reading a book.....tremendously depressed. have you read this?

[GlennGalen]

if talent has anything to do with it how do you explain most of what is on the radio?

 

Well, I was thinking about the bands of 20-30 years ago, before Clear Channel Radio got a hold of the airwaves!

 

Those are the bands I tend to listen to...

[schmatass]

The way it looks to me after 30 years as a musician, friend of musicians, and a lifelong music lover... is this: Practicing for hours and becoming a great player, or songwriter, just allows you to buy a ticket in the lottery-- and place it in the hat with 1,500 other greatly talented people. Then every year one or two get picked, at random. You see? It wasn't "just luck"... talent was required to even have a chance. But talent was not enough without luck: right place at the right time. WHY do we not want to admit this? Because we want CONTROL over our destiny. We want to believe we CAN have assurance of music success if we work hard. If we DO the right things. Better to define success as enjoying playing your music, and knowing that you are very, very good at it. Anyone who has been around a while as a musician sees LOTS of very, very talented people at the local level who are as good or better than the big national acts. After a while you figure out what's going on. Success is not assured by talent or hard work. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=GlennGalen

 

 

This is perhaps the best response to an on-going question of how to "make it" in the music business.

[GlennGalen]

This is perhaps the best response to an on-going question of how to "make it" in the music business.

 

Thanks, schmatass.

 

This realization (the "lottery for great artists" revelation) helps me relax and feel good about my ability, hard work, musical creations and performances for local audiences...even if I am never "discovered". Which I probably won't be, given the way the world works.

[schmatass]

Thanks, schmatass. This realization (the "lottery for great artists" revelation) helps me relax and feel good about my ability, hard work, musical creations and performances for local audiences...even if I am never "discovered".

Agreed. Keeping oneself grounded in reality is the key to having a healthy and meaningful music career. Much easier said than done of course. With the media hyped/money obsessed society we live in, it's easy to see why so many musicians don't though. It's easier to chase trends, than to invent one.

[kurdy]

if talent has anything to do with it how do you explain most of what is on the radio?

 

 

Well, the way I see it, with every single song you hear on the radio, some degree of talent was needed in getting it there. It takes writing talent (either from the artist or outside writer), producing talent, and if the song happens to not be very good, than a hefty amount of business and marketing talent...there are endless combinations of people with different types of talent that factor into the success of a song--there isn't any one formula. And it's always more than just a one-man job. A song's success almost always has to do with much more than just the talents of the performer/artist.

 

In every case, some degree of talent is always involved. But after that, luck is still the deciding factor.

[flutegirl]

I just like playing (a lot!) and to actually don't want to make it big - because as someone said early on in this thread - then you have responsibilities and have to maintain a certain lifestyle and are in the public eye and all that and for me that would be horrid. I like to be able to just play around and try new things and not be at all responsible.

♪Call ♪ me ♪ir♪re♪spon♪si♪ble.

[annasbrother]

Bluesway, Hmmm... "ageist" is putting it lightly. But, consider this.... when I used to tell my father that I needed the best guitar or I had to have the coolest haircut, or the latest clothes, he would say all that matters is talent. He'd say look at Phil Collins of Genesis, He's no stunner, but what a talent... Packaging and image is necessary to sell the latest trend, true talent is ageless.

[daddymack]

He'd say look at Phil Collins of Genesis, He's no stunner, but what a talent... Packaging and image is necessary to sell the latest trend, true talent is ageless.

well...when genesis first arrived on the scene, Peter Gabriel was the front man, and he used to dress in weird attire...packaging and image indeed...Phil's talent as a singer didn't get him into the game, his drumming prowess did, so this example may not be the best...

[RobRoy]

well...when genesis first arrived on the scene, Peter Gabriel was the front man, and he used to dress in weird attire...packaging and image indeed...Phil's talent as a singer didn't get him into the game, his drumming prowess did, so this example may not be the best...

The band was actually embarrassed by some of the stuff Gabrial did. Especially when he came out in that red dress with a fox head on. But the press talked about it. All press is good.

