Rather than hijack keysvocalssax's (who shall heretofore be known as KVS)thread, I'd like to hear your opinions on this question. DO WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO EDUCATE OUR AUDIENCES? we live in a time when Mp3's have virtually replaced the higher quality CD, and Ashly Simpson makes way more money than Diana Krall and a backup offensive lineman in the NFL probably makes more than the average professional ballerina or 1st chair in a major symphony orchestra. The public has shown that it's more than willing to accept total crap if that is what's offered. Someone said in the other post that it's okay to stand on your head and whistle (or something like that) as long as it entertains your audience. Do we really feel that way about the performance of the music we purport to love so much? Is it really ok to sacrifice every vestige of musical integrity (such as knowing how to play; aka "knowing your craft", aka "professionalism") for the sake of entertainment? Yes, we are in the entertainment business, BUT, the vehicle we have chosen (to entertain with) is MUSIC. If "keeping them up on the dance floor" is the only thing that is important, then they'd be much better off, IMO, with a good DJ; they do a much better job of this. There is not much to add to the subject of "cheating". It was subjective before, it's subjective now, and it will be subjective in the future. Big, fast, overpowered cars are nice to drive or ride in but they pollute our planet. Music technolgy is also nice, but it has polluted our pool of talented and trained musicians with a generation of button-pushers. So yes, the public will accect garbage; but does that mean we have to be so willing to accomodate them? Don't we have an obligation to help elevate public taste. The public likes what is easy, that's why MacDonald's is sucessful, that's why no-name, no talent rock bands can make millions. That's what spawns Punk, and Trance, and Hip-Hop, and .....Schlager . And by the way, for those that use SMF's on a gig (especially exclusively) so as to sound more like the record; use a CD player, for crying out loud, it IS the record (and a lot cheaper).

Peace,

chas

I don't know how this question can be answered. Diana Krall is out there. How can we make people listen to and like her? If you make it your mission to educate your audience, what is the best way you would propose doing that and still have an audience? Even in the hayday of jazz back in the 30's, one of the biggest songs was a tisket a tasket. Back when Bach was composing, there were probably crap songs then too, only they didn't survive because the crap musicians didn't work for churches or kings, and they didn't have sound recorder on their piece of crap computer with their piece of crap microphone which could be put up on a piece of crap internet site.

The majority population cannot discern fake from real when it comes to average music. I believe the wanna-be musician has a tough road vs DJ'S and SMF's. When you step up to that professional level and have a pocket of admirers, who cares - by that time, you should just enjoy the fruits of your talent and play for pure fullfillment.

I agree with all that has been said.

Cousin Ken

making music isnt about educating people unless thats what your priority is. For me music is its own reward however it is made or created or played. Iam in the fortunate position of playing music just because i like doing that. I play for choirs and congregations but that takes up less than 10% of my playing time. I mostly play for myself the other 90%. For those of you that play for a living, your duty is to make a living and provide for yourtselves and your families just like any working person and hopefully enjoy doing that. If you can achieve that by playing keys "live" or "semi live" with the use of auto accompaniment or midi files, cd etc then so be it. Doesnt matter a jot how you doit so long as people are prepared to pay you to do it. If you are a great musician but cant find anyone willing topay to hear you play then your talent as great as it may be is as useful as a hole in the head. If you play foryourself then thats a different matter becuase like i said music is its own reward. But if you do this for a living , make no mistake , you need tofind a way to get paid or you will starve.

The measure of success for any performer/vocalist/musician/entertainer comes from their audiences.

There are loads of great musicians in the world, many of which have mastered their instruments to the point where every note is meticulously played to perfection. And, while those individuals should be recognized for their achievements, the vast majority of them will never make a living in the world of music.

They are not entertainers--they are not performers--they are not vocalist--they cannot read an audience--but they can really play well.

There is a small, select, group of individuals that can boast a very high levles of achievement in all the above categories. There is a larger contingent that fits into at least two or three of the above categories. If you fit into just one category, you can still be successful, but only if you are surrounded by others that have mastered the other categories.

Liberache will always be remembered as a great entertainer! He was an outstanding musician. But, if he would have just played the piano without saying a word he would have likely starved to death. Without his extravagent wardrobe, rhinestones and accompaning musicians and singers there would not have been a show.

