I just told my wife I'm changing strings on my bass, and she asked, 'When did you start playing?'
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.
- Status
The problem was that multiple other data points were presented afterwards and myself and others were called arrogant for not assuming those other data points.
"This thing happened once which indicates this...."
"Yah but it happened once so it doesn't indicate anything"
"What are you talking about? It happened a million times."
"Oh, well you just mentioned the one time so...."
"Are you serious? Of course it happened a million times. You're arrogant for not knowing that and agreeing with me."
581 posts ago
Welcome to page 30!!!!
as soon as I have an audience?
greetings
Wise
No arrogance...
Early in the thread - yeah one data point. That is if you've never ever experieced something similar yourself.
Later in the thread many other data points were thrown in from different observers...
As I said scientifically - even statistically you're right.
Looking at jimmy's statement though - he wasn' really calling people stupid (though I'm sure he' like to now lol).
Just mentioning that you shouldn't underestimate the audience and here's a story that backs that up...
Add in some hyperbole and an inference and wow pages of replies...
I'd argue that scientifically is the only way to be right. But others disagree. And that makes me sad.
Well - it is science. Science is always drawing conclusions from the data available and being willing to change your position as other data is presented.
Without data disproving the statements made (ie 30 people coming up to Jimmy and saying " I didn't notice your bass tone at all" or " both if those basses sound the same" etc etc.
I was taught in school that the only living relatives of dinosaurs were today's reptiles and that dinosaurs were cold blooded. This was science. Today new evidence shows that birds are actually their more likely descendants and that dinosaurs were warm blooded. More data...
I read (almost) all of these posts, and it seems that folks are talking like "audience" is one thing. Its almost like racism in which one group of people lump another group with some attribute into a convenient term and then rate them (or berate them) as if they were a single entity with a single over-riding attribute..
So. . .what's up with that??
As the wise man said. "It is a fool who makes himself look taller by cutting off the heads of those around him"
So. . .what's up with that??
As the wise man said. "It is a fool who makes himself look taller by cutting off the heads of those around him"
If you're playing you're a performer. If you're watching, you're the audience.
They prolly don't tell the complimenter OR the insulter anything like that, and prolly don't believe the individual compliments or insults anyway.
But after enough compliments they will come to believe they have reached a level of professionalism where even their own self-assessed Bad Nights are still good enough. Or, after enough insults, they will come to change things up, or quit. In both cases, it's based on audience feedback. No matter whether audience members give that feedback verbally or not.
This is the greater lesson for all who leave the bedroom and venture out into performance: audience feedback is everything.
And it's unavoidable: if you are a performer, you'd better find your appropriate audience, and then take them very seriously. They will decide whether you play on Wednesday night or on Saturday night, and whether you play in small empty clubs or packed arenas. The effect they have on you will change your life.
Their opinion about your art matters more than yours does. This includes your instrument sound.
Those of you who try to invalidate their opinion, whether in matters large or small, are just trying to protect yourself against the failure you see for yourself either now or on the horizon. You are free to do this, but it won't change anything. Regardless of what you tell yourself, audiences determine your worth as an artist.
All of that is what you're trying to deny when you rationalize that they couldn't have noticed Jimmy's string/bass change that they clearly noticed. It doesn't matter what your excuse is for trying to deny it.
I'm tired of helping to explain that 1 + 1 = 2. It's inexcusable for there to be controversy over a post that said to respect one's audience, and I've done what little I can do here anyway, so I'm bowing out of this thread.
Jimmy, thanks for starting it, because it's an extremely important refresher course in whether one should be any kind of performer at all.
See ya's elsewhere on TB.
So to recap, correct me if I'm wrong, JimmyM is saying: Respect your audience, amongst other things also regarding your attitude towards your sound.EDIT:
So if I ever hear any of you jokers try to claim that the audience doesn't know or care about your sound again, I will tell you that you're a very arrogant person who has zero respect for your audiences. Of course, I have been saying that for years, but now I've got proof. A big outdoor venue with about 3000 people there in various states of inebriation, and several non-musicians noticed that the strings on the Fender made it sound edgier.
The lesson I learned is I need to change my strings more oftenThe lesson YOU should learn is that if you think your audience is so stupid that they can't tell the difference in your sound no matter what you use, maybe they're not the stupid ones.
Happy holidays, everyone!
Not only out of respect itself, but also because in crowd there are people who notice, people who care, people who may or may not come again to your show, people who may or may not want to book you, but mostly out of respect.
(my recap maybe softer in tone, but has the same message as far as I'm concerned)
If you do your best in rehearsing and preparing, dressing up and giving your best, why not go for the best sound too?
Some people may find JimmyM a bit too edgy in his words, but I actually like that.
Now I am going to do something useful: practice playing from sheet music (John Deacon, here I come!)
Face it...you were looking for an argument because you didn't like how I wrote my OP, and you've latched onto that and won't let it go because it's all you've got.
