What are the differences between Pro, semi pro,writers, performers, and hobbyists

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

Originally posted by GtrWiz:

Here's the definition of Professional from Webster.com:

 

 

In both cases, livelihood and employment, are secondary to knowledge, skill, and the manner to which you represent yourself. My point being monitary gain alone does not make you a professional.

Only in the definitions that you chose to cite. (I looked it up, too, in a hard cover version, which has quite a number of scenarios, each of which would need to be specifically applied to given situations...)

 

Forget for a moment that these are old definitions that will not stand much scrutiny in today's world. We all know for a fact that there are 'pros' in many fields who do not have a clue, so our own eyes and experiences put the lie to the idea that to be a pro you have to possess knowlege and act like a pro. And the defining line between pro and amature in any athletic situation, is PAYMENT. This is the metric worldwide, via the Olympic Committee definitions, and nationally, by various collegiate atheltic associations.

 

For 40 years now at least, monetary gain has been the ONLY clear definition of what differentiates a professional that can be accurately applied across the board.

 

Bill [/QB]

Being a professional (making money doing a thing) and being professional (conducting yourself in a professional manner) are two completely different and sometimes unrelated things.

[GtrWiz]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

Originally posted by GtrWiz:

Here's the definition of Professional from Webster.com:

 

 

In both cases, livelihood and employment, are secondary to knowledge, skill, and the manner to which you represent yourself. My point being monitary gain alone does not make you a professional.

Only in the definitions that you chose to cite. (I looked it up, too, in a hard cover version, which has quite a number of scenarios, each of which would need to be specifically applied to given situations...)

 

Forget for a moment that these are old definitions that will not stand much scrutiny in today's world. We all know for a fact that there are 'pros' in many fields who do not have a clue, so our own eyes and experiences put the lie to the idea that to be a pro you have to possess knowlege and act like a pro. And the defining line between pro and amature in any athletic situation, is PAYMENT. This is the metric worldwide, via the Olympic Committee definitions, and nationally, by various collegiate atheltic associations.

 

For 40 years now at least, monetary gain has been the ONLY clear definition of what differentiates a professional that can be accurately applied across the board.

 

Bill [/QB]

Well, looks like you and I just aren't going to agree with each other on this one...

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

To me it's the same as any instrument in any setting.

 

How many pianists or cellists or violinists write their own concertos? How many simply perform the music that was written by someone else? Is the one that writes his own music somehow a better performer than the one who simply follows the conductor and plays the music in front of him/her?

 

I see performing and writing as two distinct and different art forms. If you can do both..great. If you can't or don't write, I don't think that makes you any less of a performer. Johnny Mercer composed over 1,000 of the best-known tunes of the 20th century and never learned to pay an instrument.

To me, this comment is the beginning and end of the arguement regarding the validity of performing vs. writing vs. performing/writing.

 

And MILLO, I disagree. Writing a pop tune (or any other, short form, contemporary music) isn't easy. If it is I suggest you start writing and watch the money roll in.

 

I hold in high regard those who write music as well as those who are great performers and I never make the mistake of thinking one is more valid than the other.

 

Was Vladimir Horowitz lesser than the composer that wrote the music he performed? Was Chet Atkins lesser than the composers whose music he performed? For that matter, despite my dislike for her, is Celine Dion lesser than the composers of her music? The list can go on and on.

 

Several people here I respect have been blunt in attacking Lee.

 

I challenge anyone to find the statement in Lee's original post that was argumentative. If anything, it sounds as though he's ready to blast someone who thinks that playing covers isn't as admirable as writing your own music. I re-read the comment 3 times before posting this and all I can figure is several people have read between the lines based on their experience of Lee.

 

Don't get me wrong, Lee's made some comments I strongly disagreed with in the past. But we've PM'd each other and I made it clear that unless he made ad hominem attacks against me (he never has) I would always address what he says and not who I think he is based on another thread/arguement. He's been known to dig in pretty hard to a position, too. Then again, so have I. He's not a troll and I, for one, call him friend.

 

I'm with Gruupi:

 

Originally posted by Gruupi:

For better or for worse, I am like Elwood in that I like to provoke discussions with baited questions. Some people may call it a bad habit but I have always enjoyed debate as long as it doesn't degenerate to the "you suck... no you suck" variety. Elwood has strong opinions and I admire that quality in him. Alot of his posts are quite informative and provide an opportunity to think. Sometimes defending a position helps to clarify your own views. Sometimes when argueing with someone if you listen, then your views can be changed and you are enlightened to a new way of thinking.