This is show biz folks, and this is an arranger keyboard forum.

Cheers,

Gary

------------------
Travlin' Easy

Merriam-Webster Dictionary says:


Entertain verb:
2 : to show hospitality to
4 : to provide entertainment for
- en·ter·tain·er noun


Entertainment (noun): 3 a : amusement or diversion provided especially by performers b : something diverting or engaging: as (1) : a public performance (2) : a usually light comic or adventure novel


Musician noun:
a composer, conductor, or performer of music; especially : INSTRUMENTALIST

Gary, I know that you are one of the more respected members of this forum, and deservedly so; however, much of what you said in your post, however true, makes me very sad. But first let me clear up one misconception (about me). Gary's statement "this is an arranger forum", implies that I disapprove of arranger keyboards. I don't, else why would I own two of them (three if you count my long retired I5M). I must truly say that I don't really approve of them for "live" performance but can see the practicality of using them in OMB situations. Since I use mine for compositional assistance and with my work with aspiring young songwriters, for me it's an invaluable tool. I'm sure OMB performers will say the same and I agree with them. What I object to, is using technology as a crutch so as not to have to learn your craft; using smoke and mirrors to convince an audience that they are listening to an ARTIST perform....well, in fact, they are....it's just not YOU. It's those trained and talented musicians that created those styles and midi files that's "keeping them up on the dance floor". What saddens me most though, is the attitude that "entertainment" is intrinsicly more valuable than the art form itself. It saddens me to hear excuses like "make a living and support his family"; but the fact is, there are many ways to make a living and support your family, you CHOSE music. Doesn't that require that you learn your craft (as much as a cabinet maker or master chef). There is story of a not very talented opera singer who was scheduled to play at a very famous opera house in Italy. Although nervous about how he would be received by such a sophisticated audience, he bravely sang his aria and was amazed by a standing ovation. After the third encore, he humbly begged off doing another when a man in the audience stood up, waved his fist in the air and said, "YOU'LL SING IT....UNTIL YOU LEARN IT". Hey, all audiences aren't idiots...better prepare for the day when you run into one.

chas

Chas: Well said. I TOTALLY concur with your sentiments. I could not have 'said it' any better myself. thanks. - Scott

I think too much disecting is what creates these debates and arguments and I think there was a time in all formerly trained musicians/instrumentalists/vocalists lives where they resented the fact that various artificial forms were introduced into the performance creating shortcuts to the final product when they have taken so much time and effort to develop themselves.

QUOTE: What I object to, is using technology as a crutch so as not to have to learn your craft; using smoke and mirrors to convince an audience that they are listening to an ARTIST perform...

REPLY: Much of my personal time is used in going out and listening to live music, enjoying all kinds of styles.
The audiences don't want to be convinced that they are listening to an ARTIST, if they did, what would stop them from taking this mentality 1 step further, saying "You are not really Elvis, so why are you trying to play and sing his song, go back to acting school, you stink"?

Quote:
What saddens me most though, is the attitude that "entertainment" is intrinsicly more valuable than the art form itself.

REPLY: It isn't, in some settings or circles of interests. If the focus at a musical event is a setting where everyone take their seats, quiet, the performance is starting, "can I have everyone's attention"....etc, the public came in to hear a performance by an artist and thats what they expect.

It saddens me to hear excuses like "make a living and support his family"; but the fact is, there are many ways to make a living and support your family, you CHOSE music. Doesn't that require that you learn your craft...

REPLY: Again, in some circles, specific circumstances, yes. And many learn there craft extremely well but every situation they participates in does not call for it to be excercised

QUOTE: There is story of a not very talented opera singer who was scheduled to play at a very famous opera house in Italy. Although nervous about how he would be received by such a sophisticated audience, he bravely sang his aria and was amazed by a standing ovation. After the third encore, he humbly begged off doing another when a man in the audience stood up, waved his fist in the air and said, "YOU'LL SING IT....UNTIL YOU LEARN IT".

REPLY: Thats a specific setting that takes on a specific requirement for the audience, requires/demands that you be at the top, a master of that craft.

QUOTE: Hey, all audiences aren't idiots...better prepare for the day when you run into one.