[daddymack]

The band was actually embarrassed by some of the stuff Gabrial did. Especially when he came out in that red dress with a fox head on. But the press talked about it. All press is good.

yes, but the point was Gabriel was using that, rather than the talent of the band..

[TupeloHoney]

I'm not a musician, just a listener, but this has been one of the most interesting and informative threads I've ever read on the internet.

[JB1592]

My opinions:

 

There is a lot of luck involved after you develop a lot of talent. Or perhaps the old saying that Silouan Green brought up is an apt rephrasing of that: "luck is when preparation meets opportunity" (haven't heard that in a while, I had a middle school teacher that used to say that:thu:).

 

The argument that it's "mostly luck" would imply that if one was lucky enough, he could pick up a guitar today and wind up famous tomorrow because he ran into a record exec on the street while carrying the thing home. That's not how it happens.

 

You could argue all you want that Bowie picking up SRV at Montreux was lucky, but would it have ever happened if SRV wasn't so damn good? Regardless of whether you think the stuff he recorded constituted, "good songs," the fact of the matter is that he was a phenomenal guitar player, had a great and instantly identifiable voice, and was able to play with a feeling that alludes many players who may have equal technical merits.

 

The idea that the "white boy playing blues" ship has sailed is a less than completely true. Kenny Wayne Sheperd and Jonny Lang would disagree. That is, unless you consider HUGE freaking commercial success to be the only measure of success which would indeed be a rather sad thing to hear a fellow musician say. First off, it implies that money is the only measure of success in an art form, and second it ignores the bands that have been around for quite some time with a small but loyal following. Two weeks from now I'll be seeing Dream Theater (again... I guess that makes me one of those loyal fans ). They are perhaps the best example that comes to mind. Most of the non-musicians I know have never even heard of them (or can't recall ever hearing of them... I know I mention them often enough that they actually have:p), and even many of the musicians I know can't claim to be more familiar with them than having simply heard of them. I know I've never once heard them on the radio, not even on the local rock station that claims to be non-corporate and local and blah, blah. Meanwhile, they'll be playing the Chevrolet Theater (formerly the Oakdale) on the same stage many other more commercially successful acts have played. No, it's not the biggest of venues, but I would still call a band that can fill a 5,000 seat theater despite their lack of commercial ability to be have, "made it."

 

There's a lot of variability in what constitutes success. Generally, I would say anyone that can actually make a living off their music has been successful. If you're going to label having platinum albums and getting rich to be the only thing that qualifies as successful then I'm going to wonder what the hell you're doing playing music. There are many more much easier ways to get rich if you're only in it for the money, and audiences can tell the phonies. Non musicians often have no idea about the technical prowess or lack thereof displayed by musicians, but by and large they can tell whether you actually put your soul into your craft. There's a reason SRV rose above the many anonymous blues men out there, or that Kurt Cobain wasn't just another crappy player playing punk. You can bring up the pop argument if you want, but we all know that's a utterly different and separate entity from real music. Pop is more about looks and marketing than music and the pop scene chews up and spits out stars at an alarming pace. I just saw Skynyrd and the Doobie Brothers play together to a sold out Dodge Music Center, a indoor/outdoor amphitheater with a capacity of 30,000, 30 years after the heyday of those bands. I just saw Rush again this year, 3 years after I saw them on their 30th Anniversary tour, at a sold out 10,000 seat venue. For that matter, even Dream Theater whom I mentioned earlier has been around 22 years despite a lack of real mainstream success. Where do you think Britney will be playing in 20-30 years? (For that matter, where is she playing this year? )

 

As far as ageism goes, again, it's all in the pop scene where being pretty is more important than anything else. Sully was 27 when he started Godsmack and 30 by the time the band was signed to a major, and he is the youngest member of the band. Their accomplishments (if Wiki can be trusted) include over 9 million albums in the US alone, two #1 albums, 11 top ten singles including 4 number ones, and three Grammy nominations. That's not bad for a guy that would've been too old to go on American Idol.

