Reality check about a life in music...

[MartinC]

I've never heard King's X, but do know that the better you play, the less chance you have of making big money. Better players are often attracted to less popular music. I know a guy who is an absolute genius player, with a cd that proves it, and doubt he makes as much as King's X-he certainly never sold a million records. Never played woodstock, etc. Not that I don't feel KX's pain, but when you do music for a career all you can expect is to starve-anything better than that is a blessing.

 

There's a lot of luck involved. I've been playing 30 years and have done some incredible gigs-gigs that many better players would kill for, and made more money than many better players, and much less than many terrible players. It's a lottery. Right time right place. The KX guy is lucky they accomplished what they have, and he may still do more. But there's no point in cryin about what he can't do, because there are guys out there who can play circles around him who can't even get a decent gig. At least they had a shot. 300,000 people and 200 cd's? Time for a new sound, a new look, a new band. Simple as that. When Journey first came out, they were a great fusion band-anyone remember their first record? After a few records they got tired of not making money. Their manager asked them to write the names of their favorite bands down. the one common name was ...the beatles. The manager said "Be more like the Beatles." They hired Steve Perry and made a ton. Now, I perfer pre Perry Journey, but hell, they had an opportunity.

[plushpinkypully]

 

Originally posted by shredfit Firstly, compairing King's X to Green Day is like compairing Albert Einstein, Linus Pauling, or Stephen Hawking to the flunky's that do work at Burger King. Heck, the guys in Green Day are not even qualified enough to carry King's X guitars into the venue they are playing. Does Green Day sell more records/concert tickets? Yes! Why? Because the flunky's can relate to them where, I'm sure, that the great scientists I've mentioned could not relate well to the masses because of their genius... (ie Kings X=Genius Rock, Green Day=Flunky Rock). This is sad and unfortunate for the genius rockers... and could be a little unfair... but then their MUST be a correlation to these music types and the bell curve. This may tell us something about America. Which scares the hell out of me. Fewer and fewer people seem to interested in seeking out high thought or substance with excellence. Everyone in America seems to want/buy shallow, superficial, and underachieving music. This saddens me. It's almost like Americans want to triumph mediocrity. I have one word for us Americans if we don't pull our heads out of our butts soon... CHINA

 

 

the better you play, the less chance you have of making big money? ever heard of guns n roses or any of the guitarbased bands that were huge in the 80s? i think it has more to do with the songs more than anything. i mean who wants to hear a guitarist wanking away throughout the song? guitarists. and how much of the population is made of of guitarists? a very small number which explains why virtuosic material doesnt appeal to the masses.

Green day=flunky rock? come on man. i mean yeah their music isnt musically complex or virtuosic but billie joe writes some really catchy and melodic songs. King's X on the other hand, great musicianship, but i think they lack in the songwriting department. id rather listen to green day over kings x any day.

[MartinC]

Well yeah, Slash is a good player, but I was thinking about guys like Chuscales, or Jason McGuire (flamenco guitarists), as well as sitar and oud monsters, who are incredible musicians, but because their abilities attract them to less popular, but very demanding music, have almost no chance of making big money, in spite of their big talent. For that matter take a guy like Bruce Forman, a jazz master, or the hundreds of other really good jazz players. Little commercial potential-great players!

[gtrbass]

Look at it this way. Allan Holdsworth is possibly the most fluid guitarist on the planet. He makes music that is so complex few musicians let alone average music listeners can even comprehend it. You know what Allan made most of his money on? He invented a beer pump that he sold the rights to some bar equipment manufacturer to market. I know Allan. He's had a tough time just making ends meet. I think that's pathetic. It's law law of inverse proportion of talent and skill vs. popular accessibility.

[BlueStrat]

 

Originally posted by gtrbass Look at it this way. Allan Holdsworth is possibly the most fluid guitarist on the planet. He makes music that is so complex few musicians let alone average music listeners can even comprehend it. You know what Allan made most of his money on? He invented a beer pump that he sold the rights to some bar equipment manufacturer to market. I know Allan. He's had a tough time just making ends meet. I think that's pathetic. It's law law of inverse proportion of talent and skill vs. popular accessibility.

 

 

The guy who recorded my first CD, Dan Humann, recorded a couple of Holdsworth's records, one of them was "Metal Stress" or something like that. He said Holdsworth is pretty eccentric in the studio, would play for an hour, then disassemble his guitar and put a new neck on it, intonate it, and play for another hour. He would sometimes play for 3 or 4 hours at a time with tape rolling, and Dan would cut out sections to use as the final product. The guy is absolutely brilliant, and Dan said Holdsworth could hear a guitar out of tune or intonation like no one else he's ever seen.

