It's settled: Do what you want. It's all good.

[Vito Corleone]

 

According to many here....apparently not. Apparently it is all relative. Your music is no more important than the music stand, or the lights, or the promo kit, or the strings on your guitar. It's all matters the same.

 

 

But no one has said it was "no more important". SLScott86 called it "the biggest tree". I referred to it as being so fundamental that it should almost be beyond discussion in a forum such as this: if you're not attending to those basics, then you've got much bigger problems on your hands.

 

I think we all agree that playing well is the foundation and the most important part of any band. But when you start taking the stance that it's either so important that nothing else truely matters or that everything else is "bull{censored}", then you've got big, big problems as well.

 

 

RELATIVELY SPEAKING, if anyone thinks that the 5 hours one spends dealing with the lighting, and wardrobe is just as important as 5 hours spent getting better as a musician, you'd be wrong. You spend the time on lighting and wardrobe IN ADDITION to your primary job. Which would be what RELATIVELY SPEAKING?

 

 

You've built a strawman. No one has said it was "JUST AS" important.

[SLScott86]

 

A long time ago there was this guy...a decent little bassist who has long since left Nashville. I was playing a country gig at a 'show club' with an artist and he was a sub. So we are backstage between sets, and on the t.v. is Garth Brooks doing a duet with Trisha Yearwood on the tonight show. Playing bass is Keith Horne. For those of you who don't know, Keith is a monster bassist and a member of the "Virginia 3" - Victor Wooten, Otiel Burbridge and Keith - (they all came to Nash from Virginia at the same time). As an example of his skill, I saw him and Victor do an improvised tapping duet of Giant Steps (back in the old Dave Pomeroy "bass addict" shows) that was purely stunning on every level. He looks at Keith and says "See. Look at that. What good is all that bull{censored} wheedly music school bull{censored}? He's on the Tonight Show playing two notes to the bar. I can do that. I auditioned for that gig. Why don't I have the gig?" He went on to basically say that the music is only one small part of "what gets sold" (I remember him using that phrase a bunch) and that he knows the business and performance side of things better than Keith {censored}ing Horne. "Keith must have known somebody, because I GAURANTEE you it wasn't just his bass playing." Is he right? Musically, did Keith deserve that gig over him? According to many here....apparently not. Apparently it is all relative. Your music is no more important than the music stand, or the lights, or the promo kit, or the strings on your guitar. It's all matters the same. I disagree. If you put the lighting in equally relative proportion to the power of the music, then you are missing the point. Who gives a {censored}, just play the damned song, right? Wrong. On every level. Just cuz you can 'play the dammned song" doesn't mean your doing it to the best of your ability. Keith is an acquaintance. He got the gig cuz he won the audition. He got the audition cuz he played a pick up gig with the drummer who referred him. He won the audition because of his power as a player. The force and passion behind each note came from from the fact that has worked his ass off on music....far beyond the ablity to play a 2 note to the bar country bass line well. His ability to improvise a Giant Steps tapping duet with Victor allows him to put something behind the notes that my sub couldn't. RELATIVELY SPEAKING, if anyone thinks that the 5 hours one spends dealing with the lighting, and wardrobe is just as important as 5 hours spent getting better as a musician, you'd be wrong. You spend the time on lighting and wardrobe IN ADDITION to your primary job. Which would be what RELATIVELY SPEAKING?

 

 

A couple things. First, nobody has said music isn't the most important thing. It's the prerequisite to everything else being effective.

 

Second, again, diminishing returns. If you have a glaring weakness, it isn't hard to make that glaring weakness into at least a relative weakness. It isn't hard at all. Going from strength to superstrength is a much much more challenging endeavor. You, the package, can improve most efficiently by improving where you have the greatest room for improvement. Isn't practicing up your weaknesses one of the most elementary fundamentals of self-improvement?

 

Lastly, an individual musician trying to get a spot in an existing band is much more musicianship-oriented than an existing band trying to "make it." And even then, every time there's a band member dilemma thread, it seems that work habits tend to get more weight than actual ability in the responses.