 

None of this is meant as an attack on anybody, or their level of talent. If you take it that way, perhaps you should wonder where that insecurity comes from?

[BlueStrat]

 

The argument that it's "mostly luck" would imply that if one was lucky enough, he could pick up a guitar today and wind up famous tomorrow because he ran into a record exec on the street while carrying the thing home. That's not how it happens.

 

 

No one argued that point. What was said is that after all the preparatrion in the world, it still requires luck (being in the right place, at the right time, in front of the right people, with the right product). Only an idiot would assume that no one with any talent or preparation could ber successful at ANY level. Yet the world is full of ultra talented people who for a myriad of reasons are not successful, mostly due to luck.

 

 

The idea that the "white boy playing blues" ship has sailed is a less than completely true. Kenny Wayne Sheperd and Jonny Lang would disagree.

 

 

What? Johnny Lang and KWS hit in the early-mid 90s. They wouldn't be signed today, period.

 

 

There's a reason SRV rose above the many anonymous blues men out there, or that Kurt Cobain wasn't just another crappy player playing punk.

 

 

really? What is it? Because from where I sit, I can point to tons of guys in each of their genres who were better players, singers, and writers than they were. The fact remains, that what the public buys and deems as 'good' is about as subjective (and therefore subject to luck) as anything on the planet. It's easy to see someone's genuis after the fact and why they may have made it, but no one can say what will be a hit and what won't. You couod work your ass off for 20 years and become the best whatever, and it's still no gurantee of success, and why one guy makes it and another doesn't still comes down to luck, fortune, kismet, whatever you want to call it.

[Scafeets]

 

You could work your ass off for 20 years and become the best whatever, and it's still no gurantee of success, and why one guy makes it and another doesn't still comes down to luck, fortune, kismet, whatever you want to call it.

 

+1,000,000

 

That's the difference between, say, pro sports and the entertainment industry. If you can throw a ball 98 miles an hour, you're going to sign a pro baseball contact for a million bucks. If you can actually PITCH, you'll get a new contract for several million more after a few years.

 

No one gives a rat's ass about style, looks, etc. (Randy Johnson - I rest my case). People don't even have to like you (Zambrano, Clemens, etc.)

In most endeavors, having the goods is enough of a qualification. Not so in music.

[bluesway]

+1,000,000 That's the difference between, say, pro sports and the entertainment industry. If you can throw a ball 98 miles an hour, you're going to sign a pro baseball contact for a million bucks. If you can actually PITCH, you'll get a new contract for several million more after a few years. No one gives a rat's ass about style, looks, etc. (Randy Johnson - I rest my case). People don't even have to like you (Zambrano, Clemens, etc.) In most endeavors, having the goods is enough of a qualification. Not so in music.

 

i love this example. it's very dead-on. we're not in a [quality of] performance-based business as much as we like to assume.

[bigdaddydave]

Just discovered the forum, and have been inspired to stop lurking by the incredible discussion going on here-hope this thread is somewhat active...

To agree with Bluestrat, success in any endeavor (music or otherwise) requires what is called "luck". I don't care if you're a successful musician, lawyer, or fluffer in the adult film industry-there was a factor in that success that was unforseen and completely beyond your control. There was no way for Paul McCartney to know in the first moment he met John Lennon what was to follow-and he could just as easily have blown John off as started a band with him. And while other career tracks besides music are better defined and more reliable, there are never any guarantees. Pay a visit to your local Skid Row, and you will likely find more than a few MBA's and Law Degrees. Does talent count? Yes. Does hard work count? Absolutely. However, in the end, our "success" will eventually be bound to being in the right place at the right time.

That being said, it's important to remember Woody Allen's assertion that "80% of success is showing up." SRV could have easily said, "Well, it's all luck-I'll just play the blues in my bedroom." But he couldn't do that, could he? He really had no choice but to share his music with the world because that is what his spirit compelled him to do. And if that is what your spirit compels you to do, then follow it where it leads you-I guarantee that you'll eventually "make it."

