Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 51 to 100 of 152
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Woody Sound View Post
    If an artist is selling paintings on the street, is that like busking?
    In my opinion, no it's not. Because the artist selling paintings would be referencing a selling price for you to take it home with you, even though you could look at it there on the street for free. A busking musician is playing music with no expectation of payment, hoping that the listening audience will offer a money . . the amount being at their discretion, as a token of appreciation for their performance. I think that's why some (IMO incorrectly) see it as begging.
    Patrick2 . . Heritage representative (now former)

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    It is my business, since you have have personally offended me earlier and now you do it to others. Its a shame to the nice people that get degraded. We are definitely not opponents in the club but brothers, as we should be here. Amen.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    I think this speaks for itself;


  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    I used to busk on the streets and in the subways of Chicago. We (my musical partner played flugelhorn) never tried to look downtrodden, but we made money anyway. It was a really fun experience, and we sometimes were offered gigs—our funniest one was a "Christmas" party for a Jewish law firm. A gentleman asked us how much we'd charge to play at the party, we gave him a price, and he frowned and insisted on paying us more. I'm not sure the attorneys even heard our music due to the high volume of their conversations … but they did seem to have a good time.

    We usually played jazz and Brazilian standards and a few originals. If someone asked for a suggestion on how to succeed at busking, I'd tell him not to copy most buskers, who often play loud in order to call attention to themselves. We'd do the opposite. We played at lower levels in order to draw the crowds close to us … and once they were within earshot, they'd usually contribute a little $$$. (We usually hid the paper money to deter any notions of theft.) This was back in the 1980s and I'd say we would make between $35 and $65 during evening rush hour (twice as much during the holidays).

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    To busk or not to busk


  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Art. A painting hangs in a gallery. The artist has given his art freely to the world. It's really up to the consumer to decide if the art work has value and if the consumer wants to own it. The musician can offer a CD for sale, and, different than a painting in a gallery, unless you're online, you can't sample the CD out on the street. Now, I grew up in an art center where there were lots of galleries and lots of culture. I like to see Art. I also like to hear Art.

    If a couple of players are playing out of doors (vs in a lounge or cafe), they are really giving their Art freely to the world. If they are good, and I throw a five in the case, I'm supporting the Arts. Same as a cover charge at a club. Only, the entire amount goes to the artists. That in no way resembles begging, in which a poor soul asks for help and offers nothing but pathos. It's been said that "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." So, generosity is probably a positive thing, anyway; but a tip, as in tipping a busker, isn't just generous, it's appreciative. I'm thankful for the talent, and that the talent is given freely to the world. It's worth something to me at least.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    It's like anything you do in art when also money are involved... you should not expect money when you that, you should be involved just in creative process.
    It does not mean that you should reject orders or requests...

    it's a tricky thing to distinguish... it is not that you just do not beg or ask mone conciously...

    In that sence sometimes even real beggar can somehow treat it with dignity and you will give him money not of pity or irritation... and at the same time someone who pretend to be never-begging may evoke an annoying feeling that he keeps begging for donation all the time...

    I truly believe that we cannot earn with real art... it is fake... you might if you are just lucky, like occasionally... you did not intend, but you just were lucky... but if you put it as a goal if you correct something for it, it is all lost.

    Artist should be skilful in working with what others call reality.. he cannot fight it, because it is much stronger, but he can swindle it

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    That is one tres cool video! I'm reminded of the time I was in Amsterdam in 1995 and one fine summer evening ran into Robin Nolan (an excellent jazz guitarist) playing Gypsy jazz with a modern twist with his group in one of those beautiful ample European squares. I love all forms of art, but nothing moves me quite the way beautiful music lifts the spirits with ennobling joy.

    jay

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Busking is with the intention of making some money, it's not playing for "fun".

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo View Post
    Busking is with the intention of making some money, it's not playing for "fun".
    I work nearly 250 dates most years with the intention, at least, of making money. It's nearly always fun. You're not implying that fun and earning money are mutually exclusive, are you?

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Guys, intention is a tricky word... you never know.

    Have you seen a movie with Michael J. Fox ' For Money or Love"? - the whole idea there was that it looked like he did for money but actually probabaly he himself did not understand that he really cared about people..

    As I said it is not that simple...