[3shiftgtr]

 

No one has said it was "JUST AS" important.

 

 

Actions speak louder than words. Take a look:

 

 

Here's MY personal forest as of 10 AM on July 25th: 1) I've got a wedding coming up on Saturday that's about a 4-hour drive away. In addition to dealing with the logistics of travel and lodging (most of which have already been attended to) I've got an event that is requiring 4 different sound sets ups for various configurations of live and recorded music in 4 different locations. I've got to make sure I've got all the details for equipment and program attended to. It's 4 hours away. There's no running back home for an extra cable or powered speaker. 2) We've got 3 'special request' songs we have to learn. And no time for the band to get together and rehearse them. So I've got to come up with arrangements that can be conveyed to everyone without rehearsing that we can throw together on the spot. It's unclear whether we'll be able to even do a sound check let alone run over the songs other than maybe getting everyone together with an acoustic guitar during some down time to run over arrangement and harmonies. 3) I'm working in a new guitar processor to my setup. Need to make sure my patches are dialed. 4) My soundman expressed concern that I was sending him inconsistant levels between various keyboard patches. I need to go back through and make sure my levels are set better. 5) A couple of weeks ago, we drive off for a gig with the backdoor to the SUV open. The projector falls out and the softcase we stored it in was run over. Projector doesn't work. Nearest repair shop is 150 miles away. I'm hoping to hear back today what the damage is and if they can repair it before this weekend. Otherwise I've got to look into renting one or buying another one before Saturday. And that's just my band stuff concerning the next show. I've also got 5 appraisals I need to complete by Saturday and, since it's Wednesday, that means my wife is working today so it's my day to drop the kid off/pick her up from day care and make dinner for all of us tonight. SOMEWHERE in all of that I MIGHT have time to worry about the music theory behind Another Brick In The Wall. But I doubt it. Of course, I could always backburner one of those other things so I have more time for studying theory. But I don't really see how doing so would get me closer to managing my forest in the best possible manner.

 

 

We are so sorry you have lots to do. Try slipping getting better in the equation. Cuz if you don't then you don't have the right to bark about a lack of professionalism when some dude uses a music stand or whatever. Because you are doing everything but improving your musicianship. I understand the reason/excuse/whatever...you are busy and music is not your profession....so where's the sliding scale now?

 

IF it is all relative, then what? It's not a strawman guido....

[New Trail]

 

The biggest question I have going for me, actually, is how old-time traditional I want to go when it comes to amplification. Back in the old days, all the musicians huddled around a single mic. I kinda like that old sound, but does such a thing fly in today's modern world of music?

 

 

Some still do:

[MusicalSchizo]

recorded his album on Garage Band in his bedroom and just posted it on his MySpace site and he became a big star." This type of reasoning tends to ignore the myriad substantive differences between the speaker and Joe Schmoe, first of all, but also ignores the numbers game aspect of things. The existence of one person who got successful through approach X means only that approach X worked for ONE PERSON. Could it also work for you? Not impossible. But is it likely? Probably not. Is following that approach the most productive use of your time and energy? Again, probably not. Again, in music, there will always be somebody who did things a different way and succeeded. There will always be somebody who did everything the "right" way and failed. There's lots of luck involved in doing well in music---even if you're not trying to become a pop star, which is very much about being in the right place at the right time, luck will still affect you: did you just happen to post an ad for a bass player at the very time that a great bass player found himself between bands? Did you just happen to call the booking guy from a top club right after somebody canceled on him? So the best thing you can do is get all your ducks in a row and be ready so that if/when opportunity knocks, you can open the door and invite it in. So when you're trying to figure out what to do, don't ask, "What did my favorite performer/band do?" It is entirely possible that whatever worked for your favorite performer/band would only work for him/her/them---that they are the only people in a billion who could have done it that way. Rather, figure out what course is the most likely to position you for success. It may not be as exciting and it may require more work, but the only thing worse than never getting a break is getting the break but not being able to follow through on it.