[plushpinkypully]

I'll agree with you two that it's sad that a guitarist like allan holdsworth practiced his whole life only to face the harsh reality that he probaly wont make ends meet playing the guitar, but the reality is that the majority of people dont want to hear allan holdsworth play his "mindblowing instrumentals." they'd rather hear a catchy 3 chord pop song. I wonder what would happen if allan holdsworth or any other great guitar player hooked up with a good singer and put out an album. Ultimately, I think it's a matter of choice. Allan Holdsworth plays the type of music he likes not the type of music he can cash in on. Plus, great songwriting and great guitar playing are two completely different beasts. They both take time to cultivate and hone. I bet if any of you great guitarists spent half as much time writing songs as you did practicing scales, you'd have a much better chance of making money playing music for a living.

[j-ro5000]

the music industry will never be ashamed of itelf for the way that it conducts business. Besides, it can cover all of it shame up with really expensive and fancy things that we all help it buy.

[schmatass]

Kings X...now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time. I see them listed every once in a while around Chicago playing gigs and have seen them myself once before. Indeed, they are a great live band!

 

It's sad that Dug Pinnick is completely down on himself (and a little clueless) as to why his band has so-called failed after 25 years and how many records? They're not a failure at all (in my eyes) just because they haven't sold millions of records. They've at least gotten the opportunity to get their music out to a national audience and that's a hell of a lot more than most bands can say. Besides, I remember them getting quite a bit of airplay on the Faith Hope Love record in 1990. I think I heard "It's Love" played at least 5 times or more a day. In fact, that was my introduction to them.

 

Kings X was and is a band that puts more emphasis on their songs rather than their "image" and when you look at all the other bands that were out around the same time as them, they all had an image and they exploited that to their benefit. Rock-n-Roll is and will always be about trends, fashion and having sex appeal...not just talent and great songs.....fair or unfair. Kings X have never had that and I hate to say it, but that's the one thing that held them back more than other IMHO.

 

Gtrbass - thanks for sharing the article on Kings X.

 

[martingibson70]

The KX story is tragic. I guess this is where "suffer my your art" comes from. This is a great but depressing thread. I was just asking myself why some of my favorite artists (Marshall Crenshaw, Squeeze, Neil Finn/Crowded House, Fountains of Wayne) flirt with but never establish a foothold with an American audience. These guys have and still write/perform radio friendly tunes. Yet, somehow fickle American audiences show them the cold shoulder. Granted Neil's overall worldwide success barres him from the pity party but you can hear and see his frustration on recordings and in performances.

 

What makes this stiuation all the more frustrating is turning on an episode of CRIBS and seeing an "artist" that doesn't sing, nor play any instrument, nor tour show off his mansion and fleet of cars. Someone needs to tell these guys that advances from the record company are not free money.

 

Also, nobody has mentioned the going it alone route like Amy Mann and Annie DiFranco. Don't they sell their records from the own web sites with some success?

[Poker]

I'd be very happy to have a carreer like King's X had... VERY happy.

[Beachbum]

Originally posted by gtrbass I think you might have hit the nail on the head. KX is a great live band, but as well produced as many of their records are, the songs don't seem to hold a lot of people's interest. They're not as memorable for some reason. It all comes down to the songs... that's what we live and die by. That said, the Best of King's X CD is a great compilation of their most memorable tunes.

 

 

I think my own music is GREAT. But how do I think about how someone else may feel about my music?

 

To others my music is like a new brand of soda pop. It's gonna have to do a lot more than just taste good in order for people to pay to drink it.

 

The music business and making $$ with music is hell, there's sooooo much more involved than just the music.

[Blackwatch]

 

I think my own music is GREAT. But how do I think about how someone else may feel about my music? To others my music is like a new brand of soda pop. It's gonna have to do a lot more than just taste good in order for people to pay to drink it. The music business and making $$ with music is hell, there's sooooo much more involved than just the music.

 

 

How would you know? You're not a giging musician yet you still throw out these morsels of wisdom like you actually know something. And my beef with you is some impressionable kids might actually listen to you and think it's OK to give it away. Well it's not, and I'm going to keep saying it until you change or go away for good.......