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    I'm just pointing out that busking is a term used to imply it is done with the intention to make some money.

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    English is not my native so do not feel the linguistic difference...

    what is for sure although that in many cases playing music outside is a part of beggars' business (I call it namely business), when they just use a musical instument as another supportive tool...

    by the way sometime these professional beggars can be somehow also musical in their own way... I would say authentic. But mostly they just repeat a few popular tunes - often played very very badly in a boring way ... but lots of people admire this also as some skill, tastes differ...

    I hate when they come up and ask... sometimes I see students with a guitar singing a song and his girlfriend trying to be charming comes up and says something like they are actually not beggars just young kids who want some money for fun ets. I do not like it... Besides I hate music when I do not ask for it, I do not like places with background music... it is worse than noise to me.

    Actually it is very very seldom to see really musical people play outside.

    In my country it is also an issue with some special people.... they have to pay both to police and to gangsters to cover them...

    By the way in my city - very big one with lots of tourists - if you go out for busking regularily in pedestrian tourist streets you may be sure to meet first police and then probably local street cover... both will come to collect money

    If you just go out for a while once or twice or you obviously do it for fun, or just for a glass of beer - they most probably will not care... but if you come out repetedly you will meet them for sure.
    Last edited by Jonah; 10-16-2014 at 03:47 AM.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Some cities require permits for busking.

    I like musicians busking as long as the music is good.
    "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing." - Socrates
    “Man suffers only because he takes seriously what the gods made for fun.” - Alan Wilson Watts

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Some cities require permits for busking.
    In my country it is not needed, but police could use some other formal grounds if they want... it depends on the situation: location, their mood today, maybe some special order they have now... or just for fun... or money... their way to busk.

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo View Post
    I'm just pointing out that busking is a term used to imply it is done with the intention to make some money.
    I'm just pointing out that gigging is done with the same intention. What, is money bad now? The landlord won't take altered chords and diminished scales in lieu of rent.

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    I'm just pointing out that gigging is done with the same intention. What, is money bad now? The landlord won't take altered chords and diminished scales in lieu of rent.
    money is bad for art, it is for sure... one should not keep money in mind during creative peocess.
    That will work for Holliwood movies only... bit is it waht we are after?

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    I don't mind someone busking. I hope to one day have the skills to be confident playing in front of a bunch of random people. When I was a deejay, I did a 2 hour set in the park space of a local shopping area. It was great fun and I got a few paying gigs out of it. I made some money, but nothing so substantial that I would consider doing it regularly.
    To me, busking is a way to share music out in the open and hopefully brighten someone's day. I certainly do not consider it begging-I mean, I don't know any buskers shaming people for not pitching in on a donation.

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    money is bad for art, it is for sure... one should not keep money in mind during creative peocess.
    That will work for Holliwood movies only... bit is it waht we are after?
    Money is good for Art. It is a concrete way of Art lovers to show they support the Arts. The opera, the classical orchestras, the ballet, they survive through philanthropic donations of Money, as well as funding (Money) by Government Grants. When folks buy a ticket to see me, they are supporting the Art of Jazz. When they buy a Jazz CD or buy a painting or sculpture, they are supporting the Arts.

    You are just wrong.

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    You are just wrong.
    Up to you to define.
    For me this is not about being wrong or right to be on this forum. It is about thinking and communicating.


    Money is good for Art. It is a concrete way of Art lovers to show they support the Arts. The opera, the classical orchestras, the ballet, they survive through philanthropic donations of Money, as well as funding (Money) by Government Grants. When folks buy a ticket to see me, they are supporting the Art of Jazz. When they buy a Jazz CD or buy a painting or sculpture, they are supporting the Arts.
    I think we misunderstand each other, do not take it as an offence - probably I explain it in a wrong way - but you seem to take my words too directly. I never said that artists do not need money or art projects should not be sponsored.

    There maybe different beings of Art in our life... there's art like social actitivity, and artist as a social role - then it (and he) is involved in all social processes including sales issues etc.
    In this cocern Art can be considered as any other occupation...

    And there's Art like personal way of seing world, understanding reality, creating reality, extremly personal... and any social limitaions including money is bad for it. Not even bad - they just have nothing to do with that if it's real.

    THough we cannot usually clearly put a line between these, we should always be careful that this social staff should not take over personal creative world.

