IMO, you may be over analyzing this. I mean, we are discussing music, not someones ethics about living. Difference is that ethics tend to have a somewhat longer validity vs specific tastes for musical period pieces.

Duke said a lot when he stated, "If it sounds good, it is good." There really isn't much more to say. Of course "good"ness is in the mind's eye of the beholder.

Ultimately, it is totally consistent for me that I can not particularly choose, say Sweet child of Mine, as my favorite tune, but I can also be perfectly happy with my performance of it in a particular gig setting. But that's for me to decide.

We are all different (thank God), at different stages of our lives, with different motivations, and different preferences (which change). Many pro musicians get to where they value the particular performance at a given space and time over the particular piece being played. At the same time, it is perfectly fine for those that are committed to particular artistic performances to go by their own motivations. No inconsistency, just diversity.

Its all good. We are brothers and sisters of the bass. Dig it.

 

[skwee]

It works both ways: music I initially dislike becomes a favorite, or like last season, we toured an amazing piece of music, but it became almost impossible to perform.