REPLY: Most likely will not run into an audience like that, maybe an individual or 2. And many here are prepared to where they break away from what the majority there are into, and perform something for that individual or 2. For instance, I may play Tico Tico using 64ths instead of more common 32nds.
Then quickly get back to what the majority are there for, before they walk out and the employer throws me out.

So many different venues with so many different audiences and so many different expectations.
Find the type you like which corresponds to your expectations and have fun.


PS
Well said, good points Spalding and Gary.



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

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).]

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

I think though that if you're going to draw those lines, then you've got to play for audiences who have drawn similar lines. So, rather than educating the masses, you're still singing to the choir. I don't think it's possible to educate a lot of people, not because they would necessarily rather remain ignorant, but simply because their minds and ears can't process it. For instance, my dad is country and Gospel music through and through. Now I love country and Gospel music. But I also love jazz. Have for about 14 years, which is half my life. But regardless how much Dad listens to me play jazz, he just can't understand it and enjoy it. He respects it as quite an advanced and difficult music, but his ears and sense of harmony doen't allow him to make sense of flat 9 sharp 11 chords. So he can't appreciate it, even if he wanted to. But how could he want to if it sounds wrong and bad to him?

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

I hear ya Rory and have experienced that too.
But even if you take the genre of music out of the equation, only specific audiences are looking for a true artistic performance and again that is at concerts and venues of that specific nature.
In my huge area, Chicago, places that focus more on the artistry rather than the "are we having fun yet?" have dwindled from what they were. And thats even in the venues that program for the elders, baby boomers types who grew up through the times where more focus on the art was common.

Not because top musician/vocalist/artists aren't in the area, but because the requirements of the audience has changed. The clubs lounges and other venues are packed with half adequate talent and that happens just by opening the doors to the place.

The super ultra talents in the area have to promote and advertise in papers and with flyers posted in stores, their musical performances, months in advance to generate the audience.

I hated too, to see the dwindling of the music programs in schools which proved or reflected the loss and lack of interest in the art itself.

Days gone by, I could walk into any convenience store around here and buy an issue of Keyboard mag, or Downbeat mag which really focused on the music artist.
Well, now I have to go to the larger book stores to find them, even though the mag racks in the convenients, oscos, walgreens have increased their capacities 300%.

Looking at their selections now, the wants of society are on material things, cars, trucks, cycles, several guitar mags, and Women, Women, Women.


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

Chas,

In sincerely believe that technology, especially recent technological advances in the quality of arranger keyboards, have transformed a fairly steep learning curve into a enjoyable experience for huge numbers of upcoming musicians and performers. Granted, technology has also provided a number of shortcuts, but IMO technology has opened doors for individuals who could not comprehend the complexities of traditional music training.

This technology also allows us to be creative, both with live, improvisitional, performances, and also enhancing vocal performances. Arranger keyboards are a wonderful tool for live performers, and in the foreseeable future they will be utilized more than anyone could have imagined.

Historically, I'm confident that early minstrals were absolutely dismayed when the piano was invented. The irony of this is that all of those instruments, no matter how far you look back in time, are still with us. The keyboard is just another musical instrument, and a rather magnificent instrument at that. Technology has brought about a host of musical advancements through the ages, and mastering those instruments will always require training, dedication and talent.

I've never been saddened by technological advances. Instead, I'm always intrigued by the creativity that went into the technology, and I applaud those wonderful individuals that have brought this about in such a short period of time. I feel very fortunate to have witnessed these changes, and I'm looking forward to what the next gerneration of arranger keyboards has to offer.

Cheers,

Gary

------------------
Travlin' Easy

What saddens me most though, is the attitude that "entertainment" is intrinsicly more valuable than the art form itself. It saddens me to hear excuses like "make a living and support his family"; but the fact is, there are many ways to make a living and support your family, you CHOSE music. Doesn't that require that you learn your craft (as much as a cabinet maker or master chef).

The art itself has limited value. If nobody apprecited motzart nomatter how talented he was his name would have disappeared without a mention in any history book. I am sure he really loved his music and luckily for him so did a lot of others. Lets not kid ourselves, the music only has intrinsic value to the artist. If it has no comercial value then its dead in the water. I assume those of you that perform professionally do so with the satisfacton that they are getting paid. Be true to your "art" if thats what you need to do to get job satisfaction but dont forget the bottom line. If music is your livelihood and you forget why you are getting paid. Making a living is never an excuse, its the reason you work professionally as a musician . If thats not the truth of a working musicians baseline then i will happily book the "artist" here for a couple of pounds for n evenings "entertainment".

