Why So Many Talented Musicians Never Make It Big

[Drumbler]

Physical attractiveness is very imprtant in some genres like American Idol type instant stars.

Then you have people like downright homely Ed Sheeran who seem to make it without being good looking.

[docsteve]

Chops are totally secondary, and have been for a long time. Quincy Jones called Paul McCartney a lousy bass player, and by the standards he was used to, he's probably right. But think Ron Carter vs. Paul McCartney - who's the better player, and who is a household name? Paul must have done something right.

If you "only" play well, anybody who plays just as well can and will replace you (can't get Ron Carter, use Christian McBride). As an artist, you need to offer something unique, and put your personality in it (however much that is a projected, ideal personality). This is probably where the true "chops" lie - in the technical proficiency to stage yourself.

Or to put it differently - the man who knows how will always have a job. The man who knows why will always be his boss. The same is true for women, of course.

[DS71]

I think the technique/guitar hero thing ducked out quite a bit in the 90's.

In the 2000's for over a decade there's was probably at least a decade of rock and heavy rock players trying up each others chops. Wrapping their mind around the speed of things(essentially playing simple shit really fast) and being utterly clueless about the 'feel' of something.

Current state of the industry now, I just don't think anyone cares. Nothing that impressive when you can see videos of 12 year olds from every part of the world nail fast rock stuff.....guitar, drums. All of it.

[christianm77]

Well a lot of the Beatles era I love is them trying to get the Motown sound, and failing because they weren't massively swinging jazz musicians and church raised singers from Detroit.

But then to hear Americans raving about the special sound the British bands of that era had - well clearly that's a thing.

I mean, their time feel is somewhat stodgy English, and I have to say as an exemplar of stodgy English time feel you have to born in that tradition.

Anyway this thread kind of is talking about an era that is ancient history. I mean, even 10 years ago is ancient history in the music biz. Technology has moved the goalposts not just over the past 10 years, but for the entire lifetime of the business... I mean we can go back to the invention of the printing press....

Seems today there's a lot of activity outside the traditional music biz channels. Take Joe Bonnamassa. He's packing out the auditoriums. He's not on the trad music business radar, yet in a very real sense he's 'made it'. Prob not the greatest blues player i the world (I like his playing) but he got the business right.

So I have to quote Robert Fripp (slightly paraphrased no doubt, I've been thinking of this quote for 25 years):

'amateur musicians think about music, professional musicians think about business. If you want only to think about music, stay amateur, but if you want to serve music, this is the price we pay for the privilege.'

Never heard it said better.

[christianm77]

I think the technique/guitar hero thing ducked out quite a bit in the 90's.

In the 2000's for over a decade there's was probably at least a decade of rock and heavy rock players trying up each others chops. Wrapping their mind around the speed of things(essentially playing simple shit really fast) and being utterly clueless about the 'feel' of something.

Current state of the industry now, I just don't think anyone cares. Nothing that impressive when you can see videos of 12 year olds from every part of the world nail fast rock stuff.....guitar, drums. All of it.

These players have a parallel existence on YouTube.... The Tom Quayles, Martin Millers, Marshall Harrisons even Guthrie to a large extent. I know for a fact that some of these players don't actually want to perform live in a band... but that's another story.

It's all a bit backing tracks and clinics - not my bag, I'd rather be in a vibey pub any day - but it is an industry... They get endorsements, etc, etc.... Not mainstream, but there isn't really a mainstream now. These players get a lot of hits, too.

[Jonah]

This is a typical non-manager attitude, which in my not particularly humble opinion is quite misled.

Building relationships, effective communication, conflict resolution, and decision making are not only real professional talents; they are life talents. And they are not that common either.

I manage a team of engineers. And I spent half my career being one, so I have "walked the walk." Some of the engineers are absolutely terrible at these crucial people skills. They may be great at designing and building things, but nothing would get done if they were left to their own devices. Without leaders, the company would have no long term business strategy, no tactical direction in times of crisis, no efficiency of effort across departments, no cross-functional collaboration, etc. etc.