 

This.

Brian V.

[Vito Corleone]

 

And I'm sorry dude but missing a change consistently is a mistake. A clam. I don't care what the reasons are: tolerating that is the road to lameness. Do I make mistakes? Sure. Do I tolerate them? Hell no The bottom line is most of us playing covers ain't all there musically. I hear weak vibrato, inconsistent attack, muffed notes, poor phrasing and lack of attention to dynamics. I hear mushy overdone sub bass, over compressed kick drum, muddy boomy bass guitar, and poor mic technique. All of this leads to the impression of a poor facsimile of the original artists version.

 

 

Agreed. Which is why I think we're just coming from two different worlds here. Trust me, the LAST thing anyone in any of our audiences is getting is the impression of a poor facsimile of the original artist's version of anything. If we were still playing at such a low level that such a thing was a concern we A) wouldn't be getting the gigs we get B) wouldn't be getting the overwhelming and consistant positive response we get C) I wouldn't waste my time playing with such a band.

 

No offense, but the more I have this conversation with you, the more it's becoming clear to me that you're focused on 'details' that became ingrained and part of the bottom-line standard of musicianship in my playing many years ago.

 

And no. Neither me nor my band is "all that" musicially. There is, and always will be, much room for improvement. But as SLScott86 pointed out, you get to the point of diminishing returns at a certain level. And increased levels of musicianship becomes exponential. Getting from 50% to 90% takes a lot less effort than getting from 90% to 95%. And for what return? If my goal was to move to Hollywood and become a studio musician, all that work would be necessary to put money in my pocket. But I'm a middle aged dude in a wedding band. Which is what I want to be. That extra degree of flourish and precision to my keyboard playing would be nice, but the plain truth is it isn't going to put any extra money in my pocket. It would simply be for my personal satisifcation which isn't a luxury I can truely afford right now.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Actions speak louder than words. Take a look:

 

 

What? Where did I say musicianship wasn't more important in any of that? All I said is I have a LOT to do and there's only so many hours in the day. And all those things NEED to be done. Setting them aside isn't an option. You can list things in order of importance if you like, but that doesn't mean that the least important detail doesn't take time and need to be attended to, because it does.

 

Does that make everything equal? No. Of course not.

 

 

Because you are doing everything but improving your musicianship.

 

 

Because at the end of the day, you only need to be as good as you need to be to play the gig successfully, right? Could I be a better musician? Of course. We all could. But what REALLY is better going to earn me at this point in my life/career?

 

Again....I'm not some kid just starting out here. I've been playing for a LONG TIME. Part of what comes along with the proper prioritization of duties that you refer to is understanding that since musicianship IS the most important thing, it's the thing I focused on most years ago. I was a good enough keyboard player to play most of the covers we do as well as they need to be played for the type of gigs we do LONG AGO. I spend a good deal of time playing in order to keep my chops up, learn difficult parts to new songs as they/if they come up, etc.

 

But I should take two hours out of my day to study Rachmoninoff? Why? Will that make my next gig go better? So I can be prepared for a keyboard-playing opportunity I'm not interested in at this point in my life?

 

Did I give you the impression at some point in time that I suck as a musician or something?

[BATCAT]

 

Again....I'm not some kid just starting out here. I've been playing for a LONG TIME. Part of what comes along with the proper prioritization of duties that you refer to is understanding that since musicianship IS the most important thing, it's the thing I focused on most years ago. I was a good enough keyboard player to play most of the covers we do as well as they need to be played for the type of gigs we do LONG AGO. I spend a good deal of time playing in order to keep my chops up, learn difficult parts to new songs as they/if they come up, etc. I should take two hours out of my day to study Rachmoninoff? Why? Will that make my next gig go better? So I can be prepared for a keyboard-playing opportunity I'm not interested in at this point in my life?