    Let me put in another way: it can be paid, ordered, sold, bought for money but it shoud not be done in a way to get money... otherwise it will be a good product, maybe high quality, nice, proper, pleasent, entertaining - whantever - but not Art.
    Last edited by Jonah; 10-16-2014 at 03:03 PM.

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    money is bad for art, it is for sure... one should not keep money in mind during creative peocess.
    That will work for Holliwood movies only... bit is it waht we are after?
    WHAT????? Money is bad for art???!!! Are you kidding me?? How are artists going to survive? Where is the exchange with the audience/artist?

    I think there's always a balance and flow in all things. There's in and out. The artist creates art and the public views it or better purchases it. The artist needs remuneration for the work otherwise he IS simply a beggar or a member if the servant class, and I consider myself neither.

    I think I know where you are going with this, but no. You're afraid of what happens when art exists only as a commodity? That it cheapens the art? That us always a possibility. It happens but the bourdon is in the artist to have personal integrity. Create music you love that might have therefore appeal because it is real. It also helps ferreting out the excessive lame drivel. But art should be art without consideration of making a killing, perhaps in that it might change the face of that art. How many Kenny Gs could we take? But that burden is in the artist. He still needs to be paid for his work, like anyone else would.

    Geez.

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Throughout history it has been art - Mozart, Beethoven, Brahams, -- All these artists had patrons and were very often ordered to to compose specific music: court music, church music. Are you saying none of that music was art? Michelangelo was commissioned by the church and was paid. None of what he correlated was art either? Stravinsky, Coltrane, Bird were all paid for their work. Not artists huh?? Damn. I wonder who WAS a great artist then?

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Throughout history it has been art - Mozart, Beethoven, Brahams, -- All these artists had patrons and were very often ordered to to compose specific music: court music, church music. Are you saying none of that music was art? Michelangelo was commissioned by the church and was paid. None of what he correlated was art either? Stravinsky, Coltrane, Bird were all paid for their work. Not artists huh?? Damn. I wonder who WAS a great artist then?
    You probably did wrote your message before I out the last so I cop it again

    I think we misunderstand each other, do not take it as an offence - probably I explain it in a wrong way - but you seem to take my words too directly. I never said that artists do not need money or art projects should not be sponsored.

    There maybe different beings of Art in our life... there's art like social actitivity, and artist as a social role - then it (and he) is involved in all social processes including sales issues etc.
    In this cocern Art can be considered as any other occupation...

    And there's Art like personal way of seing world, understanding reality, creating reality, extremly personal... and any social limitaions including money is bad for it. Not even bad - they just have nothing to do with that if it's real.

    THough we cannot usually clearly put a line between these, we should always be careful that this social staff should not take over personal creative world.

    Let me put in another way: it can be paid, ordered, sold, bought for money but it shoud not be done in a way to get money... otherwise it will be a good product, maybe high quality, nice, proper, pleasent, entertaining - whantever - but not Art.



  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    In the mid-late 70s I was fortunate enough to have a prolonged one on one conversation with Ornette Coleman. Much of the conversation was about the role of the artist in society and that the primary struggle facing the artist since the beginning of time, since there was the first artist, was how to survive as an artist. How to continue creating art and eat at the same time. In other words how to get paid. He said he still hadn't figured out the answer to that question. But in art, it's about getting paid for making art.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Tchaikowski even said: 'Good composer should be like a good tailor, ready to take up any order.'
    And he did take orders.
    And to take order is not only money. Petipa put him a number of bars in a score... this is actually even tougher than to meet expectaions of a rich patron.


    Nevertheless I can find maybe only about dozen pieces of him by which I can see that they were maid for money. He did orders and was paide and but practically never composed music for money.

    Now maybe it is clearer what I mean

  27. #76

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    Up to you to define.
    For me this is not about being wrong or right to be on this forum. It is about thinking and communicating.




    I think we misunderstand each other, do not take it as an offence - probably I explain it in a wrong way - but you seem to take my words too directly. I never said that artists do not need money or art projects should not be sponsored.

    There maybe different beings of Art in our life... there's art like social actitivity, and artist as a social role - then it (and he) is involved in all social processes including sales issues etc.
    In this cocern Art can be considered as any other occupation...