 

All of us go to far sometimes, but in spirit this is the best forum, online or otherwise that I have ever been apart of. There is alot of mature intellegent discussion that goes on here with very little trolling and spamming. Every other forum online I have seen is mostly a bunch of cretins who's best arguement is "so and so rocks and kicks ass" or "you suck dude". Even when we disagree it is a lively discussion. Even MR Jazz Guitar Nice Guy presented better arguements than most other forums members did.

Well, except for that comment about Mr. NJGG! He was nuts!

[MILLO]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

And MILLO, I disagree. Writing a pop tune (or any other, short form, contemporary music) isn't easy. If it is I suggest you start writing and watch the money roll in.

1) My point was: it's different in pop music than in the classical world--where, since the 20th century, there's traditionally a clear distinction between composer and performer and where improvisation has been eventually wiped out, definitely a negative aspect of this music. Ask anyone in the Matrix writing team to compose the simplest Clementi-style piano sonata. Compare "Louie Louie" w/ Shostakovich's 8th string quartet. Writing a good pop song of the Britney kind is definitely simpler than writing and/or performing a good [insert many other musical genres] piece or song.

 

2) It doesn't take a good song or good music to make money in the pop world. It takes connections, and a good knowledge of marketing and definitely a knowledge for the flavor of the month. If you got the ability to write good stuff and have the other stuff, then it's great. I don't have those, and I suppose many peeps here don't either.

 

Also, you can write any piece of shit, because the finished product goes through a team for production, mixing, and what makes these songs any "good" is not the substance of the music or the lyrics but the icing on the cake, the so-called "production value". If you don't believe me, turn on the radio and listen.

 

I'm playing with this pop band whose original songs are great, even w/ the potential of being radio material. They're all written by the drummer, and I didn't have anything to do w/ them. I play just play them, figure out the parts on the cd he's mixing, make up some others, improvise others. they've been playing these songs for about 1-1/2 to 2 years. Are these guys rich? Ha! Is this songwriter rich b/c of his writing talent? Hahahahaha... Am I expecting to tour the country or the world w/ them? Honestly: no. But if it happens, I'll be the first one to get in the car, bus, plane, blimp or whatever. In my opinion, any of this guy's songs is better than any of Britney's songs.

 

3) And just to clear this up: even though I truly believe these are FACTS, I don't think writing good music is easy--regardless of genre and level of complexity. I also KNOW there are plenty of 'good' pop songs (simple and not-so-simple) out there, being written by all sorts of people.

[Billster]

Hey Millo, I don't think you can really compare assembling a "Britney style" production to writing a good pop song. You can apply "production value" to anything, it just becomes more noticeable when the underlying frame (actual music) is simplistic, calculated, dishonest, and insulting. A well written, clever, and honest pop song can have a lot of window dressing that you don't even notice. For example, Lindsey Buckingham's work is outstanding to me.

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by MILLO:

...1) My point was: it's different in pop music than in the classical world--where, since the 20th century, there's traditionally a clear distinction between composer and performer and where improvisation has been eventually wiped out, definitely a negative aspect of this music.

 

I disagree. I don't see where the classical world was ever populated solely by writer/performers. Yes, the best of the best composers whose music has lived on hundreds of years later were mostly virtuosos on, at least, one instrument. But they had to have orchestras of great musicians to play their compositions. And I doubt all or even most of those musicians were composers, let alone good ones. Does that make them any less valid? Of course, very few of them achieved the "rock star" status Mozart, Beethoven and a few other performer/composers did, but I don't know any of those who weren't also composers until the advent of the modern, classical guitar, approx. 130 years ago.

 

Ask anyone in the Matrix writing team to compose the simplest Clementi-style piano sonata. Compare "Louie Louie" w/ Shostakovich's 8th string quartet. Writing a good pop song of the Britney kind is definitely simpler than writing and/or performing a good [insert many other musical genres] piece or song...

Careful! Our resident writer of music from the Matrix (He wrote music for the DVD releases.) may be lurking... and he may make you eat those words.

 

It's unfair to point to Louie Louie as an archtype "good" pop song. I've heard wonderful, complex pop songs. I'd suggest you listen to the entire, Toy Matinee album. Wonderful, complex yet accessable stuff. Great lyrics, too.

 

Britney is not good pop music, IMO. I didn't say popular music. I said good popular music. There were plenty of minor composers in Mozart's and Beethoven's eras. We don't know their names any more than I suspect we'll know Britney's in another 10 or 15 years except as a footnote in history. If you don't believe me, may I suggest Debbi Boone or Hammer? Biggest things on the charts in their time. Both were mostly awful. Sure, you know the names. But they're barely in your mind and certainly not in your Ipod/cd player.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by ellwood:

 

This kind of comment seems to me to make playing covers seem very trivial and kinda silly? nein?