Arrrgghh. Gary, again I agree with most of what you say, but you're starting (and ending) from a position of "chas hates technology and/or arranger keyboards". Not so. I'm an engineer, I'm in love with technology. Captain Russ often speaks of his "love/hate" relationship with his arranger KB. I'm pretty much the same...when used as a tool to stimulate creativity and assist in bringing the result of that creativity to speedy fruition, then I love them. When used as a crutch to stifle creativity and artistic development, I hate them. Someone mentioned the decline of music programs in our schools, thereby diminishing the number of trained musicians in the next generation. And that may be the REAL issue in this thread. As FAEbGBD correctly pointed out, it's already too late for the "older generation" who not only can't adjust their taste in music (and probably shouldn't have to try) but are also content to hack out the chords to Moon River on their auto-accompaniment keyboards. So maybe it's too late to "educate" our current audiences, but maybe we SHOULD obligate ourselves to stop the downward slide that seems to be the trend with our young people. If you've got kids or grandkids, try to expose them to something of quality and explain to them that Gramps is only using this arranger KB for convenience and that they need to turn off the iPod and go practice their piano lesson. And good luck with that .

chas

hey, stop hijacking my KVS thread! just kidding..never
realized I would be opening up such a Pandora's Box..am
thoroughly enjoying reading all these well-founded opinions and am learning a lot from them, too. Before I jump in with my 2 cents worth again, I want to apologize for the clumsy analogy re spelling in my last thread which offended some. I wasn't trying to be a mean-spirited spelling critic--I would have served all better had I been clearer..probably an analogy about using spellchecker technology as a shortcut compared to using transpose technology to achieve the same end would have been
right on. Like that better? Ok, here's the 2 cents worth:

It seems to me everyone is making very valid points, but
some of the underlying assumptions should maybe come under more scrutiny. If music is good, why should it matter how it is achieved? Again I cite Irving Berlin: he "cheated",used a transposer(all the time!!!), and became arguably our greatest--
certainly our most prolific and enduring-- songwriter. The digital piano eliminates the need to tune. Would you argue
that having to determine when your piano needs tuning is invaluable ear training, therefore the player of a digital piano is a fraud? On the other hand, there is the issue of
crap music. If the spread of technology is in large part responsible for the preponderance of drek, then a case can be made that the ease of production allows music to
fall into less capable hands, and therefore standards of
craftsmanship should be maintained for that reason alone
and those who shortcut should be despised. However, if
you take that stance...remember it is you who are using
arranger keyboards. do you fell like a hypocrite?
A friend who is a well-known recording engineer said this to me 15 years ago: "The studio and recording technology keeps getting better and better, the sound quality improves by quantum leaps--at the same time the product gets worse and worse...why should that be?" Oh my, always are more questions, eh?
Miami Mo

Some years ago I organised a Christmas programme using recorded music from the "great composers" combined with the traditional Christmas hymns sung by the congregation from a more working class background.
I felt a lot of gratifcation when one of the congregation came to me afterwards and said that they did not realise such beautifull music existed.
How will any one know such beautifull music exists if they are not exposed to it.
Music was hijacked in the fifties by commercial interests who have since sold it like you would sell a pound of butter or soap powder.
My children were exposed to "classical music in our home and at one time attended a concert in which myself and my wife sang in The Saint Matthew Passion.
The "kids" still remember it and for weeks were huming or singing parts of it.
Please do not think I am knocking any artist
who is a member of this forum I enjoy a lot of your contributions.

Cousin Ken

Not trying to be picky, but does anyone else have trouble reading long posts with no paragraph breaks? When I'm browsing the forum and I see a huge chunk of typing with no line or paragraph breaks, I tend to just scan through it too quickly.