 

 

This raises another point- there's only a finite about of times ANYONE has to devote to working on music, as well all the other aspects of being in a band. Especially for those of us who are hobbyists or semi-pro with day jobs, families, other creative interests, whatever. EVERYONE is making compromises.

[Vito Corleone]

This would be a GREAT conversation to have on Saturday:

 

Me: Hey guys...guess what? I spent a couple of hours this week listening to tapes of us playing that Pink Floyd song and I found a spot where I'm consistantly a fraction-of-a-beat behind the rest of the band on a chord change. So I spent another couple of hours practicing that and now that spot is going to be TITS-TIGHT! Plus, I found a really cool extension to add on this one chord in the bridge that when I play it over the bass line turns the progression from a simple IV-V change to a modal concept based on the phrygian scale and moves the dominant chord to a subdominant position. It's going to sound REALLY cool.

 

Guys: Uh....where's the projector? The girls have hung the screen, but there's nothing to display on it.

 

Me: Oh. Sorry. I didn't have time for that. I was working on my scales and arpeggios instead. But it's not a big deal. The MUSIC is the most important thing we're doing here, right?

[Vito Corleone]

 

I understand and agree with your point 100% - yet, by the same token I believe that you have to at least acknowledge that the same question can be asked of you. You're absolutely right that pretending things that matter don't doesn't get you any closer to a complete, finished product. On the flip side - I believe it's impossible to argue that pretending things that don't matter do - won't get you any closer either. In the end each of us has to decide what is and is not "bull{censored}" for ourselves - and then be prepared to live with the outcome of our decisions.

 

 

True. But that brings up a larger point. It's one to thing to say "I've been there and back in my life/career, this is where I'm at and know what I want and how to achieve that and, as such, THIS and THAT are bull{censored} for me" ---in which case you'd probably see yourself as above such mundane discussions and not even read such threads...

 

and another thing to not really understand what is or is not bull{censored} and simply declare something is one way or another because that's either how you wish it to be or doing so helps justify your present position. i.e. "the sucky band I play with wears shorts and uses music stands, but rather than deal with any of that, I'll just convince myself it doesn't matter so I can convince myself that we don't really suck.

 

As far as my situation goes---I'd be thrilled if somebody could point out to me something I'm doing that truely doesn't matter because if that's the case, I'd be glad to delete that from our presentation so I can have more time to focus on other, more important aspects.

[Chicken Monkey]

 

it's hip to wave off theory talk as pedantic and inapplicable...but is that really the right attitude? New ways of looking at old progressions are a good thing. Just like listening to and Playing unfamiliar music is. I dig it anyway; not so much to rap about but again, new ways of looking at things.

 

 

Just to clarify myself, I've been studying music theory for the past 20 years, and I don't think it's inapplicable. I don't pick up a guitar without thinking about music theoretically. I'm saying that you're just getting started studying theory, and you come of as a bit of an ankle-biter when you get puffed up about the circle of 5ths, which is probably the first page of half the music theory books out there.

[3shiftgtr]

 

This raises another point- there's only a finite about of times ANYONE has to devote to working on music, as well all the other aspects of being in a band. Especially for those of us who are hobbyists or semi-pro with day jobs, families, other creative interests, whatever. EVERYONE is making compromises.

 

 

This squid, is the point. Everyone here goes on and on about music stands, and wardrobe, and lights, and pa, and 'doing what it takes' etc. They see a music stand on stage, or band with a less than stellar stage show, and it's "Hey you don't care about your audience! YOu are lazy!"

 

One guy, Wades, says "Hey don't forget the music" and he gets argued against for pages. Lee Knight did it a few weeks ago in another thread and got argued against for pages. I'm saying it here, and I'm getting argued against. Guido says:

 

 

What? Where did I say musicianship wasn't more important in any of that? All I said is I have a LOT to do and there's only so many hours in the day. And all those things NEED to be done. Setting them aside isn't an option.

 

 

"No one says the music isn't important." today. But also a purveyor of "LOOK AT THAT MUSIC STAND! THEY DON'T CARE! THEY COULD DO IT BETTER! IT"S JUST LAZY."