Oh, fer chrissakes. You are playing covers, you are not curing cancer.

 

So if the pleasure in doing covers doesn't come from pleasing people, what the heck does it come from?

 

If you want to bring up the money side, that's cool, but I'd be willing to bet that if instead of learning a bunch of covers you'd spent that time at work, or found yourself a "straight" second job you probably would have earned a lot more, ja?

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Dead Man's Shoes:

Unions!

 

Now there's one hell of a way to kill an art form for the sake of preserving a job!

 

The big hassle with unions is that often they are pretty much oriented toward orchestral musicians. First and last time I checked out the musicians' union (back in Australia) it turned out that their regulations made gigs pretty much unplayable. If I recall correctly, we had to have coffee breaks and "management" had to give us chairs to sit on and stuff like that. I'm surprised we didn't have to bundy in as we walked onstage.

 

I haven't looked into it here in Italy. The equivalent of ASCAP (the SIAI or however it's spelt) is bad enough.

 

You are supposed to fork over 250 bucks (!) for an exam where they give you four notes and you are supposed to use them as a starting point for a four bar tune. That gives me the shits on principle. In other words, most of the old bluesmen wouldn't have been considered musicians, same as the young Louis Armstrong.

 

Oh, and the deaf don't have to pay for the exam.

 

And graduates don't have to sit the exam. So if you have a degree in veterinary science, it's assumed that you'll know how to write music. You are, after all, a gentleman. Isn't that so out of the 1700s?

 

I know some guys in a metal band and they get all their songs registered in Germany.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

...when I was coming up, you did cover songs. It was unheard of to do originals, it wan't anything that anyone that I knew even considered.

 

When one of the guitar players in our band and I (I was the drummer/lead singer) started to write our own songs, it was shocking to people.

Bill...you're writing my story!

 

Man...I WAS that guitar player! Well...not in your band...but in another one...and YES...it WAS shocking to the rest of the guys...so much so, that I ended up quitting that band.

There was a LOT of...anger...???...

...I guess 'cuz no one else could or would write at the time.

Though mostly it was the other guitar player that had a tough time with the concept of originals...and he pulled a couple of the other guys...so I left.

 

Anyway...FF to the present...

 

My go-to studio drummer is what I lovingly refer to asa "band whore"!

The guy is always in 2-3 bands...and looking for a fourth...

...and none of the bands get anywhere or last too long!

It's not because they all suck...it's just the nature of most cover bands.

The guy is a great drummer...and could/should get more involved with studio/original stuff...but IMO...he uses the covers as a crutch.

 

Now...some days...I kinda' envy him, 'cuz I know he's going out to do a live gig...which is something I always use to love doing when I was in a band

playing on stage...in front of people...

 

Last Winter/Spring...I came close to getting back into the band/cover scene. I even got so far as to hook up with a couple of guys and start rehearsing. After about 5-6 practices...I found myself standing there one night while we were practicing...and all of a sudden it hit me!

I really didnt care much for learning and playing cover tunes anymore!

As much as I picked songs that I LOVED...I still found it to be a total waste of my time learning that shit.

 

And...I was NOT going to get back into a cover band for the money...nope, it was mostly for fun...until I realized that it really wasn't as much fun as I remembered it to be from my younger days.

That's when I packed up my guitar...gave the other guys my sincere apologies...and walked out.

 

I have a really nice studio...and while I may NEVER "get anywhere" writing/recording my own music...for the amount of time learning/playing covers was going to suck up...I realized I would rather spend that same time recording...which is the same conclusion I came to many years ago when I left that other band that did NOT want to do originals.

 

Now...if I WAS to hook up with some people that wanted to play MOSTLY originals...with a few choice covers...I would consider that as creative and rewarding enough.

But...doing the same old music on any given night that dozens and dozens and dozens of other bands are doing...

 

There are only so many hours in the day...use them to do what you really love.

 

And not tryin' to put down any of you "covers-only" guysbut I do think that there is a certain comforta certain amount of safetyin doing covers.

You know what its supposed to sound likethe audience knows it tooand so you both enter a familiar groundand if you can even come close to sounding half decentmost of the audience is busy dancing and partying.

They are rarely listening to you criticallywhen all you do is covers.

 

Butyou roll out the originalsand usually its another story. Originals tell peopleHey, listen to thischeck out what I/we created! Andthats a scary place for a lot of people to be.

Thats why so many songwriters leave most of their work in the basementonly heard by themand maybe a select few friends and family members.

 

I still miss those younger band daysbut for mewriting recording is where its atand, I still only do it out of passionnot career/money. I have a real nice, well paying job already, thats how I can afford a really nice studio!

