Chas, as usual, a thoughtful, well presented arguement which I can really relate to.

I especially liked the comparison of Diana Krall with sports figures, etc.

I think it comes down to a decision of personal ethics. And, decisions are different for musicians vs. entertainers.

"Hard liners" (and I am one) have to make some real choices and sacrifices. I WON'T play country music and won't play for mostly country audiences. I WON'T use sequences.

I WON'T play tunes of no consequence to simply please audiences.

There are lots of things I won't do. And, I pay the consequences every day, in terms of limited audiences and reduced income.

I should clarify...I CAN'T live with playing anything which compromises my own set of guidelines which determine what I do music-wise.

Now, I'm not trying to preach from my high horse, and I'm not implying that anyone who does it differently is doing anything wrong.

As a musician, I feel I walk the tricky road between entertaining and enlightening. I have an obligation to myself to present music of substance...to try to open the minds of listeners.

When you take that approach, you risk playing yourself out of a job. If playing for the public was my sole source of income, I might quickly change my approach (remember all the superior jazz musicians who starved themselves, died paupers, etc.)? My compromise is to:

1. Play at upscale restaurants as a"mood/background" musician.

2. Play "two for them...one for me".

3. Gratefully accept less compensation.

4. Make most of my music income from composing industrial film scores, instead of live performances.

Being true to myself is paramount to me. And, I've been doing this since I was 10...fifty years last February, with 9 weeks off.

I made these choices, and I have no regrets.
The rest of the world can play and listen to Jimmy Buffet.

Not me!


Thanks, Chas,

Russ Lay


[This message has been edited by captain Russ (edited 08-19-2006).]