Of course there are terrible managers, too (often the ones who get promoted, it seems!). But the general sense that a manager is just a more highly paid idiot is bogus.

I would put it the other way around.. I wou say of course there are good managers, too..

You see I am a manager in a big corporation (one in top 3 in industry on global level) of course I am not top.. but level is enough to see all the methods from inside.

I believe that real business is where the owner or a shareholder is... when it is their money they risk.

You see I am not talking about business talents like Ford -whatever personality he was - he business was his blood and sweat...

I am talking about other guys...
the managers that are employed on salary... In corporations it is much more like a political party: intrigues, manipulations, declarations, positioning youself.

From some level they become almost unsinkable... they make mistakes and almost always it is enough for them to appologoze and take a half-year vacation and oops CFO that was accused in inproper behaviour is aleady a CEO next year...
they migrate from company to company... invent new products and conceptions that will be forgotten after they leave the company...
And they pretend... pretend confident, pretend serious, pretenf firm, pretend worried and responsive, they pretend so much that they begin to believe in it. Most of them are also pushed from above...
They spend huge amounts of money for business trips and dinners that will have almost no benifite and they try to save every cent when it concerns the improvement of the conditions for their employees.

trial period for them is usually about 2 years and even if they were not extremely succeful they will get a valuable experience in CV.

[DS71]

These players have a parallel existence on YouTube.... The Tom Quayles, Martin Millers, Marshall Harrisons even Guthrie to a large extent. I know for a fact that some of these players don't actually want to perform live in a band... but that's another story.

It's all a bit backing tracks and clinics - not my bag, I'd rather be in a vibey pub any day - but it is an industry... They get endorsements, etc, etc.... Not mainstream, but there isn't really a mainstream now. These players get a lot of hits, too.

Sure, but for clarification, I was talking less about the boom in fusiony players and cats like The Tom Quayles, Martin Millers.....More about the Neo classic,Rusty Cooley, Harrison and metal-core types.

[docsteve]

By way of an explanation why chops are only part of the package, I just found this:

So, broadly speaking, what exactly was [DJ] Steve Angello doing? An artist does two things. One is the work. This can manifest as an idea, song, text, painting, mix, performance...I can go on and on. And the edge cases here can be fun. Air can be work (Duchamp, Air de Paris), or work can be work (Mierle Laderman Ukeles’ artist residency at New York’s Department of Sanitation), or lack of work can be the work (Nam June Paik, Zen for Film). I love this kinda stuff.


The other thing an artist does is showbiz. Showbiz is anything that happens once the work "leaves the studio." These two sides of an artist form something like a mobius strip—they are related and continuous, and also completely dependent on each other. So when considering an artist broadly, one needs to take both things into account.

Are.na Blog / The North Face

[ronjazz]

He did that by choice because he's an independently wealthy billionaire. He wouldn't be too motivated by the usual presidential salary.

he lied, he keeps his checks, and he steals millions more.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Ah, so that's why presidents earn so much!

By the way I think American president works for free now? Or no?
If so - it's not good... presidency is not a hobby... one should be motivated.

He did that by choice because he's an independently wealthy billionaire. He wouldn't be too motivated by the usual presidential salary.

I think even non-billinaire presindents are hardly motivated by the salary in their career. Power means more than money for people on such a social level.

But agree.. it would be great if president's wife would have been counting dollars till his next salary day ... and if he loses job the only job he can go to is taxi driver.

Since 2001, US Presidents have a base salary of $400,000 per year. That would be a lot of money for me, but it would be peanuts for a Fortune 500 CEO. Law firm partners can also rake in a lot more than that, as do many bankers. Surgeons. A-list actors, professional athletes, and pop musicians. (At least in those last 4 categories, people are less interchangeable.)


Making it in a field governed by "the fickle finger of fate" is always a longshot. It happens. And sometimes to deserving people. But it's much, much more likely NOT to happen in any individual case.

"The salary isn't much but the benefits are excellent." -- George Washington

I've heard this quote in some form attributed to him.