 

I remember running into that other guitar player...he showed up one night at one of my band gigs (we were doing originals and covers).

And he was so eager to tell me how he too had now started writting and dabbling with recording...etc.

 

He finally figured it out...

...and I wasn't pissed at him anymore.

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by MILLO:

...Read my post again. I said SINCE THE 20TH CENTURY, and I see forgot to write "an increasing division between performance and composition". I'm not saying composers don't play or perform and performers don't play and compose, and performers don't improvise. I'm saying the ones that ARE composers don't perform nearly as much (or as well) to be considered also performers. Usually, the same thing happens w/ performers who compose. Clear distinction, but not an exclusive rule of only composers and performers. My dear fellow forumite, if you don't think this is the case ESPECIALLY in the US, then it means you're disconnected from this "classical" world...

I read your post just fine. You're reading my posts, however, in reverse. I'm arguing that before the 20th century means nothing. Your claim that performers were expected to play their own compositions is, from my study, inaccurate. You're putting a conclusion to the question based on great performers who became composers. My point is you haven't heard of a great many talented performers from past centuries because the compositions more than the performances live on. (Due in large part to the lack of a means to record those performances. Had that been available, we might be better able to compare and contrast performers and composers from that era. I don't think it was as different as you claim, even in classical music.

[MILLO]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

Originally posted by MILLO:

...Read my post again. I said SINCE THE 20TH CENTURY, and I see forgot to write "an increasing division between performance and composition". I'm not saying composers don't play or perform and performers don't play and compose, and performers don't improvise. I'm saying the ones that ARE composers don't perform nearly as much (or as well) to be considered also performers. Usually, the same thing happens w/ performers who compose. Clear distinction, but not an exclusive rule of only composers and performers. My dear fellow forumite, if you don't think this is the case ESPECIALLY in the US, then it means you're disconnected from this "classical" world...

I read your post just fine. You're reading my posts, however, in reverse. I'm arguing that before the 20th century means nothing. Your claim that performers were expected to play their own compositions is, from my study, inaccurate. You're putting a conclusion to the question based on great performers who became composers. My point is you haven't heard of a great many talented performers from past centuries because the compositions more than the performances live on. (Due in large part to the lack of a means to record those performances. Had that been available, we might be better able to compare and contrast performers and composers from that era. I don't think it was as different as you claim, even in classical music.

Well we obviously have very differnt sources, apparently. My writing "expected to" may have been inaccurate, since it was a generalization and all generalizations are inherehntly inaccurate, but to say there's no difference between the 19th and 20th century in the topic we're discussing is far more than inaccurate. I'm not "inferring" this based on concert programs or CD labels. I'm getting them from study of history of music (both academic and personal), both composers and PERFORMERS who made the touring ranks and who did not. It's far from a "conclusion to the question based on great performers who became composers". Famous and not famous, names you're familiar with and I'm sure names you've never heard of. Of course, I'd love to give you some examples, but the unfamous names are mostly forgotten (except some of the ones relevant to the history of the guitar) and I don't have the time or interest now to write a research paper on the subject.

 

The performer/composer phenomenon is more abundant in the 19th century b/c there were MORE performer/composers of a certain caliber than there are now. If you study performance tradition on the violin and the piano, and even on teh guitar, you'll see this trend. The composers from the past we know about nowadays are only a small amount compared to those who existed and had succesful star status (lots of guys like Salieri, an example made famous by the movie "Amadeus"), steady professional careers, the one that were one-hit-wonders, the could-have-beens and the never-will-bes, etc. Same in the performance ranks. The list that came to us today from both ranks is a filtered one, of course. The compositions lived on, right, but that doesn't change the fact there were millions of compositions that DID NOT LIVE ON by people who were essentially performers and also, to a degree, improvisers.

[Eric VB]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

My point is you haven't heard of a great many talented performers from past centuries because the compositions more than the performances live on. [/QB]

"[Nicolo] Paganinis genius as a player overshadows his work as a composer." (ref)

"From 1805 to 1808 he was the court solo violinist at Lucca [...]" (ibid.)

 

Ok, this is not "a great many", it is only one example. When I think of Paganini, I think of an unmatched virtuoso player with rock star qualities, making the girls swoon way before Elvis. He was a composer, yes, but he had to write his own stuff to show off his singular talents. This was a time when people read notes off the page; you didn't just get an orchestra together and tell them to play a blues in E and then improv a solo on top of it. The closest analogy I can think of is EVH. Imagine if he never wrote his own music and only played covers note-for-note? (Just like from another thread, you hopefully don't play EVH leads on top of a Zep tune.) So of course Eddie had to write his own stuff. Same goes for Paganini, IMO.