So tell me, scientist, how do I turn this (very clearly) anecdotal look at players' respect levels for their audience's intelligence into science? Is it even possible? If not, then do YOU think the people in your audiences are clueless about music? If so, where is YOUR scientific study to prove it?
I never said anything about anyone's respect for the audience. You think I did, but you're wrong.
Thank you, Charlie Mac. This is so correct that I don't think one can get more correct. Our audiences are clearly not just a single entity with a single brain that's way inferior to ours. But man, there sure seems to be a bunch of folks on here who are upset by that notion. Why is that? Is it because being able to play music is the one thing that they think makes them special and better than their audiences, and someone is trying to yank it away from them?
Don't duck my questions. I don't duck yours. I'll repeat them:
How do I turn this (very clearly) anecdotal look at players' respect levels for their audience's intelligence into science? Is it even possible? If not, then do YOU think the people in your audiences are clueless about music? If so, where is YOUR scientific study to prove it?
I have no idea. I haven't addressed respect for audiences. Not even once. I'm not ducking a question. It's like asking me to back up my assertion that the earth is flat because ducks poop on it. Neither are things I've said.
Speaking in terms of bars and clubs, most times people in audience know the difference between a good sounding band and a bad sounding band but they really don't know why. I have heard (and worked with) musicians who make good gear sound bad and those who can make cheap gear sound good. But put good musicians with good gear together and watch out! I've been the guy with the $49 microphone while the other band members had $100 mic's. Then I was the guy with the $100 mic while the others had $300 mics. Now I am the guy with the $350 mic and the drummer shows up with his new pride and joy....a $49 head set mic. OMG it was bad...we just can't get a good sound from it, and he refused to buy anything better so our drummer vocals always sounded like crap. I was so happy when he left.
I worked for a short time in a band where the very good singer used cheap Peavey Guitar, amp and mic. In his garage where we rehearsed it didn't sound too bad. Partly because he had a great voice. But live he just didn't cut thru. Friends who came to see me all said the same thing...lose that singer. I told him about this because I had been arguing with him about his cheap mic sound since the beginning. So at the next rehearsal I let him use my mic. OMG what a difference. But he wouldn't budge on his cheap mic, He said that it was cheap gear or nothing for him, he just refused to pay the price to sound good and the kicker was that he made a real good living. Fast forward to our next rehearsal and he had the PA adjusted to actually make his mic sound descent. He was so proud... until we all discovered that he had changed the eq so radically that all of the inherent qualities of our pro gear was wiped out. I resigned shortly after
In another situation, I had the only good mic of all the band member but only sang two songs per set. I was told by many bar managers that I was the best singer and should sing more. The truth was that I was, by far, the worst singer in the band...I just had the best mic...by a long shot.
I learned a lot thru these guys (and audience comments) about the need for good gear.
I worked for a short time in a band where the very good singer used cheap Peavey Guitar, amp and mic. In his garage where we rehearsed it didn't sound too bad. Partly because he had a great voice. But live he just didn't cut thru. Friends who came to see me all said the same thing...lose that singer. I told him about this because I had been arguing with him about his cheap mic sound since the beginning. So at the next rehearsal I let him use my mic. OMG what a difference. But he wouldn't budge on his cheap mic, He said that it was cheap gear or nothing for him, he just refused to pay the price to sound good and the kicker was that he made a real good living. Fast forward to our next rehearsal and he had the PA adjusted to actually make his mic sound descent. He was so proud... until we all discovered that he had changed the eq so radically that all of the inherent qualities of our pro gear was wiped out. I resigned shortly after
In another situation, I had the only good mic of all the band member but only sang two songs per set. I was told by many bar managers that I was the best singer and should sing more. The truth was that I was, by far, the worst singer in the band...I just had the best mic...by a long shot.
I learned a lot thru these guys (and audience comments) about the need for good gear.
Oh come now! You've chastised me over and over for not being scientific and not presenting my OP as science, to the point where it's become extremely irritating and repetitive, and now you're telling me that you don't know how I could present it in a scientifically acceptable manner? Come on, Gornie...you're copping out on me! It's not enough to point fingers. I want solutions.
The burden of proof sir. Prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. I rejected your initial assertion based on insufficient evidence. It's not up to me to prove the antithesis of your point. Your irritation is your problem. I can't help you.
My initial assertion was the audiences are smarter than musicians like to give credit, and you rejected that based on insufficient evidence. And judging by how much you've browbeaten me with the same tired old "science" argument over and over, then you are either desperate to keep my attention or you believe that audiences aren't smarter than musicians like to give credit and offended that I would say something to the contrary, and you don't want to admit it.
Despite the empirical evidence that would allow me to conclude scientifically that you are attention-starved, I am going to take the high road, and give you the chance to tell me why you insist on beating me about the face and head with this point you've made a million times over. I already agreed that I wasn't presenting science here, nor would I have a clue how to present something like this scientifically without turning my gigs into something that would get us fired. So what the hell is your continued beef with me?
- Status