[BryanMichael]

 

Originally posted by gtrbass Look at it this way. Allan Holdsworth is possibly the most fluid guitarist on the planet. He makes music that is so complex few musicians let alone average music listeners can even comprehend it. You know what Allan made most of his money on? He invented a beer pump that he sold the rights to some bar equipment manufacturer to market. I know Allan. He's had a tough time just making ends meet. I think that's pathetic. It's law law of inverse proportion of talent and skill vs. popular accessibility.

 

 

I see what you are saying, but I don't think it's pathetic. I think it's NO different than anything else!

 

I actually like Allan's music...to a point, but sometimes I just want to hear a song! Not a composition, not something challenging, just MUSIC- you know- rock n roll, or even country, or a good pop song, or a clever hip-hop song- and honestly, I'm in the mood for that stuff more often than I am for Allan- and I'm a musician! so the general public is definitely going to be into music that does a couple of things: it makes them feel good, it makes them want to dance, it makes them want to sing along, it makes them want to have sex, it makes them feel like celebrating, It makes them fall in love, it makes them feel like someone understands their problems, etc...etc... etc...

Is Allan "appreciated" Yes. Is he making a product (musically) that everyone wants? No, just like every business.

Why doesn't he hire himself out to play on some pop records, make them more interesting? Is it because of "integrity"? Is it because it won't "fulfill him as an artist"? Well, then he's made a choice that personal satisfaction is worth more to him than financial stability and success. But everybody makes that choice! Do YOU want to go to wrok every day? I doubt it. Sometimes you would be more personally satisfied doing something else, but you go anyway- you choose financial stability over personal fullfilment. Nearly everyone has to make those choices over and over again in their lives, regardless of profession.

 

.02

B

[albert visick]

i'm pretty sure mr. holdsworth's financial situation is 100% his own choice. if anyone is on THAT level, i just can't believe that you can't get lucrative teaching gigs at some university or something. this whole thing about "he should've practised how to write pop songs" sounds so far off and it's funny; becoming a popstar is not what everyone is in it for, and i never hear mr. holdsworth himself complaining either.

 

the man does alright, i'm pretty sure.

[BryanMichael]

 

Originally posted by albert visick i'm pretty sure mr. holdsworth's financial situation is 100% his own choice. if anyone is on THAT level, i just can't believe that you can't get lucrative teaching gigs at some university or something. this whole thing about "he should've practised how to write pop songs" sounds so far off and it's funny; becoming a popstar is not what everyone is in it for, and i never hear mr. holdsworth himself complaining either. the man does alright, i'm pretty sure.

 

 

Actually my point was more like yours- there are tons of ways to make a living and at a certain point, if one isn't doing what they need to do to make a living, it is a conscious choice that they are making- I wasn't saying that he should "practice how to write pop songs" only that there is a market for that product and he has all the tools he needs to profit from that market should he choose to do so and should he NEED to do so.

 

B

[albert visick]

oh that wasn't a reply to your post; someone else further up the thread had written the kind of stuff i mentioned.

[Comic_God]

 

Originally posted by shredfit Firstly, compairing King's X to Green Day is like compairing Albert Einstein, Linus Pauling, or Stephen Hawking to the flunky's that do work at Burger King. Heck, the guys in Green Day are not even qualified enough to carry King's X guitars into the venue they are playing. Does Green Day sell more records/concert tickets? Yes! Why? Because the flunky's can relate to them where, I'm sure, that the great scientists I've mentioned could not relate well to the masses because of their genius... (ie Kings X=Genius Rock, Green Day=Flunky Rock).

 

 

 

Spoken like a true Musician...

 

Problem is people like us are not the buying power of the music industry. The average Joe cannot digest complex or out of the box music. Bands like Green Day, nickle Back, hoobastank, etc etc have very simple music but what they have that Kings X doesn't have is music that Hooks REALLY hard, age, and advertising.

 

The music biz is no different from anything else... If the best tasting cheese burger in the world looked like a steaming pile of dog S@#$ then not many would buy it... They would go to Mc Donalds instead.

 

I don't agree with your statement about people are not wanting to seek out greatness in music, or whatever you said, because now a days there are more styles to choose from then ever before. I guess you could say there is more individuality today then opposed to 50 years ago when every freaking song was C Am F G or the 12 bar blues.

 

Mainstream music is an art that is hard to create and even harder for musicians to swallow sometimes.