 

Just like Duke Ellington used to compose to highlight various personnel in his big band, the Beethovens and Mozarts wrote for performers in their orchestras (or locals they wanted to woo). You don't write a technically challenging violin concerto if there's no one around skilled enough to play it!

 

I agree, it is very difficult to discuss performance if you don't have a recording to base it on. Perhaps that's why past virtuoso performers who were not also composers have been forgotten. Do you remember which songs Johnny Hodges made famous by his performance, or just that Mercer/Ellington were the composers? (Or even that Mercer was a co-writer on so many Ellington tunes; not to belittle Ellington whom I regard as genius.)

 

Is YoYo Ma really the greatest cellist that has ever lived? (He's not a composer, is he?) Or is he just the latest in a long line of excellent performers? Are you more likely to go hear an orchestra play a cello concerto if YoYo Ma is "headlining"? Is it possible that the first guy that played that particular concerto actually played it better than YoYo Ma? Why don't we remember him?

 

If the Beatles had never recorded their compositions, who would be playing their music today? Today's performances have much more longevity. Future performers can always be compared back to the original performer: "he's good, but not as good as Lennon." But we've heard the Lennon version a billion times by now, can we really be objective about "better" or is it just "what we're used to hearing"? Who sang "Around the Universe" better, John or Fiona? If you heard the Fiona version first, what would you think?

 

Also, remember that before TV and radio people were much more inclined to entertain themselves. Perhaps on the piano in the parlor. There was a time when, if you liked a song, you would buy the sheet music and play it yourself (or find someone else that had the music and could play it).

 

Music is an odd sort of art in that it is temporal, i.e. it exists at a certain moment in time. This is the performance. Music has a long history but it wasn't until fairly recently that performance was able to be captured. Imagine if the great painters and sculptors had no way of preserving their art until after the 1900s? Could a sculptor of today recreate David based only on written plans? How would we determine if it were better than Michelangelo's?

[fantasticsound]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're supporting my notion, which is that writing your own music, in and of itself is valid on its' own terms, as performing is valid on its' own terms.

 

Pitting one against the other, IMO, by saying someone who simply performs someone else's music is less valid than performers who compose and perform original material is silly.

[BriBaby]

Instead of looking for differences in musicians, why not look for similarities? We are all musicians with talent on loan from god, be it writer, player, hobbyist, blah blah blah!

[Eric VB]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're supporting my notion, which is that writing your own music, in and of itself is valid on its' own terms, as performing is valid on its' own terms.

 

Pitting one against the other, IMO, by saying someone who simply performs someone else's music is less valid than performers who compose and perform original material is silly.

Sorry, Neil, I did ramble a bit there, didn't I?

 

I guess that's why they call them the performing arts -- music, dance, theater, etc. -- because there is something special about the performance. In contrast, the other fine arts often lack this component. (Yes, a visual artist can display a "performance art" piece, but I won't get into that.) In a separate post I was working on but did not post I kept trying to compare music and visual art; it seemed a bit like apples and oranges at times. But a guitar player, a dancer, an actor ... they are all necessary to create a performance. Are dancers and actors any less if they are not also choreographers and playwrites?

 

In the visual fine arts -- painting, sculpture, etc. -- the emphasis is on originality. An artist may even have other people actually create the work of art that he/she envisioned. Only the artist gets any credit.

 

It's also harder to work around copyrights. You may draw the best Mickey Mouse, but (a) if you try to sell any of your drawings you can be sure Disney will shut you down, and (b) who's willing to pay you just to watch you draw (perform)?

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Pardon my ignorance. I guess I just don't follow...why does any of this matter?

 

Since I've never written my own music and have only done covers, does that invalidate my musical life? Am I necessarily (simply because of this) less of a musician than someone who writes music? I could write music...I know music...it's simply not my thing to write music. Does what I do have to be validated? Does writing music sustain life and performing it doesn't?

[Gruupi]

Writing music doesn't validate your status as a musician Sasquatch. Performing music can be very fullfilling. But writing and performing your own music is just a different way to express yourself.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by miroslav:

And not tryin' to put down any of you "covers-only" guysbut I do think that there is a certain comforta certain amount of safetyin doing covers.

 

I understand your point, but I think that this is more an issue of desires and interests. I don't like baseball. If they stopped playing baseball today, it would mean absolutely nothing to me. I don't like mayonase. If they stopped making it today, it would mean nothing to me. Poeple who like these two things are prone to saying that I don't know what I am missing. Ahh... but I do. I've tried both. And I don't miss them. There is no value judgement applied. Same with writers or non-writers.