    And there's Art like personal way of seing world, understanding reality, creating reality, extremly personal... and any social limitaions including money is bad for it. Not even bad - they just have nothing to do with that if it's real.

    THough we cannot usually clearly put a line between these, we should always be careful that this social staff should not take over personal creative world.

    Let me put in another way: it can be paid, ordered, sold, bought for money but it shoud not be done in a way to get money... otherwise it will be a good product, maybe high quality, nice, proper, pleasent, entertaining - whantever - but not Art.

    Let me put in another way: it can be paid, ordered, sold, bought for money but it shoud not be done in a way to get money... otherwise it will be a good product, maybe high quality, nice, proper, pleasent, entertaining - whantever - but not Art.

    Have you been to a Classical concert in a concert hall? The players dress up, the conductor may even wear a formal tux. This does not make the music sound better. They do this because it's a tradition ... for a good reason. Classical musicians depend on the generosity of mostly very wealthy people to fund their compositions and performances. These wealthy people want to see classical orchestras in beautiful concert venues performed by very well dressed musicians. The music is packaged and presented to appeal to the money providers ... done in a way to get money.

    Also, Classical orchestra producers take the community, the sponsors, and local critics/ media into consideration when organizing music programs, as do Art gallery and museum owners and curators, because they influence the money people.

    Have you been to a Jazz club? The musicians tend to play at reasonable volumes (so patrons can be comfortable and waitstaff can take food and/or drink orders). If you can't fit your creativity into that model, you will work very few venues. Your Jazz has to be ... done in a way to get money.

    To one extent or another, someone with money supports Art, or we never have Art. It can be the King, the Church, the Party, or the rich. They all have requirements, and if those requirements are not met, the Art never sees daylight. Welcome to planet Earth.

  28. #77

    User Info Menu

    In the mid-late 70s I was fortunate enough to have a prolonged one on one conversation with Ornette Coleman. Much of the conversation was about the role of the artist in society and that the primary struggle facing the artist since the beginning of time, since there was the first artist, was how to survive as an artist. How to continue creating art and eat at the same time. In other words how to get paid. He said he still hadn't figured out the answer to that question. But in art, it's about getting paid for making art.
    Of course artists may worried and irritated by it...
    You know Beethoven often composed pieces then dedicated it to some rich person (those days such a dedication was usually made by order of a patron) and came to demand payment for it))) Wagner always was very careful about payment. As you mentioned in earlier days composres and artists worked only as paid masters. There are lots of the same pictures of Titian or Cranach arounf the worls because they made copies in there artshops of thos that sold well, Bach had to compose in Leipzig one cantata every Sunday, Nozart came through ahalf of European capitals composing new symphonies in each trying to get a job at local court... but none of those that I mentioned created art for money.

  29. #78

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    money is bad for art, it is for sure... one should not keep money in mind during creative peocess.
    That will work for Holliwood movies only... bit is it waht we are after?
    Jonah, I'll tell you one more little thing about Art. I grew up in an art colony, so to speak. As a child, I lived down the street from a famous painter, who make a ton of money with his Modern Art. He was an Abstract Impressionist, and he was no amateur. He took his work very seriously. His pieces were in demand ... if he painted, there was a buyer. He used very high quality canvas, stretched over professional level framework and prepared in a way to maximize the life of the art work. Everything he did was professional. He worked in his studio most days, and made millions. Although he painted the style that allowed his creativity to thrive, that creativity was what drew wealthy buyers.

    He needed to provide pro level quality and offer his work in a business-like manner. His intention was absolutely to make money. He didn't sell out and paint olives with arms and legs near giant Martini glasses or glowing cottages (Art students will name these two artists if we have any around here), but adapted his talent to the very real need to support his family and to support his enviable position of using his skill and creativity to earn a living.

    Without money ( "money is bad for art, it is for sure") coming in from Art lovers, he would not have been able to be as prolific and productive, nor as creative. Because he was a pro, he was able to devote full time to Art. Money from rich patrons funded his life and his work.

  30. #79

    User Info Menu

    Jonah, I'll tell you one more little thing about Art. I grew up in an art colony, so to speak. As a child, I lived down the street from a famous painter, who make a ton of money with his Modern Art. He was an Abstract Impressionist, and he was no amateur. He took his work very seriously. His pieces were in demand ... if he painted, there was a buyer. He used very high quality canvas, stretched over professional level framework and prepared in a way to maximize the life of the art work. Everything he did was professional. He worked in his studio most days, and made millions. Although he painted the style that allowed his creativity to thrive, that creativity was what drew wealthy buyers.