[fakeplasticshrub]

 

Originally posted by Comic_God Problem is people like us are not the buying power of the music industry. The average Joe cannot digest complex or out of the box music. Bands like Green Day, nickle Back, hoobastank, etc etc have very simple music but what they have that Kings X doesn't have is music that Hooks REALLY hard, age, and advertising.

 

 

i hung out with a couple of my friend's friends today, they were showing each other their favourite music off the itunes on the mac. musta gone through 60 songs in 30 minutes, no jokes. music does not mean the same thing to most people that it does to those who create it. in this case it's a form of social interaction, and checking if people kno the cool buzzword djs and bands, with interest in the peoples' haircuts, private lives, girlfriends, the scene that's grown around the band and generally ANYTHING except the music. vacuous. looks like we have to work harder than ever to get peoples' attention, king's x haven't shouted loud enough... i barely hear anything about them.

 

i'd still consider a career like theirs very successful though, this guy had different aims

[leopardstar]

where was this thread 25 years ago? now i'm just sad cuz it's true. but i still have my studio so maybe that will take off:cry: :cry: :cry:

[daddymack]

Originally posted by leopardstar i still have my studio so maybe that will take off

LS,

not to hijack the thread, but exactly where is your studio, what are the capabilities and what are your rates?

 

and, I will expect the traditional Geezer Brigade discount

[gtrbass]

Daddymack,

 

Just 'member, if you need mastering, I too am in the porn capitol.

[daddymack]

Originally posted by gtrbass Daddymack, Just 'member, if you need mastering, I too am in the porn capitol.

much appreciated, amigo... I may take you up on that!

 

btw, you should stop into Cool Jam..you may find it amusing...

[guitarmook]

 

Originally posted by shredfit What burns me to the core IS, King's X is one of the most musical, talented, artistic, and articulate bands of the past 25 years... and they were chewed up and spit out by the labels... Likely for some young Auto-tuned, Pro Tools, talentless, power chord, pop punk band. The music industry should be ashamed.

 

 

The 'Music Industry' has nothing to be ashamed of... they have always been totally up-front about what they're doing - and that's making money. It's not about 'supporting artists' or 'nurturing art'... it's about selling product. If you wanna make money, you create a product that sells in the marketplace. Kings X failed to do that.

 

 

However, the fact that Kings X failed in the marketplace doesn't mean their musical efforts failed. Unless, of course, their musical efforts were only directed at creating money. As has been stated here before, there's a difference (that many people still don't get) between making 'good music' and making 'a musical product that sells'...

[harmonica eroti]

My two cents. Back in the 90's King's X had the backing and the promotion of a big label, but did not appeal to the masses. Their image at the time was up to date. Their music is complex, but lacks hooks. They had the tools to succeed, but in my opinion their music just didn't strike a chord with listeners at the time. I remember hearing alot of buzz about King's X in the 90's. I tried to get into them, but I just couldn't. I respect what they do and think they are great musicians. In my opinion they just lacked angst and emotion in their music. It is a bit sterile.

 

I can see Doug's view. I am sure if I had to dig through the couch for change to eat and that is what I have to show after 25 Years of hard work and sacrifice.......I would also be a bit depressed. Being poor period is depressing.

 

I guess it goes to show even if you have the backing of a major label and the buzz that it doesn't always yield success. Its a fickle industry.

[cooterbrown]

I would take Billy Joe Armstrong's songwriting talent over Doug Pinnick's skill as a bassist and vocalist, any day...no questions asked.

 

I saw a couple of comments from "serious musicians" in this thread, slamming Green Day as basically disposable music, while lauding the unappreciated talents of King's X.

 

The "serious musicians" will guffaw, point fingers, and claim insanity or sacriledge (all the more ironic that when I was a pretentious teen, I was one of "them"), but the reality of the way the music biz works is this:

 

It is the *truly gifted* that can write a three - to - four minute hit that speaks to millions as opposed to the *talent* it takes to write a twelve-minute technological nightmare with dime-turning time signature changes and hypersonic wank-a-rama musical masturbation in the vein of Dream Theater's "Glass Prison".

 

That's all it is...songwriting ability.

I like a good bit of King's X, but I have the patience to listen to them. Most people don't.

They traded a lot in the Zeppelin/Rush form of rock music (plus the cool factor of being great harmony singers), but Ty and Doug *never* wrote a guitar riff with a hook like "Black Dog", or "Limelight", and that was their disconnect with a wider audience.