[atemporarywind]

I'm with a few other people who've brought this up (though I couldn't get through all 5 pages worth). You have to define what success is for you and then go for it.

I think there's a lot to say for setting attainable goals instead of big vague "I'm going to be a star" goals.

and figuring out what is important to you first off and basing your goals around that so nothing is compromised.

can you figure out a way to make the money you make at your day job playing music and have enough time for your family? Is that an attainable goal? if you can't figure out an answer for yourself then perhaps you should step away from the professional artist path for a bit and really think it out.

can you be happy putting out records to a small group of people who appreciate them? Will 100 fans be enough? 1,000? 10,000? where's the end cap on that?

you know, if you can't figure out where you're going, perhaps it isn't best to go anywhere just yet.

just think it out for yourself. Would any of us really want to be a John Mayer? with all the pressures he has on him for his career, let alone the careers of all the people who depend on him to keep writing radio friendly songs. Or an Oasis? Always stuck around your drunk ass brother all day and night... dreadful.

anyhow, there's my whole 2 cents. Everything is attainable, but not without understanding how to attain it.

[raucous]

Oustanding thread.....agree with a lot of what has been said.

 

Big time listener of music and a player since age 13 (40 now)...wife, child, two careers, BMW.....lot's of cool gear....

 

My most 'successful period in music' from a monetary standpoint was during college with a cover band....union musician wage...women everywhere...but my songwriting was vapid and completely unoriginal. Still, I was handsome and young and I am sure, if my dad had not said to me..."become a musician full time and piss away your youth into a haze of drugs and b.s.", I might have jumped in. Instead...I got a masters....went into another line of work...made money, spent money.

 

Music is a passion, almost sacred to me. I fully enjoy it partly because I do not rely on it for my livelihood. I do not have to eat from my songs and therefore can play anything I want --anytime I feel like it...very hedonistic, I know. The motivation that I have for music is completely pure, no capitalistic dreams....no idea of making money and being a 'baller' thanks to my guitar....but that keeps the 'art' -- pure.

 

With purity and relaxation....comes 'flow' and creativity....while I wrote some decent lovesick ballads as a kid...I think after a few years go by and you get that creative perspective....you might get better songs...ageism? Not valid for the artist....possibly valid for the next Insync.

 

Putting extreme amounts of pressure on yourself (and family) to succeed in a quantifiably difficult business is extremely unfair to the 'art' of music....being focused and well-organized....giving yourself time to develop as an artist and loving what you do is far more important to your personal and possible public success.

 

 

 

My two cents.

[sabriel9v]

I've read both of Moses Avalons publications (Confessions of a Record Producer is better) and several other music biz books. I'm also still young so in essence from an ageist pov I'm lucky. But what I've learned as a musician after reading countless music biz publications and other resources is that you have to be yourself and be true to who you are as an artist. As musicians we have a fun time playing and writing songs, but we also have a responsibility. That responsibility is to produce good art that's reflective of who we are and what's going on in our culture and our world. With that being said you can be any age and experience success if you're honest in your music and songwriting. If your stuff is good you won't need a gimmick and it will sell. Moses Avalon always says trust your gut because it's what feels right and usually is. So go by your gut instinct and screw what negativity people might give you. Be yourself.

[Poker99]

I've read both of Moses Avalons publications (Confessions of a Record Producer is better) and several other music biz books. I'm also still young so in essence from an ageist pov I'm lucky. But what I've learned as a musician after reading countless music biz publications and other resources is that you have to be yourself and be true to who you are as an artist. As musicians we have a fun time playing and writing songs, but we also have a responsibility. That responsibility is to produce good art that's reflective of who we are and what's going on in our culture and our world. With that being said you can be any age and experience success if you're honest in your music and songwriting. If your stuff is good you won't need a gimmick and it will sell. Moses Avalon always says trust your gut because it's what feels right and usually is. So go by your gut instinct and screw what negativity people might give you. Be yourself.

 

 

Its good to have good morals, but most artists who make a lot of money are {censored}ing sellouts, that make music that they don't care about or that don't even represent something real for them. Of course they won't say it to the media, but its easy to realize...