George Washington was considered to be the wealthiest man in the United States in his day.

The expense account of modern U.S. Presidents dwarfs their "salary". The salary is a mere pittance.

he lied, he keeps his checks, and he steals millions more.

So now we can talk politics?

No.

I've had my snout smacked with a rolled-up newspaper already, so I'll just leave it with a "duly noted".

[christianm77]

Sure, but for clarification, I was talking less about the boom in fusiony players and cats like The Tom Quayles, Martin Millers.....More about the Neo classic,Rusty Cooley, Harrison and metal-core types.

Well those guys do actually play in bands.

[Hep To The Jive]

Chops are totally secondary, and have been for a long time. Quincy Jones called Paul McCartney a lousy bass player, and by the standards he was used to, he's probably right. But think Ron Carter vs. Paul McCartney - who's the better player, and who is a household name? Paul must have done something right.

Quincy was an ass and off the mark on this one, and he knew that. Why anybody would look at Paul McCartney as a 'Bass Player'? He's a singer, most importantly songwriter, and only then he's a bass player. As a songwriter he's a genius, as a singer he's brilliant, as a bass player... you know if ' the feel' counts for something, he's got a great R&R feel I personally love. I'm a rocker though, and people who have a feel for it are in short supply.

[Hep To The Jive]

Well a lot of the Beatles era I love is them trying to get the Motown sound, and failing because they weren't massively swinging jazz musicians and church raised singers from Detroit.

But then to hear Americans raving about the special sound the British bands of that era had - well clearly that's a thing.

I mean, their time feel is somewhat stodgy English, and I have to say as an exemplar of stodgy English time feel you have to born in that tradition.

British invented rock music basically. Americans started it, mostly Black, but Brits took it and run with it. Maybe 'stodgy time feel' is what you call it, but it sure is superior.

Let's face it, American rock bands sucked (with a very few exceptions) from 60's to late 70's, when Ramones and Van Halen show that Americans can rock too. Then it all changed.

But God bless 'stodgy time feel'!

[docsteve]

Quincy was an ass and off the mark on this one, and he knew that. Why anybody would look at Paul McCartney as a 'Bass Player'? He's a singer, most importantly songwriter, and only then he's a bass player. As a songwriter he's a genius, as a singer he's brilliant, as a bass player... you know if ' the feel' counts for something, he's got a great R&R feel I personally love. I'm a rocker though, and people who have a feel for it are in short supply.

True that. I was trying to make the point that you don‘t have to be a monster player to be a great artist. After all the thread moved towards players with great chops that don‘t make it big. A great player isn’t yet a great artist IMHO. It takes more than that.


Gesendet von iPad mit Tapatalk

[Hep To The Jive]

True that. I was trying to make the point that you don‘t have to be a monster player to be a great artist. After all the thread moved towards players with great chops that don‘t make it big. A great player isn’t yet a great artist IMHO. It takes more than that.


Gesendet von iPad mit Tapatalk

Right. Monster player is awesome, but so is monster songwriter, or a non monster player but part of a monster band. Or any combination of those.

Also monster players often have monster egos, and that comes out in their music, which is a turn off, not to mention being a ruining factor for their careers.

Case in point, just watched a documentary on Jimmy Rosenberg, called Jon And Jimmy. Highly recommended on why monstrous players can have a hard time making it sometimes.

[christianm77]

British invented rock music basically. Americans started it, mostly Black, but Brits took it and run with it. Maybe 'stodgy time feel' is what you call it, but it sure is superior.

Let's face it, American rock bands sucked (with a very few exceptions) from 60's to late 70's, when Ramones and Van Halen show that Americans can rock too. Then it all changed.

But God bless 'stodgy time feel'!

But my contention would be - as with many innovations in music - it came from a misunderstanding/corruption of the blues.

It's the way that music was refracted through an alien culture.

And then sold to white middle America, and refracted again lol.

There's a danger in getting thing too right. After all, Clapton might have been a purist, but it didn't stop him using new types of gear for new sounds... And playing with a jazz based rhythm section lol.