Maybe it's just me!

interesting how often Diana Krall comes up as paradigm in these posts. sure, she's a very good singer, kinda sexy and not at all bad looking---but she's a direct stylistic descendant of Peggy Lee, who was much prettier, much sexier, an original stylist, fantastic singer, consummate and exciting performer, and a very good songwriter. and
PLee was just one of a panoply of amazing performers of her era. now we have DKrall as our paragon? how sad. how did this happen? were we just in a "golden era" and didn't know it? I went to the Litchfield Ct. Jazz Festival last summer, many wonderful acts..then we stayed for 79-yr old "Catwoman" Eartha Kitt. Just for fun, just to see the
still-sexy looking relic and hear her campy act for a few
minutes. oh man, were we mistaken:she was the best jazz singer we have heard since Ella, Sarah, Peggy, et al, and her backup band with her longtime pianist-arranger outswung all the other groups combined. Atl least while
she's still around, let's cling to this treasure. But again,
she's from the golden era..why were they so great and
why is DKrall the best we have to offer today? or is she?
Miami Mo

Can you imagine how helpful it would be if the person writing the post states what is his criteria for judging. Using two different sets of criteria to judge or make your opinions can make both people right.

If the criteria is “the paycheck justifies all”. So be it.

If the criteria is musicianship, state it before your opinion.

IMHO, John C.

Diana Krall is incredible.

Did Peggy Lee and Eartha Kitt play the piano?

Ian

------------------
Remember to leave good news alone.

KVC, just because I used DK in an example doesn't necessarily translate into "she is the best out there". Although this thread wasn't about female singers, I WILL bite and say that I tend to seperate vocalist into two groups; singers and stylists. Diana Krall, IMO, falls into the latter category. While I think she is okay and a consummate professional, I would much prefer a Shirley Horn, Carmen McRae, or Nina Simone. As for pure singers, I'll take a Sarah Vauhan or a Gloria Lynn (I'm Glad There is You). There are many other singers I like, but I was keeping it to females and jazz. I also love Janis Joplin and Joe Cocker because the soul was for real (as opposed to just having the pipes and musicianship to fake it). In fact, that would make an interesting thread; who has soul and who's faking it. This should include all genre's and past and present. We could also save some typing by just acknowledging say, James Brown and Luciano Pavrotti right up front, and maybe Mahalia Jackson and Edith Piaf. Although I'm not a fan of the style, I can still recognize that many Country singers have it. Who would some of your candidates be, on either side of the aisle (got it/faking it)?

chas

PS: if someone wants to try to define "soul" first, go right ahead.

Thing about Diana is that there's no mistaking her for somebody else. Maybe not the best, but definitely has her own timbre. A lot of the country singers and pop singers I don't think have that. They can sing fine, but they don't all have a distinguishable voice. Anyway, has anyone here heard Stacey Kent? Another unique sound. She has an interesting diction, the way she says some of her words, but I really like her.

And as to Irving Berlin, he did what he did best. Wrote songs. To my knowledge he didn't take his D Flat piano out gigging. He did his art well, and let the musicians and singers do their art with his work. And the whole process remained artistic and had integrity.

[This message has been edited by FAEbGBD (edited 08-20-2006).]

I wanna say only a little of what i wanna say:
i hear this a lot on this forum, about playing live and not using SMFs, CDs,(and I will add: Styles)! If You're so into Live music, than why bother playing Keyboard at all, why won't you just play LIVE instrument, like a guitar, bass guitar, drums, if you're so into live music ?!?!
and i can answere part of this question: Because these people can't play any live instrument, because thet're used to just pressing chords and the AutoAccompaniment is doing all the work for these lazy people. If you made the Style yourself than its ok to use is. same thing with SMFs and stuff, if you made it yourself USE IT, if you're using someone elses SMF, thats even worse than using auto accompaniment!

[This message has been edited by Vadim (edited 08-20-2006).]

Definition of "SOUL."
Ray Charles.
There's isn't another entertainer that can sing with feeling like Ray and also play his instrument with the same feeling (for Ray the piano) that I've ever heard.

Since the beginning of time he'd be the musician I'd kill for to jam with.
He knew his stuff. Everyone one else can only come in second to Ray. Guitar strummers don't count.

I'm talking musicians who can get up and improvise with any commercial band on any commercial tune. Ray could cut it friends.

I hear alot of similarities of Judy Roberts in DK. Judy has been around many years, playing piano and singing jazz, lots of albums.

I appreciate what both are doing musically.