 

It's a double standard, an excuse for those who could be great but just are good, and quite frankly self aggrandizement.

[3shiftgtr]

 

What? Where did I say musicianship wasn't more important in any of that? All I said is I have a LOT to do and there's only so many hours in the day. And all those things NEED to be done. Setting them aside isn't an option. You can list things in order of importance if you like, but that doesn't mean that the least important detail doesn't take time and need to be attended to, because it does. Does that make everything equal? No. Of course not. Because at the end of the day, you only need to be as good as you need to be to play the gig successfully, right? Could I be a better musician? Of course. We all could. But what REALLY is better going to earn me at this point in my life/career? Again....I'm not some kid just starting out here. I've been playing for a LONG TIME. Part of what comes along with the proper prioritization of duties that you refer to is understanding that since musicianship IS the most important thing, it's the thing I focused on most years ago. I was a good enough keyboard player to play most of the covers we do as well as they need to be played for the type of gigs we do LONG AGO. I spend a good deal of time playing in order to keep my chops up, learn difficult parts to new songs as they/if they come up, etc. But I should take two hours out of my day to study Rachmoninoff? Why? Will that make my next gig go better? So I can be prepared for a keyboard-playing opportunity I'm not interested in at this point in my life? Did I give you the impression at some point in time that I suck as a musician or something?

 

 

See post #112

[jwlussow]

I seam to remember you being a behringer fanboy over on talkbass. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

Really? I am probably wrong but that one statement above actually changes how I read everything else stated by him. I'm not proud of that but it is true. :face palm:

 

Not really a bash of Behringer because it is marketed as cheap and entry level gear. Not many fanboys of gear at that level. Makes me wonder...

[modulusman]

Really? I am probably wrong but that one statement above actually changes how I read everything else stated by him. I'm not proud of that but it is true. :face palm: Not really a bash of Behringer because it is marketed as cheap and entry level gear. Not many fanboys of gear at that level. Makes me wonder...

 

So are you stating I'm a dickhead in your post or Caemen is because he is a behringer fanboy.

[Potts]

 

The only mistakes that happen are dropped notes and forgotten lyrics due to lapses in concentration. Understanding theory, practicing scales and jamming with other players isn't going to make my bass player better remember that the bridge is coming up next rather than another verse so he needs to go to the IV...

 

 

Amen.. I agree with that 100%.

[Vito Corleone]

 

This squid, is the point. Everyone here goes on and on about music stands, and wardrobe, and lights, and pa, and 'doing what it takes' etc. They see a music stand on stage, or band with a less than stellar stage show, and it's "Hey you don't care about your audience! YOu are lazy!" One guy, Wades, says "Hey don't forget the music" and he gets argued against for pages. Lee Knight did it a few weeks ago in another thread and got argued against for pages. I'm saying it here, and I'm getting argued against.

 

 

I'll try to make this point again, then since it obviously hasn't been clear:

 

I don't see where anyone is "forgetting about the music". My point is that, unless you're some young kids starting out or some other rank amateur, that attention to the music is SO ingrained--and in many cases has been of primary importance for decades---that discussion about things like music stands should be able to be conducted without people presuming that to do so is to "forget about the music". Aren't my posts already long enough with me having to include the phrase "don't forget about the music, of course!" into every paragraph? Can't we all just agree that attention to your musical performance is priority #1 and move on from there?

 

People complain that discussions on this forum too often focus on the mundane and superficial aspects of being in a band, but isn't that almost specifically what THIS forum was designed for? If you can't discuss what clothes to wear onstage HERE, where ARE you going to discuss it? Where ELSE are you going to discuss stage performance issues?