[guitarbuddy]

No one ever accused Mick Jagger or Steven Tyler for being handsome, but sure they got it!

Be that as it may, it just reinforces my point that "the mandate" didn't really kick in until the 1980s, and both these guys were industry icons by then. They were "grandfathered in," so to speak. Plus, you're correct that men can get away with being less attractive than women if they project an attitude or swagger. Humphrey Bogart in the movies, for example. And you can see the tie-in to the silver screen in that the 80's is when MTV began, and because pop music was suddenly visual 24/7 as well as audio, looks became an immediate factor on who "made it" and who didn't.

[Jazzstdnt]

Chops are totally secondary, and have been for a long time. Quincy Jones called Paul McCartney a lousy bass player, and by the standards he was used to, he's probably right. But think Ron Carter vs. Paul McCartney - who's the better player, and who is a household name? Paul must have done something right.

If you "only" play well, anybody who plays just as well can and will replace you (can't get Ron Carter, use Christian McBride). As an artist, you need to offer something unique, and put your personality in it (however much that is a projected, ideal personality). This is probably where the true "chops" lie - in the technical proficiency to stage yourself.

Or to put it differently - the man who knows how will always have a job. The man who knows why will always be his boss. The same is true for women, of course.

Paul didn't need a bass. He could have held a tambourine or whatever.

[ragman1]

Check out his alternate career choice at 4.58... hilarious!

[Drumbler]

Seeing Jimmy Bruno like this is depressing.

[Hep To The Jive]

Be that as it may, it just reinforces my point that "the mandate" didn't really kick in until the 1980s, and both these guys were industry icons by then. They were "grandfathered in," so to speak. Plus, you're correct that men can get away with being less attractive than women if they project an attitude or swagger. Humphrey Bogart in the movies, for example. And you can see the tie-in to the silver screen in that the 80's is when MTV began, and because pop music was suddenly visual 24/7 as well as audio, looks became an immediate factor on who "made it" and who didn't.

I guess. But my point is I see it as fair for the business. I accept it and wouldn't want any other way. Call me superficial, but looks are important.

[Hep To The Jive]

But my contention would be - as with many innovations in music - it came from a misunderstanding/corruption of the blues.

It's the way that music was refracted through an alien culture.

And then sold to white middle America, and refracted again lol.

There's a danger in getting thing too right. After all, Clapton might have been a purist, but it didn't stop him using new types of gear for new sounds... And playing with a jazz based rhythm section lol.

Exactly! And thats where I stand. Its more important to get things slightly wrong but to sound fresh, than being forever just a scholar. More fun too.

[MarkRhodes]

Physical attractiveness is very imprtant in some genres like American Idol type instant stars.

Then you have people like downright homely Ed Sheeran who seem to make it without being good looking.

Physical attractiveness is a plus in most areas of life. There is a vast scholarly literature on this topic, from success in job interviews / hiring / promotion to romantic / sexual success. It also helps when one is a stranger in need of assistance: attractive people find it easier to find someone (they don't know) eager to help them. Like it or not, that's the way the world is.

Not everyone successful is attractive, though. The more you can do on your own, the less you may need looks. I don't think anyone has ever considered Abraham Lincoln to be among the most attractive US presidents, but he is widely considered one of the greatest. (It helps to write well...)

[guitarbuddy]

I guess. But my point is I see it as fair for the business. I accept it and wouldn't want any other way. Call me superficial, but looks are important.

I'm not disagreeing.

[JGinNJ]

British invented rock music basically. Americans started it, mostly Black, but Brits took it and run with it. Maybe 'stodgy time feel' is what you call it, but it sure is superior.

Let's face it, American rock bands sucked (with a very few exceptions) from 60's to late 70's, when Ramones and Van Halen show that Americans can rock too. Then it all changed.

But God bless 'stodgy time feel'!

It's off topic of the thread, but to give Brits most of the credit overlooks some legendary American bands. Doors, CCR, Beach Boys, Fleetwood Mac, Jefferson Airplane, Grateful dead, CSN&Y, Allman Bros just to name a few.