 

Oh, and let's say for a moment that you write all the music...what about the guys who play in -your- band? They're still doing covers, in a way, aren't they? Just a thought...

 

 

Bill

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by GtrWiz:

Well, looks like you and I just aren't going to agree with each other on this one... [/QB]

Just a note to let you konw that I -wish- that what you say was true. I try to live my life as if it were. I'd love to have professionals be that because of their skill levels, attitude, and general superiority in their chosen profession. It is the way that it should be. Maybe in a better world.

 

Bill

[Gruupi]

I am fascinated that people like Glenn Gould or YoYoMa who are so good at interpreting music didn't write. It seems to me that skills in taking music to that level, its not just technique, would be similar to the skills needed to create new music.

 

I don't compare "likeing" music writing as the same as likeing mayonaise (discusting stuff hehe) or baseball. There is something spiritual about creativity where like doesn't really enter into it. Again I am a bit surprised at anyone who plays long enough not at least wanting to try and be creative. It doesn't necessarilly mean having to start from square one with a new song. I kind of think of writing as improvising with a purpose. Just playing what you feel and remembering the good bits and arranging them together. Like I was saying earlier in this thread, something just feels good inside me when I make my own music. I don't have to have others validate that they like it too, although it would be nice.

 

I am an architect by profession (not a very good one). What I have always liked about my work is taking that original spark of an idea, and then hashing it out into a workable, functional building. Writing music is very similar in that there are emotion and analytical parts of the brain involved. Sometimes it is more just pure instinct, other times it is just plain hard work to get to a finished product.

[Dr. Ellwood]

Originally posted by miroslav:

And not tryin' to put down any of you "covers-only" guysbut I do think that there is a certain comforta certain amount of safetyin doing covers.

 

I do understand this statement, but I can tell ya if your doing covers, at least in my market you better darn well do em GREAT! and that takes some real effort and skill. Doing original material to large or even small audiences is not an issue if you never get a chance to experience the non-comfort zone! In most cases bands doing all original material do not get chances to play gigs enough to worry about it. For the most part all original bands I know of never get out of rehearsal mode.

[MILLO]

Just to summarize my views, opinions and/or things I think are known facts:

 

1) WHAT I THINK IS A FACT: What makes a professional musician is not his level of "musicianship" (performance or compositional technique or whatever else) but the fact that this person makes a living out of writing or performing music.

 

2) OPINION: I think of 'musicians' as one category and 'professional musicians' as another category. I'm a musician, but I make a living by teaching and not playing, so I really find it hard to call myself a 'professional musician' even though I'm a "degreed", "trained" musician. And yup, teaching music is definitely a career within the 'field' of music, but still...

 

3) OPINION: There are performers, performers who compose, composers, and composers who perform. Not a single category is better than the other, but a musician who does all that ends up being more 'complete'. And it'd be great if in the classical world (especially in the US) composition and improvisation were filtered into the academic studies of performers, not just as counterpoint, harmony or theory group-class exercises.

 

4) MY OPINION: Writing good mucic is NOT easy, regardless of genre. But it is definitely easier to write a good pop song than to write a good symphony, simply because of the DEFINITIONS of these forms.

 

5) WHAT I THINK IS A FACT: A musician is a musician regardless of whether he or she can write music, as long as they can perform. Hell, there are even TONS of those who are terrible players w/ very little practical skill or knowledge of music but are professional musicians.

 

6) MY OPINION: Writing a succesful pop song that "makes the money roll in" does not equal writing a good pop song.

 

7) WHAT MANY PEEPS INCLUDING ME THINK IS A KNOWN FACT, APPARENTLY NOT KNOWN AROUND THESE CYBER REGIONS: ...And yup, even though the 'classical world' was never entirely populated by performer/composers (I'm sorry if I gave the impression this was my opinion), the practice of improvisation and composition by performers of a certain higher caliber was more common ages ago. The 20th century saw a huge decline in this tradition, and this notion is advocated by many people involved in the "classical tradition"... and yes, including old people I've met that have lived through the big changes in 20th century music in Europe, Latin-America and the US, from different countries, performers of different instruments, composers and musicologists. Factors that many people cite for this are: A-The compositional craft being a more engaging, complex matter. The composer spends more time composing and studying music, theory and developing compositional 'processes', and simply getting inspired, little time for purely instrumental practice. Just being able to play an instrument doesn't make anyone a performer.; B-Levels of instrumental technique going up the roof beyond what was believed possible ages ago. The performer spends more time practicing repertoire, developing technique, going to competitions, etc. Less time writing down whatever original melodies go through his/her head and experimenting w/ harmonies, textures and developmental processes; C-the high level of 'academicity' and 'athletic technique' imposed on the study of musical performance. This has brought incredible technique, but MAYBE it has made the 'performer who doesn't really know or understand what he/she is playing' a more common affair. Not everyone is like this, of course.