OK I have to get in on this one. I quit posting here because I got tired of all the pissing contests. Vadim, I can and do play piano regularly. I have produced a solo piano CD and do concerts to promote it. I also do hotel jobs, I'm a church music director, and I'm musical director of Senior Star Showcase at Essex Community College in Baltimore. I am a real musician and I also play an arranger and I love it. I play it because I love to entertain people. I love to see the smile on their faces when they hear the music. I love to play to a crowded dance floor as I just did this afternoon. I love it when I run out of business cards like I did today. I don't play one because I can't play anything else, I play one because the OMB format works really well for me. It has sustained me in this crazy business for many years now.

And no, it's not a crime to buy a SMF. Frank Sinatra hired arrangers to arrange his music. All a SMF is is an arrangement which someone else did and you bought and paid for. I usually use them so I can get up from behind the keyboard and go out into the audience.

I guess I've said enough. If you don't like arranger keyboards, this probably isn't the place to be. As for me, I think they're great and I'll continue to use them.

Joe

------------------
Songman55
Joe Ayala

Not very good in English, not sure if the translation from my native language will produce a meaning to you but here it is....

It depends on what you do:
1) You play an instrument (or music) FOR people, for a crowd.
2) You play an instrument TO people, to a crowd.

If you play FOR them, you have to accept and conform with their wants and needs, and provide music accordingly. (Think of the Blues Brothers playing "Rawhide" all night in the movie)

If you play TO them, you are playing for yourself, and if they like what they hear, then good for them, if they don't like it, you don't care after all. (have no example, Miles Davies late years maybe?)

It depends on what you want to do, and if it pays enough to "feed you and your family" which comes in the equation if you get paid to do either of the above.

There is actually no wrong or right in my opinion. Seems more like a balance between these two.

Rory...Trident...you both got to the essence of the discussion, I think.

Entertainers need to play to audiences. Musicians need to play for themsaelves.

Most of us are a little of both.

I personally admire the innovators who stuck it out and figured out how to innovate and pay the bills at the same time. It's a pretty hard way to go, and a lot of the best really suffered and did without.

Some make sacrifices for their art. A very few are recognized and reap rightfully deserved rewards.

Rory, I woud say that what happens is we "convert "people to the choir, as well as play to them. Think of yourself. someone got you into complex structures, appreciation of
the best in the business? If you're like me, you're really glad that happened.


Russ

[This message has been edited by captain Russ (edited 08-21-2006).]

[This message has been edited by captain Russ (edited 08-21-2006).]

No, it's not just you. Mind-blowing, isn't it. What so hard about hitting "Enter" twice between paragraphs?

------------------
Bill
Yamaha PSR2000

You're not wrong. I'm one of guiltiest of the guilty parties.

I tend to get caught up in thought and sort of forget about structure.

As is my custom when returning home late from the bar, I beg for forgiveness and promise not to do it again.......maybe.


chas

Sorry folks for not being around in a while,
been busy trying to get open, although I have not been posting, I have been reading and kinda keeping up with things.....my comments are that Joe hit the nail with his reply. Good show Joe...

Please, let us all remember that we all have different levels of
talent, skills, musicianship, showmanship and all of the other ingredients necessary to get up there before a group of people to play for or to entertain
to the point of making their night special or unforgettable. However you do it should not distract from your abilities or your talent or make it seem that you are less than you are, some of us are not multi talented while others are.
Don't let this thread or comments from any other thread make you feel less than what you are or intimidate you to not try to do your best what ever it takes.
I'm a vocalist and entertainer not a musician but it doesnt keep me from wanting and trying to learn how to play better, at 67 years I'm finally learning to play the keyboard but I will use what ever is at my disposal to please my audience and myself. Let's all make MUSIC the best way we know how, what ever it is, I'll bet you'll feel better for it...cheers and good luck and again, Joe, good post.
TR

Wasn't referring to anyone in particular Chas To help myself, I tend to hold down the control key and use the scroll wheel on the mouse to make all the text bigger and easier to read. Maybe I need an eye exam!

About 2 ½ years ago I started to work with midi files – not because I wanted to, but because the demands out there were changing.

My home time was divided 30% playing and 70% on midi files. The songs I played without thought were not as easy anymore. My ability to play was diminishing. I would play hour after hour – my fingers seemed to be finding their own way.

