OT: Credit for hard work

[Eric Iverson]

Do you think the media will ever realize how much hard work it takes for most of us to play well, write good tunes, come up with nice arrangements, etc.

 

Or will they always regard us, not as hard-working pros, but as either geniuses or idiots?

 

For example: people like Charlie Parker and Coltrane and Eric Johnson among many others spent a LOT of time in the woodshed.. but that seems to be the last thing magazine articles want to discuss (apart from Guitar Player and other musician's magazines, of course!)

[Dr. Ellwood]

No, they won't, they are clueless. Only musicians know what it takes to play well.

[Big Red 67]

No, they won't, they are clueless. Only musicians know what it takes to play well.

 

True enuff. I still love what I do. It would be nice to get the stroke though in the mean time I will play and play with love and passion.

[revolead]

Do you think the media will ever realize how much hard work it takes for most of us to play well, write good tunes, come up with nice arrangements, etc.

 

Yes, so long as it suits one of three things: (1) the writer or producer is a musician himself and already understands this, (2) media can profit by recognizing it, or (3) enough people like you write enough letters to the editor of guitar magazines that media become aware that they are shutting out a large part of their readership and/or audience by not including such material.

 

(Editor Boy take note of the above)

 

I should add that in part this is a two-way street. Media are not some singular, giant entity with the sole goal of destroying people's lives for profit or some sort of an agenda gain. Rather, media is part of a greater concept, mass communication, that includes an audience on one end and a producer or writer on the other end. But unlike most forms of communication, it is very difficult in mass communication to receive some sort of feedback. For decades now, political parties and activists, scholars, advertisers, businessmen, and millions of others have sought a way to do so.

 

Thus far, they have come up with respondent surveys (that people like you get annoyed at every time a telephone call or man-on-the-street interrupts your "priceless" time), advertising dollars (that people like you complain drain money away from the actual producers and writers), and actual profit dollars, measured in the number of subscriptions gained or lost or in the amount of revenue coming in. However, the fall back on all of these is that only the first one is a direct form of communication. All others are meant to suffice as indirect feedback. If a series of articles is published and that issue produces more profit from subscriptions, then the magazine assumes they are doing something right. Otherwise, they assume something is wrong.

 

So if guitar magazines are still generating money with a billion and one gear reviews, then why should they change their format? Their audience (whether you, personally, agree with the audience as a whole matters not) has already spoken, and thus, the magazine focuses on what sells, not what 200 people out of 100,000 want. Like it or hate it, that's the way it goes.

 

Also, I think many of us on the forums forget that music is also a medium. So before we go accusing the media of scandals, frivolities, and fiscal lechery, remember that includes you.

[Michael Patrick]

I'd be happy if the media notices me at all...

[Big Red 67]

I'd be happy if the media notices me at all...

 

Or even steal some of my work,... huh?

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Well, a pretty common plot device in sci-fi movies is that the hero discovers (or is told) that he was born with some strange genes that give him superpowers. Or something along those lines. All he needs after that is some tights and he's set.

 

And I think that music is a bit like that too.

 

Everyone wishes he could pick up a sax or a guitar and just play and amaze the masses. Immediately and without a single lesson or practice session. I think that is why so many people who obviously can't sing turn up to American Idol auditions. They subconsciously expect that there'll be this... miracle, and that they'll unknowingly be carrying some amazing gene that allows them to be brilliant without making any effort at all.

 

Promoting the myth of innate genius while ignoring the thousands of hours a guy like Coltrane spent on doing boring old *scales* is a way of tapping into the rather common desire of being a dormant superhero or sorts.

[Gifthorse]

When you play music alot and you love it, it fuels itself. I mean the practice. I think great players like Coltrane or anyone really get like that from hard work but also from vision. They see the light at the end of the tunnel. They have a goal and it doesn't involve any of us, but thats why we are effected.

 

I dunno, I always forget what the proper usage of effect and affect are..

 

 

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

The "regular people" don't know, don't care, and it doesn't matter.....

 

As long as they enjoy listening, that's enough credit for me.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

I dunno, I always forget what the proper usage of effect and affect are..