 

Where Wades throws the conversation off is to take it back to such a basic level like worrying about the theory behind the progressions to Another Brick In The Wall that it just becomes a big "WTF???" Sorry if I come off pretentious by saying I've got more to do than worry about the minute details of such simplistic songs, but it's really kinda true. And, for what it's worth, we don't really play ABITW anyway. We play the musical bed to "Stayin' Alive" and sing "Brick" on top of it. So worrying about that song would be a DOUBLE waste of my time. So, from a theortical standpoint, that Em chord we play for SA that is a "i" now suddenly becomes a "ii" when the guys start singing "Brick"? Cool. That's interesting to know. Knowing that does absolutely zero from the standpoint of the band being able to play either song as well as we need to, but it IS interesting to know. Thanks, Wades.

 

 

It's a double standard, an excuse for those who could be great but just are good, and quite frankly self aggrandizement.

 

 

There's no double standard here because NO ONE has said "don't pay attention to the music. It doesn't matter". I could go back and find you dozens of posts where I've agreed with Lee Knight about the subject of being more musically creative as a way to make your band stand out. The dozens of posts I've made about how it's important to make songs your own rather than just play note-for-note covers you take from the recorded version. How many more times do I need to talk about such things before one should be able to understand that telling people "using music stands is lazy" doesn't detract from any of that?

[caeman]

I wouldn't call myself a fanboy of Behringer, just a user of some of their stuff. My personal live experience has been vastly different than many others. And no one in the congregations I've played in ever knew when I was using a Behringer pedal. For years starting out, my effects "board" was a Korg Tuner, Behringer BEQ700 Bass EQ and Behringer UltraDI400. I never once got any complaints. My Johnson bass elicited far more comments than my Behringer EQ.

 

I am open-minded about effects. There are no bad effects, just some that are more appropriate than others for a given sonic task, whether it was my FEA Dual Band Distortion, or a cheapy Behringer flanger. After a few years of a board with many modulations and such, I've reverted back to simplicity with a 3-pedal board and a clip-on tuner.

 

 

The same board works with my Gretsch bass. The Behringer Bass V-Amp Pro now sits permanently attached to my mixer board at home. It works with mics, piezo's, magnetic's. It is kinda fun to play a harmonica with stereo chorus and delay effects.

[modulusman]

I wouldn't call myself a fanboy of Behringer, just a user of some of their stuff. My personal live experience has been vastly different than many others. And no one in the congregations I've played in ever knew when I was using a Behringer pedal. For years starting out, my effects "board" was a Korg Tuner, Behringer BEQ700 Bass EQ and Behringer UltraDI400. I never once got any complaints. My Johnson bass elicited far more comments than my Behringer EQ. I am open-minded about effects. There are no bad effects, just some that are more appropriate than others for a given sonic task, whether it was my FEA Dual Band Distortion, or a cheapy Behringer flanger. After a few years of a board with many modulations and such, I've reverted back to simplicity with a 3-pedal board and a clip-on tuner. The same board works with my Gretsch bass. The Behringer Bass V-Amp Pro now sits permanently attached to my mixer board at home. It works with mics, piezo's, magnetic's. It is kinda fun to play a harmonica with stereo chorus and delay effects.

 

My bitch about Behringer is their lack of morals. I don't own any of their gear anymore because of it. In one band I play in the leader uses a behringer board and some outboard effects. I played a festival last weekend where there was some behringer compressors and driverack clones being used in monitor world. The rest the gear was all pro, QSC linearray, QSC Powerlight amps EAW subs and monitors. Soundcraft mixer.

[caeman]

Yeah, I hate it too when companies clone other companies pedals and then sell them for less. It is far more moral to sell the clones of the original for MORE money.

 

 

[SLScott86]

Yeah, I hate it too when companies clone other companies pedals and then sell them for less. It is far more moral to sell the clones of the original for MORE money.

 

R&D is an expense that has to be made back. Patents are supposed to encourage innovation. That, as you say, is another discussion altogether.

[Vito Corleone]

 

It's a double standard, an excuse for those who could be great but just are good, and quite frankly self aggrandizement.