    He needed to provide pro level quality and offer his work in a business-like manner. His intention was absolutely to make money. He didn't sell out and paint olives with arms and legs near giant Martini glasses or glowing cottages (Art students will name these two artists if we have any around here), but adapted his talent to the very real need to support his family and to support his enviable position of using his skill and creativity to earn a living.

    Without money ( "money is bad for art, it is for sure") coming in from Art lovers, he would not have been able to be as prolific and productive, nor as creative. Because he was a pro, he was able to devote full time to Art. Money from rich patrons funded his life and his work.
    SuperFour00,

    Although he painted the style that allowed his creativity to thrive, that creativity was what drew wealthy buyers.
    Did I not say the same in the beginning? If he did not have to give up his artistic nature and principles and was capable to earn money lucky he is!
    But what about those who were not so lucky, whose artistic creativity also thrive but do not meet enthusiasm from rich donators? Do they have to change a bit so 'to mee the requirements'?

  31. #80

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    Of course artists may worried and irritated by it...
    You know Beethoven often composed pieces then dedicated it to some rich person (those days such a dedication was usually made by order of a patron) and came to demand payment for it))) Wagner always was very careful about payment. As you mentioned in earlier days composres and artists worked only as paid masters. There are lots of the same pictures of Titian or Cranach arounf the worls because they made copies in there artshops of thos that sold well, Bach had to compose in Leipzig one cantata every Sunday, Nozart came through ahalf of European capitals composing new symphonies in each trying to get a job at local court... but none of those that I mentioned created art for money.
    What the hell are you talking about????? Of course they created art for money. Listen, you aren't making any sense so I'm bowing out of this argument. I don't think you are thinking or you just like to argue. I don't like to argue. I like to discuss. See you later.

  32. #81

    User Info Menu

    What the hell are you talking about????? Of course they created art for money. Listen, you aren't making any sense so I'm bowing out of this argument. I don't think you are thinking or you just like to argue. I don't like to argue. I like to discuss. See you later.
    No problem, come later and we'll see.

  33. #82

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
    Throughout history it has been art - Mozart, Beethoven, Brahams, -- All these artists had patrons and were very often ordered to to compose specific music: court music, church music. Are you saying none of that music was art? Michelangelo was commissioned by the church and was paid. None of what he correlated was art either? Stravinsky, Coltrane, Bird were all paid for their work. Not artists huh?? Damn. I wonder who WAS a great artist then?
    Beethoven started the business of freelancing in a way. He would promise aristocrats he would write something or dedicate something for them and then not do it. He stiffed landlords on rent money and trashed the place. He knew he could get away with it. He had no competition on piano in his day.
    Beethoven's first good teacher-Neefe, was illuminati;

    Christian Gottlob Neefe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I would imagine Beethoven was too. I suspect he let people know, you're not going to screw me over like you did Mozart. The era that followed- Liszt, Chopin was probably a good one for classical musicians. The piano was the new star and it would seem musicians were less like fodder for institutions and TPTB.
    Beethoven was Mozart's revenge.
    Some people think it would be good to go back to the old days of patronage but some of the aristocrats in the old days were serious players. It might have been common for a musician to be teacher to a family as a 2nd job. Their first job would have been some gravy job.
    I like babbling about this stuff. I know things. When Liszt and Chopin played one piano/4 hands Chopin played the left/bass parts.

    My point is, I'm not sure anyone would have tried to order Beethoven to do anything. He was the last of the illuminati possibly. There was no reason for them to exist anymore.
    Last edited by Stevebol; 10-16-2014 at 05:29 PM.

  34. #83

    User Info Menu

    Yes, Beethoven was the first to have an EGO. That explains the dawn of the Romantic era where the artist became the central figure. But he was still paid to compose, just not "to order." Everyone has been paid. Our current era where the public feels it is their right to have music for free is unique and criminal, if you ask me. This is the first time artists have been asked to create and give away art with no remuneration whatsoever.