So my narrow view of midi files and musicianship developed into a dislike for midi files. They were not me, I wanted more of me. I love the freedom of playing live.

I have stepped back and taken a different healthy view;

I’m one lucky guy, I can do it all, I can take advantage of every part of the creating of music – and enjoy it without prejudice. It is no longer one or the other.

Only my 2 cents, John C.

I really like the analogy of Frank Sinatra using arrangers!

A great musician, a great entertainer, but someone else wrote the songs, someone else wrote the arrangement, and a whole heap of someone else's played ALL the parts except for the lead vocal......

Technology has increased the APPARENT number of parts we can play at one time (Hammonds virtually killed the big bands), but the truth of it is, we still only have ten digits, what we do with them is our calling card. The more you let the arranger do, the less your audience is going to associate you with the music.....

Arranger keyboards are a revenue device (for professionals)..... If you were TRULY interested in the music above all else, there is no choice but to play in a real band, with all it's disadvantages to your bank balance, or be a solo pianist and hope there is a decent piano at the gig. Arrangers merely allow you to work cheaper than a full band, and give the illusion, sonically, that you still are one, but they provide none of the day-to-day inspiration that working with others provide.

As to educating the public....... I don't think you give them enough credit. Most of them KNOW it's not real, it's just that their focus and tastes have changed. MTV changed everything. The nature of TV always emphasizes the pretty over the talented. Look at all the good, ugly bands that died out when MTV started in the early 80's, and the rise of Duran Duran type pretty boys. We moan about it, but seldom realize that it came about because videos are an entirely different medium to music.

In many ways, music has returned to a very Broadway-ish mentality, where the staging and the dancing is as important as the music (many an average musical survived because of great choreography and sets!). Few of us will criticize Broadway musicals, yet happily slander Brittney Spears, or Madonna, who are their logical successor. And nowadays, you are hard pressed to find a Broadway show that doesn't use tapes to replace the full orchestra and sometimes even the chorus!

As corporate America forces us to be as bottom-line as possible, and fewer and fewer of the middle and lower classes can afford entertainment with a high labor cost, what we see in the music industry only reflects what is being done to the workers as a whole - the musical equivalent of outsourcing and downsizing...... For those of us that have chosen music as a profession, we have as little choice to go along with it as the unemployed tech support guy in California.

Maybe Europe is showing us the way with the huge popularity of arrangers over there...... $9 a gallon gasoline makes for a very expensive band cost, singles are far more cost effective. Guitarists will always get by, but I pity the drummers and bass players in the next ten years.....

Educate the public......... Nah! Might as well tell them to stop driving and buy a bicycle - global warming is upon us! They are always going to do what they want to do, and no Hammond player ever got famous for telling his audience that he was playing the big band parts...... he just played them, and let his audience dance (which is all they wanted to do in the first place)!

As the general public has become more educated, many intellectual-artists I've met have become more disparaging of the public's intellectual incapacities and other moral shortcomings.

There is no need to "teach the audience". In 1940 for example, in the United States more than half of the U.S. population had only an eighth-grade education, or less. Now 85 percent are high-school graduates, 53 percent have some college education and 27 percent are college graduates. However it is an article of faith among many artist-intellectuals that the public is becoming increasingly obtuse, bigoted and superstitious.

Please do not underestimate the intelligence of your audience. Today's audiences have hundreds of musical options available and the fact that they are attending your performance should be considered an honor.

Some music; Jazz, for instance, is an acquired taste. The issue about education is not about general education, but education centered around the particular art form. Winton Marcellis is overpowering and obnoxious but committed to education in the area of Jazz and Jazz history. There are many others. Thankfully, there are mechanisms in place that make that happen.

The situation is, some music art forms are not sustainable as commercial endeavors. The great debate is, if no one wants to pay to listen or buy recordings, is it worth preserving? That's where organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts and others come in.

The world is full of music educators and "leading edge" perrformers who couldn't/can't make it solely as performers. We have concentrated here on whether or not it's up to us to educate. Probably not for most of us.

But, I think having someone do it is valid.

Look at all the brilliant musicians from the past who were plagued with poverty, addictions...even insanity, in some instances. They STILL made priceless contributions to the over-all advancement of music styles, structure, compositions, etc.

It's pretty hard not to at least recognize these contributions to a better world.


Russ