 

The dust affected his lungs. That job had a terrible effect on him. When he left the company, all he had were his personal effects. But then he got a much softer job where all he had to do was effect a few company bank transactions every day. Unfortunately, that turned him into a real snob and he started behaving in a terribly affected manner.

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Poor guy.

[Eric Iverson]

His only salvation would be to practice 10 hours a day... he wouldn't have time to worry about that OTHER STUFF.....

[Eric Iverson]

Do you think the media will ever realize how much hard work it takes for most of us to play well, write good tunes, come up with nice arrangements, etc.

 

Yes, so long as it suits one of three things: (1) the writer or producer is a musician himself and already understands this, (2) media can profit by recognizing it, or (3) enough people like you write enough letters to the editor of guitar magazines that media become aware that they are shutting out a large part of their readership and/or audience by not including such material.

 

(Editor Boy take note of the above)

 

I should add that in part this is a two-way street. Media are not some singular, giant entity with the sole goal of destroying people's lives for profit or some sort of an agenda gain. Rather, media is part of a greater concept, mass communication, that includes an audience on one end and a producer or writer on the other end. But unlike most forms of communication, it is very difficult in mass communication to receive some sort of feedback. For decades now, political parties and activists, scholars, advertisers, businessmen, and millions of others have sought a way to do so.

 

Thus far, they have come up with respondent surveys (that people like you get annoyed at every time a telephone call or man-on-the-street interrupts your "priceless" time), advertising dollars (that people like you complain drain money away from the actual producers and writers), and actual profit dollars, measured in the number of subscriptions gained or lost or in the amount of revenue coming in. However, the fall back on all of these is that only the first one is a direct form of communication. All others are meant to suffice as indirect feedback. If a series of articles is published and that issue produces more profit from subscriptions, then the magazine assumes they are doing something right. Otherwise, they assume something is wrong.

 

So if guitar magazines are still generating money with a billion and one gear reviews, then why should they change their format? Their audience (whether you, personally, agree with the audience as a whole matters not) has already spoken, and thus, the magazine focuses on what sells, not what 200 people out of 100,000 want. Like it or hate it, that's the way it goes.

 

Also, I think many of us on the forums forget that music is also a medium. So before we go accusing the media of scandals, frivolities, and fiscal lechery, remember that includes you.

 

I wasn't taking it to the degree where I accused the media of "scandals" etc. Just that they don't usually seem to recognize the hard work involved.. or for actors and painters and other artists either. Or at least it doesn't appear on TV shows I've seen.

 

Mostly I think we should just respect each other!

 

[revolead]

I understand, Eric. I just see the accusations float fairly wildly around here. Your thread gave me an opportunity to vent, while answering your question from an educated point of view. FWIW, I graduate in two week with a degree in mass communication, so it is my specialty.

[Dr. Ellwood]

"the accusations float fairly wildly around here" Yeah they do, but not anymore than weak sourced, factless and unprofessional media so-called editorial comments do.

[revolead]

True, but that is a matter of crappy writing and bad research. They try to weed that out in journalism school, but it never works.

 

Every columnist thinks they're a genius and that no one could possible be better than them, which is why we have 400 opinions from 300 newspapers about everything, whether it's politics or CD reviews. Take it from someone who has worked as a columnist. Often, I will admit, that arrogance exceeds thought and talent. It runs with the breed. People willing to tell the world their opinion act that way, even myself, occasionally. Though, I'd like to think I've been able to observe that with much more ease than the rest of the community, which is why I want nothing to do with working for some overly-sophisticated pretentious 45-year-old elitists, which is exactly what most opinion section editors are.

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Huh...and here I thought it was the job of the media, be it newpaper, radio, internet, or television, to simply report the facts without trying to spin it with personal opinions. Stupid me.

[Dr. Ellwood]

"Huh...and here I thought it was the job of the media, be it newpaper, radio, internet, or television, to simply report the facts without trying to spin it with personal opinions"

 

LOL!! Yeah WE WISH!!!

[mdrs]

Huh...and here I thought it was the job of the media, be it newpaper, radio, internet, or television, to simply report the facts without trying to spin it with personal opinions. Stupid me.

 

It actually used to be that way. Somebody must have changed the rules, eh???