  35. #84

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
    Yes, Beethoven was the first to have an EGO. That explains the dawn of the Romantic era where the artist became the central figure. But he was still paid to compose, just not "to order." Everyone has been paid. Our current era where the public feels it is their right to have music for free is unique and criminal, if you ask me. This is the first time artists have been asked to create and give away art with no remuneration whatsoever.
    I agree. I don't understand this sense of entitlement when it comes to free entertainment.

  36. #85

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
    Yes, Beethoven was the first to have an EGO. That explains the dawn of the Romantic era where the artist became the central figure. But he was still paid to compose, just not "to order." Everyone has been paid. Our current era where the public feels it is their right to have music for free is unique and criminal, if you ask me. This is the first time artists have been asked to create and give away art with no remuneration whatsoever.
    I know very few musicians want to be performers exclusively. I did and I definitely had tunnel vision about that. I have to wonder about people recording everything with cell phones now. There's a generation now that's lived their entire lives being recorded or recording something. It used to be that some musicians would avoid recording anything as a means to get people into the clubs. I know someone who's been very successful in that regard. Now he has a club in Japan.

    Hard to get a grasp on all this but in some places outside the US there seems to be an big audience for live music.

  37. #86

    User Info Menu

    Recorded music used to be for preserving performances. Now outside of classical or jazz that's not the way it's done.

  38. #87

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    SuperFour00,



    Did I not say the same in the beginning? If he did not have to give up his artistic nature and principles and was capable to earn money lucky he is!
    But what about those who were not so lucky, whose artistic creativity also thrive but do not meet enthusiasm from rich donators? Do they have to change a bit so 'to mee the requirements'?
    "Did I not say the same in the beginning?"

    I heard you say: "money is bad for art"

    "Do they have to change a bit so 'to mee the requirements'?"

    Yes, develop more talent and creativity, perhaps. Or get a day job.

    Maybe a better way to say what you may accept is: "Greed is bad for Art".

  39. #88

    User Info Menu

    I heard you say: "money is bad for art"
    Why take it out of context? I put here quite a few posts whereo explain I really tried to explain what I meant.
    I hoped you read it all.

    "Do they have to change a bit so 'to mee the requirements'?"

    Yes, develop more talent and creativity, perhaps. Or get a day job.
    This is where I disagree. Mozart actually even tried to meet these requirements

    You welcomed me on Earth in some before, well believe me I am on it, even so hard on it that it burns my feet sometimes.

    There is no idealism or romaticisim in what I am saying. I know what the price is.
    I am just absolutely sure that any kind of confomism is bad for Art.

    Sometimes the requirements of audiens, or donator and real creativity of an author may coincide, often order can provoke a creation of masterpiece. But it is possible only - I belive ONLY - when author's creative will just finds proper conditions for its realization, but NEVER on the contrary. Never those conditions should predetermine author's creativity.

    The examples up there with Mozart, Bach, artists of the past illustrate this, besides in the arts like arcitecture or cinema the author's creative solutions may be often corrected by practical reasons - technical or economical.
    But this is different point, in practical sence only writers alsomt do not depend on money in creative process - all they need is a bunch of paper and a pencil - of course even this might be a problem - but still much less than tons of marble, of huge movie teams and technical quipment, or even an engagemant of a band and stage...

    But this is not what I am talking about.

    I understand that it may look paradoxal, but life is paradoxal - even in those cases when Mozart eagerly composed one symphony after another and inserted corrections in the score to conciously please his possible employer, even then he does no do it for money... because his inner creative force was so intensive that in any conditions he did it in his own way - (by the way Mozart never got the job he wanted, I belive it was his carachter a bit, he tried but he could not change... but it dose not matter. There were those who recieved the job on the same basis and still they did not give up themeselve for money reasons.)

    I try to explain again that I judge only by a piec of art, not by what artist did or said: I go to the gallery and see dozens of Madonnas - and some of them are obvious quickly completed ordered of better or worse quality, and some are really inspired masterpieces. Though both were paid and ordered - and often even to the same artist.


    Now I hope it is clearer what I mean when I say: money are bad art, they are good for prosperity of the artists, but bad for art.

    When you lare involeved in listening music or wtch great painting you do not realate these impesssions with money, nore calculate it in money - it goes to one soul from another soul, this is how it works.
    Art both in its effect and origin has nothing to do with money - it be seems to be the simplest explanations.
    Last edited by Jonah; 10-17-2014 at 02:53 AM.

