Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Posts 1 to 50 of 83
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    Last edited by Drumbler; 12-10-2018 at 12:38 PM.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -Hunter S Thompson

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -Hunter S Thompson
    Ah the good old days.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    my friend.. one of the greatest musicians I know... says:

    - they pay me close to nothing for the unique things that only I can do
    - they pay me average for the thigns that many can do too
    - but best of all they pay for the things that any idiot could do

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    my friend.. one of the greatest musicians I know... says:

    - they pay me close to nothing for the unique things that only I can do
    - they pay me average for the thigns that many can do too
    - but best of all they pay for the things that any idiot could do
    Ah, so that's why presidents earn so much!

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    Ah, so that's why presidents earn so much!
    You know I am in the office daytime job.. I never tried to make a carreer though I was offered a promotion a few times I tried to avoid going on management level though I understood that probably I can be a good manager... I did not want all the changes in communication in attitude and all that...

    But in my last company the enviroment was so good that I accepeted an offer...

    In a year or so I understood that I actually work much much less than before but I earn more... other bosses used to tell me: it is because you can take decision and resposibility for the actions of other people... that is what you are aid for more.
    Partly so... it is actually qiote a challenge to be responsible for others people actions as for yours... it is something you have to get used to, the more people you have the more unexpected problems come to you (sometimes you feel yourself real idiot actally when you have to deal with something you would never have done yourself).

    But to be honest all I mostly see around on management level - especially in corporations - is just people who are smart enough in connections and communications - mostly no special skills and professional talents needed...
    And at the end it seems that they do not work at ll - just imitate work... and often do not even notice it.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Jay
    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.

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    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.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    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.

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Jay
    Ah, so that's why presidents earn so much!
    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.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    What is "making it"?




    I say.....

    Sometimes, we gotta take a different route in order to get from point A to point B.
    Not all of us might be capable of doing that or would WANT TO do that and I get that.

    Curtis Mayfield once said something to the effect of,
    you gotta serve your audience in order to get/earn the right (wherewithal, fill in the blanks) to serve yourself (so to speak).



    That being said...

    This guy is an inspiration. He resorted to finding "new tools" to add to his arsenal in order to "succeed" past his wildest dreams as a musician. Maybe we'll get to see what he wanted to be as a musician one day. I cannot believe that he grew up wanting to be a Youtube musical star. Youtube is only 13 years old.

    He clearly has a jazz infused background - I hear Steely Dan meets Michael Franks

    Bill Wurtz - Wikipedia






    bill wurtz
    - YouTube

  13. #12
    "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.

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    It's 2018, why some old white dude still talking about how to make it big as a GUITAR band? Who cares about bands? It's not just talent that's not important, it's the market that's non existent almost.

    Cardi B is Grammy nominated for Album Of The Year, woohoo! We are living in the times when people cheer up the trashiest, most unwitty and unmusical creations, while doubling down on old innocent Christmas classics.

    Wanna make it big? Ditch the guitar or any instruments, also any signs of intelligence or wit, and 'drop' a hip hop record, then maybe.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    I didn't watch any of these videos, but....

    I think the definition of 'making it' is being redefined everyday.

    Unless your a pop, country or rap artist these days, it doesn't matter.

    Everyone has access to social media and YT. If at the end of day you can still enjoy music, and make a living from it-you've made it. A lot of the rest of it is an illusion. I toured at a very, very high level for 3 years with guys that 'made it'(was not jazz) and they were the most pathetic, back stabbing people I've met(especially to each other). I made good money and got ripped off equally just the same(money and writing credits).


    Most of the Artists we really, really enjoy aren't house hold name anyways.
    Last edited by DS71; 12-10-2018 at 03:14 PM.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    So now we can talk politics?

  17. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by DS71
    I didn't watch any of these videos, but....

    I think the definition of 'making it' is being redefined everyday.

    Unless your a pop, country or rap artist these days, it doesn't matter.

    Everyone has access to social media and YT. If at the end of day you can still enjoy music, and make a living from it-you've made it. A lot of the rest of it is an illusion. I toured at a very, very high level for 3 years with guys that 'made it' and they were the most pathetic, back stabbing people I've met(especially to each other). I made good money and got ripped off equally just the same(money and writing credits).


    Most of the Artists we really, really enjoy aren't house hold name anyways.
    That's just what the guy in the video said.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Depends also on personality.

    Maybe some of them dont ever want to be "big"...