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

It infuriates me that the media thinks that they need to "suggest" to me what my opinion of the facts is by spinning them. To me it's irresponsible reporting and a failure to do their job. I never listen to or read editorials because I really don't give a damn what some editor thinks about anything. I did not ask for his opinions or viewpoints, and considering the fact that most of them are English and Journalism majors and all are political idiots, their opinions mean less than nothing to me. I just want to know what the facts are...THAT'S why watch I TV News or read the newspaper. I can make up my own mind what I think about it.

[revolead]

Huh...and here I thought it was the job of the media, be it newpaper, radio, internet, or television, to simply report the facts without trying to spin it with personal opinions. Stupid me.

 

It actually used to be that way. Somebody must have changed the rules, eh???

 

That's technically an incorrect assessment. Prior to the early and mid 1900s, newspapers and magazines were extremely biased and partisan, so much so that political scientists have given it the name "The Era of the Partisan Press." For a long time in the late 1800s, newspapers openly ridiculed candidates, issues, etc. in favor of pushing an agenda, even on front-page reporting. Without getting too political, let me simply point out that the Chicago Tribune is a perfect example of this, who has endorsed a Republican for president every year since 1872.

 

On the other hand, now, we have the opposite: newspapers pretending to be fair but in all reality are full of bias. The New York Times has endorsed a Democrat in every election since 1954, when they endorsed Eisenhower. The Orange County Register has a blatantly libertarian leaning as well as does my local paper, The Gazette. Nothing is as it seems, and the reporting will always reflect that.

[revolead]

I did not ask for his opinions or viewpoints, and considering the fact that most of them are English and Journalism majors and all are political idiots, their opinions mean less than nothing to me.

 

This is highly untrue. First of all, I know you meant no offense, but I am a journalism major and I am neither an idiot and I know more about politics than most politicians. I could list every book on the subject I've ever read here, some more than 2000 years old, some written last week, but I know you do not care.

 

Also, at our journalism school, more than 25 percent of the majors have minors in political science. This is true for myself and several other people I know. I will, however, add that most of what I learned was not in a political science classroom, so basically, your education of politics is what you make of it.

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Revo, I didn't say you were an idiot. I wouldn't say that because I don't think you are an idiot. I said that these Editors are political idiots. I stand by that statement because I think they are political idiots.

 

That's one of the problems that reporters and journalists have....they are so busy thinking about what they want to say or write that they don't bother to read or listen completely.

[Dr. Ellwood]

Press bias is of NO concern IF we understand what that bias is, if it is up front and if their agendas are open and clear there is no problem at all. It is the press that blurs their bias that bothers me, their editorial rooms are loaded with pollitically biased leanings but they make weak attempts to be unbiased. TV journalism (used loosley) is to me even worse.

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

I agree, Lee. My point is that I don't like having to sift through the editorial BS to get to the story. I shouldn't have to.

[revolead]

Press bias is of NO concern IF we understand what that bias is, if it is up front and if their agendas are open and clear there is no problem at all.

 

I've advocated this openly in the journalism classroom for the better part of four years. So far, few results. Though I think most distinguished scholars (read: people who actually study public opinion and mass communication, not former journalists posing as scholars; see Univ. of Missouri, some of my former profs. at Univ. of Colorado, Columbia Univ.) would agree that open bias would encourage more participation in civics and political affairs, as well as decrease public frustration with media in general. This is one reason blogs and forums (such as this one) have taken the nation by storm.

[Big Red 67]

When everybody is lieing then how can anyone find the truth? Ponder that. Very few of the things that we "know" about history are truely factual. We have been finding that out lately about the recent times too. So I give you the one that makes sence to me.

 

believe nothing,

 

no matter where you read it

or who has said it,

not even if i have said it,

unless it agrees with

your own reason and

your own common sense.

 

-buddha

 

[Hardtail]

I graduate in two week with a degree in mass communication, so it is my specialty.

 

Congratulations! So does that mean someone will pay you to bullshit?

[revolead]

LOL!! I hope.

[Hardtail]

LOL!! I hope.

 

Seriously, congrats. College is a big accomplishment.

 

Now the goal is to make lots of money and buy lots of guitar equipment.