 

For example, it was NOT uncommon in the 19th century to have a guitarist, pianist, violinist or whatever non-virtuoso or virtuoso (peeps we've never heard of) to write fantasias or variations based on themes from popular operas of the day. It wasn't uncommon to squeeze cadenzas into works written by others just to show off. Corelli's concertos were SUPPOSED to be improvised upon, with flourishes, scales, passing tones connecting the important ideas and harmonic progressions, without drowning these important ideas. Since the baroque, cadenzas were supposed to be improvised by the performer, but in the 20th century concertos generally have WRITTEN-OUT cadenzas. Since the Romantic era, piano accompaniments were written out, rather than having a 'figured bass' being realized by the accompanist at the moment (improvised).

 

....BUT I KNOW THAT IN THE END, OF COURSE, ALL OF THESE ARE JUST MY OPINIONS ....

[Gruupi]

I am not sure that you can ever define a good composition. I think you can define Pop as being popular. Writing a pop tune almost by defintion means understanding of what the public is going to like at a given point in time, I don't know how you can call a Madonna song good or bad if you define it in pop song terms.

 

I would think that anyone with a certain amount of intellect and a good ear could learn to write a symphony. You could always follow the "rules" of music theory and form and write a symphony. Now whether this symphony is timeless, in that it reaches people of many backgrounds and generations, starts to intertwine again as to what is popular.

 

So "good" music seems to me to have a lasting quality that is universally recognised. This touches as much as to understanding of humanity as it does about any musical skill. But if your music reaches even one person, including yourself, then you have tapped into that univerisality and have reached a degree of "good".

[MILLO]

...agreed up to a certain degree, but since what is good is so subjective--and I know I'll be bombarded w/ arguments--, and since I had considered the very good point you just made long before today when I wrote that post, I stand by my opinions.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

Originally posted by miroslav:

And not tryin' to put down any of you "covers-only" guysbut I do think that there is a certain comforta certain amount of safetyin doing covers.

 

I understand your point, but I think that this is more an issue of desires and interests. I don't like baseball. If they stopped playing baseball today, it would mean absolutely nothing to me. I don't like mayonase. If they stopped making it today, it would mean nothing to me. Poeple who like these two things are prone to saying that I don't know what I am missing. Ahh... but I do. I've tried both. And I don't miss them. There is no value judgement applied. Same with writers or non-writers.

 

Oh, and let's say for a moment that you write all the music...what about the guys who play in -your- band? They're still doing covers, in a way, aren't they? Just a thought...

Funny...I'm not much of a baseball person either...

...and I truly HATE the taste of mayo!

 

Again...my comment about comfort/safety comes from personal experience...and I've seen it time and time again with musicians that look at you kinda' squirrelly when "originals" are mentioned.

 

Sureyou can make playing covers a VERY creative thing! Buttoo often for many local bar bandsits more about trying to sound like someone elseand/or trying to BE someone else

at least in their minds. Of course they will try and play it as good as the originaland yes there is a certain skill set required to do that.

 

When I use to play coversmy big thing was to always try and do them in a VERY original way. And while that may have disappointed some of the audience who were expecting a human jukeboxI never cared much, because people that appreciated good music and creativity, would always come up and say, Hey, that was a great version of ___________!

 

Its no different with a lot of other things. To copy/mimic something that is greatthats already been done

sure is a lot easier/saferthan creating something new from scratch!

 

Going back to Classical musicwell, back then, being a Composer was not something taken lightlyand so there WERE many musicians that just played what someone else had written

never bother to write anything of their own.

 

But folks.we are talking about R&R/Pop music here!

So while I DO love R&R/PopI still cant put it on the same complexity level as something of Beethovensetc.

I would thinkthat for most of youafter playing 3-chord R&R covers for many yearsyour curiosity and imagination would get stoked enough to churn out a few of your own.?

 

As far as the other guys in the band playing YOUR songs.?

Well, that was one of the things that ended my band days. I was the only one writingand I asked and prompted others in the band to contributebut it was likethey were all shy or scared or something!!!???

A couple of years laterthose same guys were coming over asking me to record stuff that THEY had *finally* written.

 

So I do believe that for many peoplecovers are a comfort/safety zone.

As someone who use to play lots of coversand now as a songwriterI really CAN understand that.

Writing music is not easy. And writing GOOD music is even harderespecially because good is such a subjective thingand when we create/writewe really DO lay our egos barefor all to see and pick at!