  40. #89

    User Info Menu

    I think we all understand the concept of the true artist or poet who needs to express truth/art without any motivation for compensation. Yes, I think we also understand that a starving artist might compromise their art for the survival of themselves or loved ones. The reality of the world is often the marketplace does influence the artist. Perhaps only amateurs can produce pure art...

  41. #90

    User Info Menu

    I try to explain again and again that I judge only by a piec of art, not by what artist did or said: I go to the gallery and see dozens of Madonnas - and some of them are obvious quickly completed ordered of better or worse quality, and some are really inspired masterpieces. Though both were paid and ordered - and often even to the same artist.

    Both are paid, both are in the market, both have orders and even stric practical conditions from payer, both are successful, but one is motivated with money, and another one is not. Do you see the difference?

  42. #91

    User Info Menu

    I think I see what Jonah is driving at in that money is inherently something that will interfere with the creative genius buried in so many artists... Such is the nature money.
    "If I don't practice for a day, I know it... for two days, the critics know it... three days, the public knows it." -- Louis Armstrong

  43. #92

    User Info Menu

    I busked for charity once, for a hospice. In the middle of a market town good neighbours day. Made £30 and change. People thought I was the entertainment. Even though I had a sign naming the hospice - people only donated cash when I stopped playing and they asked what I was doing. People are stupid.

    The following year I did a static cycle ride for the same charity. Not only was I frantically pedalling I was generating enough electricity with a dynamo to power an energy efficient light bulb, I had procured 200 energy efficient light bulbs from a nationwide energy supplier and was handing them out after the public made a donation to the charity. I made £345 and change. People were entertained and educated with a practical experiment on energy saving. They queued up for the expensive light bulbs for pennies. People are greedy.

    I see busking as entertainment for provider and proles, not for self profit and self promotion!
    “When a wise man points at the moon the fool considers the finger.”

  44. #93

    User Info Menu

    I wish jazz musicians would distinguish between secular and sacred music when they use classical music to make a point.

  45. #94

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevebol View Post
    I wish jazz musicians would distinguish between secular and sacred music when they use classical music to make a point.
    Why?

  46. #95
    I know I am a bit late to this thread but...yes I have been busking off and on for nearly 30 years.
    I've gotten laid because of it and also been fined for "panhandling"....hahahaha! As soon as it's warm enough to do so I will be busking again this year!!!

  47. #96

    User Info Menu

    NYC used to have a program where individuals/groups could get audition and then play in public spaces. I remember seeing Roy Hargrove and his band, and Stanley Jordan back in the 80's before they made a name, or had a recording contract, I believe. (The only bad part---I'd want to stay and listen for half an hr. at a time which sometimes made me late for work!) Both Hargrove and Jordan became more well known, deservedly so, I think by doing this.
    Last edited by goldenwave77; 02-02-2015 at 11:13 PM. Reason: correct typos

  48. #97

    User Info Menu

    My favorite vocalist I ever played with used to stand on stage and he would say " do not clap . throw money!!!!"

  49. #98

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    money is bad for art, it is for sure... one should not keep money in mind during creative peocess.
    That will work for Holliwood movies only... bit is it waht we are after?
    Jonah, I red somewhere you mentioned you are from St. Petersburg, its my hometown too. Perhaps you are familiar with Pushkin, the pride of Russian poetry and literature. He said it very well: "my inspiration is not for sale, but my manuscripts sure are!" (Не продается вдохновение, но можно рукопись продать!). I think if you adopt this philosophy, you wouldnt have to be so torn choosing between money and art

  50. #99

    User Info Menu

    For those thinking about it but not sure because some people think ill of buskers, it is good enough for some of New York's hottest talent:

    What is your opinion on busking?-rotem-colin-rick-pro-photo-jpg
    “When you’re creating your own ...., man, even the sky ain’t the limit.”
    Miles Davis

  51. #100

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo View Post
    You, along with whomever made that stupid meme, haven't a clue about busking.

    I made my living as a busker for more than a decade. Buskers and panhandlers are sworn enemies on the street.

    If you feel it's beneath you, don't do it. But don't disparage the many great performers who are taking it to the streets, just because you're too chicken to try it yourself.