PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic Performing for Nothing, your views?

I said I'm not going to say anything more about playing for free and I meant it, however the thread has drifted to art/backing tracks/cover songs and so on.

First of all, whatever a musician likes best is of no concern to me. Someone won't listen to a band with backing tracks, another wants original tunes, and so on. But we all listen to music with our musician's ears, and we make up a tiny segment of the population.

I suppose when nuclear scientists get together they talk about things I don't understand, even though I've had physics in college and am interested in the subject and do my best to try to understand the spin and flavors of sub-atomic particles.

When I go out to listen to live music, my favorite is a symphony orchestra playing a symphony from one of my favorite composers - in essence I'm going out to hear a cover band. So in the discussion previous to this, there are those who think the greatest music the world has ever known is not art. I disagree.

My second choice would be cool school jazz. Both of these arouse my interest as a musician, and neither one is mainstream.

I've played both symphonic and jazz, and if I could make a living playing cool school jazz, I'd probably go that way. But then again, I'd miss the blues, rock, salsa, and other forms I get to play.

I don't care if another musician doesn't want to hear backing tracks, I don't care if another musician cares if my music is art or not, I don't care if another musician thinks my cover songs are worthy or not, or if he/she thinks my re-interpretation of popular songs is art or not.

It's not that I don't respect what a musician says, and if a musician offers constructive criticism, I listen and evaluate it. But if they say, I don't like you because you use backing tracks or something as inane as that, their viewpoint is ignored.

A musician listens with musician's ears which should be more educated, refined, and discriminating that that of the general public. But since the musician is educated, he/she should also be able to appreciate the art that goes into simpler forms of music. When I hear a greatly crafted pop song, it also moves me. When I hear a great song, even if it isn't the style that I like to listen to, I can appreciate it on it's own merits.

If everyone's ears were educated, the general public would listen to nothing but symphonies, since they require the most training to understand.

Just because it's popular or because someone has done the song before, doesn't automatically make it kitsch.

If another musician doesn't like the fact that Leilani sings "At Last" better than Etta James because it's a cover song, I don't care. She usually gets wild response from the audience from that and many other songs as well.

I do care what the audience thinks, and for all my life, the public has approved of what I do. So did the educational system. When I was in school, I was first tenor sax in the all-state band every year, and section leader - a chair that goes to the first alto player by default. It's a little like a viola player being the concertmaster in a symphony orchestra.

You can play for yourself, you can play for other musicians, or you can play for the general public -- if you are good enough, you'll get the audience you asked for.

I always asked for the general public, and they have never let me down.

I think what we do is art, but I don't confuse it with a symphony from Dvorak or Shastakovitch. And remember, Beethoven was an entertainer too. I've heard some people doing originals that paled in comparison to your average Motown song as far as what I consider "art" to be. Playing originals doesn't automatically make you a great artist.

So if you don't like backing tracks or cover songs, your opinion is that of one musician, and does not represent the definitive word in good taste, just your opinion. It doesn't make tracks or covers good or bad, just not your thing.

I can think of a number of songs from the lowly genre of Rock that in my opinion cross over to great art, to name just a few (in no particular order), Bohemian Rhapsody, Hotel California, Tom Jones Version of I Who Have Nothing, Aretha's I Never Loved A Man The Way That I Loved You, Paul Simon's The Boxer, The Beatles' Abbey Road Medley, and the list goes on and on and on and on. And if a band covers them well, it's as artful as an orchestra playing a symphony.

I play some cover songs similar to the popular versions, I play others reinterpreted, and I also play kitch songs. I do them all artfully, and when I make my backing tracks, I use all the skills I learned about arranging in school, my experience playing sax, drums, guitar, bass, keys, wind synth, keyboard synth, and vocal on stage in excellent bands. I consider them artful feats of arranging and sequencing. My audience may not know why, but they like what they hear, and isn't that what music is all about? And you may call it entertaining, and yes entertaining is an important part of music, but I just call is music, and it's a very emotionally rewarding way to make a living.

Bob