 

But I dont have any problem with people that only want to play covers. Like I saidmy go-to studio drummer is one of those people.

Ive asked him a few times if he ever consider composing stuff of his ownor maybe collaborating with another musician

and he always gets that squirrelly look on his face

[miroslav]

Originally posted by ellwood:

Originally posted by miroslav:

And not tryin' to put down any of you "covers-only" guysbut I do think that there is a certain comforta certain amount of safetyin doing covers.

 

I do understand this statement, but I can tell ya if your doing covers, at least in my market you better darn well do em GREAT! and that takes some real effort and skill. Doing original material to large or even small audiences is not an issue if you never get a chance to experience the non-comfort zone! In most cases bands doing all original material do not get chances to play gigs enough to worry about it. For the most part all original bands I know of never get out of rehearsal mode.

Sure you better play those covers great! That's what the audience is expecting...

a "human jukebox".

And you know...9-out-of-10 times...when the audience judges you...they are only judging how much you sound like the "original".

So...it's mostly about measuring up to someone/something else.

 

While that does have a certain level of difficulty and satisfaction associated with it (depending on what kind of music you are covering)...it's not quite the same thing as baring you ego, your soul, with something original.

 

And sure...a lot of original bands DO have a tough time getting out...getting past rehearsal mode...BECUASE it does open you up...it takes you completely out of that comfort/safety zone!

 

Learning "Satisfaction" is a rather finite and basic thing.

Stringing 3-4 sets worth of that stuff and doing it well...is NOT...IMO...going to garner the same appreciation (well, depends on the audiences alcohol blood level) that 3-4 sets of all original music...done well..

...is going to give youand them.

 

And it sure is a LOT tougher breaking into the band scene when you are considered and "original" band.

Most bar owners want basic/cheap entertainment. They want the crowd happy, dancing and DRINKING!

And having bands that can rattle through a few dozen of very well known...and very well accepted...tired and proven covers...

...well, that ALSO puts things in a comfort/safety zone for them.

 

But yeah...going out on stage and nockin' out a bunch of your favorites...CAN be a lot of fun!

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by miroslav:

As far as the other guys in the band playing YOUR songs.?

Well, that was one of the things that ended my band days. I was the only one writingand I asked and prompted others in the band to contributebut it was likethey were all shy or scared or something!!!???

How set in concrete are your arrangements? Whenever I've come up with a riff I usually just put it on a cassette and let the singer take it home and work out the lyrics and the melody, if I haven't come up with one already.

 

At most I'll say "this sounds like a great riff about a lake, can you write something about watching a sunset on a lake?" or something as open ended and airy fairy as that.

 

And I don't usually get very precise with the bass and drums either. I mean, those guys are there because they play their instruments better than I do, so I try to leave things as open as possible. I'll just say stuff like "it'd be good to have rimshots on this bit" or "the bass is too busy" and let them work out the rest.

 

I do it so that people will have more of a stake in whatever is happening.

[miroslav]

When I'm recording my stuff, but with other people...

...I generally present them with a very basic song structure.

They get the chords/melody/lyrics...and I usually will have decided on where the breaks/bridges go.

 

But...apart from that...I like to let each person figure out how to play their own part...unless there's a signature riff that really anchors the whole song.

 

I have never expected any one to play note-for-note any of my stuff...and that approach was even more open when I we use to do my originals in a band.

Heck...I would let the guys toss out any ideas they had...and did not have a problem arranging the song to fit/complement the band members as needed...

...ass long as I maintained the original essences of the song...the chords/melody/lyrics.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by miroslav:

But...apart from that...I like to let each person figure out how to play their own part...unless there's a signature riff that really anchors the whole song.

yeah, same here. I thought the question about the other guys in the band playing a cover of one's song was a bit too philosophical and abstract.

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by RicBassGuy:

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're supporting my notion, which is that writing your own music, in and of itself is valid on its' own terms, as performing is valid on its' own terms.

 

Pitting one against the other, IMO, by saying someone who simply performs someone else's music is less valid than performers who compose and perform original material is silly.

Sorry, Neil, I did ramble a bit there, didn't I?

 

I guess that's why they call them the performing arts -- music, dance, theater, etc. -- because there is something special about the performance. In contrast, the other fine arts often lack this component. (Yes, a visual artist can display a "performance art" piece, but I won't get into that.) In a separate post I was working on but did not post I kept trying to compare music and visual art; it seemed a bit like apples and oranges at times. But a guitar player, a dancer, an actor ... they are all necessary to create a performance. Are dancers and actors any less if they are not also choreographers and playwrites?...

No, they are not. So yes, we are on the same page.