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    you have to have a great PR person and you have to have a realy hard working Manager. Get as much public notice as you can. Gimmicks, Style, Personality. Oh and the ability to take alot of Guff,

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    The guy in OP's video isn't telling anyone with any music biz experience anything that hasn't been said a thousand times before. In fact, what he's saying is as cliche as it gets. What our balding Canadian music biz expert didn't mention as an almost mandatory trait to be a star is physical attractiveness. This has always been a factor but it became even more so in the 1980s and beyond. Look at a few examples of major popularity from just that decade: Madonna, Blondie (with Debbie Harry), Van Halen (blonde, muscular David Lee Roth, puppy dog cute Eddie VH), Whitney Houston, Sting, Janet Jackson, Prince, Tina Turner, George Michael, David Bowie.

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by guitarbuddy
    The guy in OP's video isn't telling anyone with any music biz experience anything that hasn't been said a thousand times before. In fact, what he's saying is as cliche as it gets. What our balding Canadian music biz expert didn't mention as an almost mandatory trait to be a star is physical attractiveness. This has always been a factor but it became even more so in the 1980s and beyond. Look at a few examples of major popularity from just that decade: Madonna, Blondie (with Debbie Harry), Van Halen (blonde, muscular David Lee Roth, puppy dog cute Eddie VH), Whitney Houston, Sting, Janet Jackson, Prince, Tina Turner, George Michael, David Bowie.
    That I agree with, and I think thats how it should be. Not necessarily cute, but you gotta be a character, and look like one. No one ever accused Mick Jagger or Steven Tyler for being handsome, but sure they got it!

    Everything that we might think superficial matters- how you talk, how you dress, how you move, how you stand (or seat) on stage. If you dont care, its maybe not the business for you. But its all part of being an artist, even if you're not going for a mega star career.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
    So now we can talk politics?
    No.

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    Wasn't it Michelle Shocked who sued her label for violating her anti-slavery rights and won, thereby giving her sole ownership of all her masters... way to go!

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    No one ever accused Mick Jagger or Steven Tyler for being handsome, but sure they got it!
    They both had it the other way aournd... their physical appearance was used to make an image of some kind perversed sexuality that can be attractive too.


    Thouhg showbiz is showbiz.. there were periods when social and ideological things took over finance...
    There were artists who did not care about their bahaviour and how it corresponds the conception of artisitc behaviour from commercial point of view.
    Yes promoters and producers tried to use it anyway...

    I am sure that - at least in teh early period - Jagger, Bowie, Morrison, Hendrix - they all of course were artists on stage - but motivation for their artistic behaviour was not commetrcial...
    they mostly did what they thought proper for their art and the producers managed to use it for marketing.

    'There is a guy.. Bob Dylan.. he sings his songs... young kids and intellectuals like him.. how can we earn some money on him?'
    Of course they will not dress him up like Elvis - they will try to use what they already have.

    Stars like Elvis... or The Beatles in the early career were of course purposefully promoted and had to adjust their apepearances to fit the commercial demands (probably McCartney did not care much, and Lennon obviously did it reluctuntly).

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    I don't keep up with rock music, so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that musical talent has been forgotten in the 21st Century. EVH and his contemporaries, people who came to fame in the 1980s, were the last generation to be valued for their chops. Since then, a lot of music has been produced, but none of it particularly proficient. I look in the music magazines and see articles about the same people every month, those who give their names to signature models. None of them strike me as interesting musicians. I may be forgetting somebody, but it is not Joe Bonamassa or Eric Johnson.

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    But to be honest all I mostly see around on management level - especially in corporations - is just people who are smart enough in connections and communications - mostly no special skills and professional talents needed...
    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.

  27. #26
    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.

  28. #27

    User Info Menu

    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.

  29. #28

    User Info Menu

    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.

  30. #29

    User Info Menu

    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.

  31. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

  32. #31

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpguitar
    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.

  33. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    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.

  34. #33

    User Info Menu

    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

  35. #34

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by joe2758
    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.

  36. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Jay
    Ah, so that's why presidents earn so much!
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by joe2758
    He did that by choice because he's an independently wealthy billionaire. He wouldn't be too motivated by the usual presidential salary.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbler
    "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.
    Quote Originally Posted by ronjazz
    he lied, he keeps his checks, and he steals millions more.
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
    So now we can talk politics?
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
    No.
    I've had my snout smacked with a rolled-up newspaper already, so I'll just leave it with a "duly noted".

  37. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by DS71
    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.

  38. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

  39. #38

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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'!

  40. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
    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

  41. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by docsteve
    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.

  42. #41

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
    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.

  43. #42

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
    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.
    Last edited by guitarbuddy; 12-11-2018 at 07:08 PM.

  44. #43

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Paul didn't need a bass. He could have held a tambourine or whatever.

  45. #44

    User Info Menu



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

  46. #45
    Seeing Jimmy Bruno like this is depressing.

  47. #46

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by guitarbuddy
    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.

  48. #47

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    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.

  49. #48

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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...)

  50. #49

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
    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.

  51. #50

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
    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.