 

 

I see. So pointing out all the details that need to be taken care of so that the next gig can be performed at an optimum level is "self aggrandizement" but the guy who isn't even in a band, who proclaims all the other stuff is bull{censored} and therefore he's going to focus on studying his music theory ISN'T being self-aggrandizing? HE'S just reminding people to not forget about the music.....

 

riiiiiight.....

[3shiftgtr]

 

I see. So pointing out all the details that need to be taken care of so that the next gig can be performed at an optimum level is "self aggrandizement" but the guy who isn't even in a band, who proclaims all the other stuff is bull{censored} and therefore he's going to focus on studying his music theory ISN'T being self-aggrandizing? HE'S just reminding people to not forget about the music..... riiiiiight.....

 

 

C'mon man. Really? You can't see this? This could go on and on... the show the show the show....the music the music the music....music stands mean your lazy....if you aren't focusing on the show, then stay at home....the show the show the show....the music the music the music....

 

I'm not talking about Wades POV....I'm talking about this hyper focus on 'doing what it takes' to make a show 'great' attached to the idea that one could have ever POSSIBLY paid all the dues they need to pay musically, and that if you can play the song that's good enough. Incredibly arrogant and self righteous.

 

Being adamant about pointing out the benefits of focusing on the show are great. We all need to be reminded that we are SHARING music and the performance thereof. Putting on a good show is important. But slicing and dicing anyone who reminds the same group that we are musicians first and don't forget that is a double standard and reeks of self aggrandizement.

 

The "No Consistency Rule" works on both sides of the argument.

[Vito Corleone]

C'mon man. Really? You can't see this? This could go on and on... the show the show the show....the music the music the music....music stands mean your lazy....if you aren't focusing on the show, then stay at home....the show the show the show....the music the music the music.... I'm not talking about Wades POV....I'm talking about this hyper focus on 'doing what it takes' to make a show 'great' attached to the idea that one could have ever POSSIBLY paid all the dues they need to pay musically, and that if you can play the song that's good enough. Incredibly arrogant and self righteous. Being adamant about pointing out the benefits of focusing on the show are great. We all need to be reminded that we are SHARING music and the performance thereof. Putting on a good show is important. But slicing and dicing anyone who reminds the same group that we are musicians first and don't forget that is a double standard and reeks of self aggrandizement. The "No Consistency Rule" works on both sides of the argument.

 

C'mon man, yourself. You've built a giant strawman here. No one, certainly not I, has ever said "the music isn't important". But many people HAVE said all sorts of other things aren't important, so trying to call it a 'double standard' simply doesn't fly.

 

I've spoken MANY times about the need to perform and play and sing at a higher level. How many times have I gone on about the need for quality vocals in a band? I know I post a lot and I certainly don't expect you to read everything I've ever written, but you only seem to miss THAT stuff? What a coincidence, eh?

 

Yeah, the point is to try and do it all. To be better on ALL LEVELS. I've never advocated anything other than that. Where I have ever said if you can play the song, that's good enough? The only THING I've said that's even close to this---and I would think you'd understand this better than anyone---is that every gig comes with certain requirements and at some point there IS a "good enough" level that is reached (not just musical, but in all aspects of the performance) in order to perform that gig to the client's satisfaction, but that doesn't mean the band and the musicians shouldn't be striving for more! Of COURSE they should. Again, who advocates that bands and musicians set higher goals and push themselves to be better--in all aspects--more than I do? I've never ONCE advocated sacrificing musical performance for the sake of anything else and if you've ever thought I have, you've either misread my remarks and/or I presented them poorly.

 

But why do you think anyone needs to be REMINDED that we are musicians first? Who here doesn't know that???? Again, no one has ever advocated sacrificing musicianship for the sake of show, and I know of no examples of anyone here who does that? Someone says "don't use a music stand" and that somehow means sacrifice musicianship if you must? Where is the logic in that?

 

You know....it IS possible to work on all those "show" things AND work on being the best musician you can be AT THE SAME TIME....

[sventvkg]

We've all succumbed to RAMPANT SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS!!