 

"With that being said you can be any age and experience success if you're honest in your music and songwriting." Simple Plan, they wrote songs for emo kids and they are 25-30 years old.

 

that's just one example.

[joie]

+1,000,000 That's the difference between, say, pro sports and the entertainment industry. If you can throw a ball 98 miles an hour, you're going to sign a pro baseball contact for a million bucks. If you can actually PITCH, you'll get a new contract for several million more after a few years.

 

 

 

True for the most part, yes a superstar will always make the team,

but every ballclub has the pinch hitter guy or the 5th outfielder that plays in only 40 games a year out of 162.

 

He usually bats around the mid two hundreds and has good speed.

 

Now theres a hundred minor league guys that can hit .252 and are fast.

 

But yet they never make it to the 'Show'

 

Luck and being at the right place counts, (You're a non descript catcher in the minors and whoa.., BOTH catchers on the big league club were injured in collisions this week)

 

That means the difference making 600,000 a year or riding a squeaky bus all night in the bush leagues making 2100 a month.

[locstock]

 

You have to define what success is for you and then go for it...can you be happy putting out records to a small group of people who appreciate them? Will 100 fans be enough? 1,000? 10,000? where's the end cap on that?

 

 

Atemporarywind makes a really good point here. Many of us will never "make it" simply because there is no "it." It's like trying to reach the farthest point on the horizon--it's perpetually out of reach.

 

In other words, most of us will never reach a point where we can say, "All right, I've made it. That's that. I've reached my full potential as a musician, and I'm 100% satisfied. Time to throw in the towel."

 

And that's not necessarily a bad thing, because that is what helps us to continually grow as musicians, performers, songwriters, etc. However, BLIND ambition with no quantifiable definition for success can be a very bad thing, and it leads to nothing besides failure and unhappiness. There is no end to blind ambition.

 

Set reasonable goals, one at a time. Be happy for what you've accomplished, and remember, as someone quoted earlier, the journey IS the reward!

[Scafeets]

 

True for the most part, yes a superstar will always make the team, but every ballclub has the pinch hitter guy or the 5th outfielder that plays in only 40 games a year out of 162. He usually bats around the mid two hundreds and has good speed. Now theres a hundred minor league guys that can hit .252 and are fast. But yet they never make it to the 'Show' Luck and being at the right place counts, (You're a non descript catcher in the minors and whoa.., BOTH catchers on the big league club were injured in collisions this week) That means the difference making 600,000 a year or riding a squeaky bus all night in the bush leagues making 2100 a month.

 

 

 

I'd like to think I'm that guy. I wasn't star material as a writer or performer. I hung around "the bigs" because I had good fundamental skills as a musician, arranger, producer and human being. I could have been a career sideman, second-string producer, hired-gun, etc. if I wanted to stay active as a player, but...like the not-quite-good enough catcher -- at some point you say to yourself " I can live on minor league pay as a road rat until I'm 40-something (then get dumped) or I can develop a career in management." Like Ralph Houk (look it up)

 

Because I had an education and developed business chops, I had value as a label guy, which pays way better and has benefits. And because I had performing, recording and road experience, plus people skills, I had value as an artist relations guy, too.

 

I DIDN'T have charisma, a never-ending stream of original songs, a great voice or great looks. If I had all that stuff, plus the drive, I could have increased my chances of success as a performer from 1% to maybe 2%.

[BlueStrat]

 

In other words, most of us will never reach a point where we can say, "All right, I've made it. That's that. I've reached my full potential as a musician, and I'm 100% satisfied. Time to throw in the towel."

 

 

I don't know what you're smoking, but I don't know a single musician who defines 'making it' like that.

 

Most of them define 'making it' as getting paid more money than they need to make the music they want to and live the way they'd like to without having to worry about financial security ever again. And that is in fact an attainable goal. It just isn't easy to do.

[sabriel9v]

 

Its good to have good morals, but most artists who make a lot of money are {censored}ing sellouts, that make music that they don't care about or that don't even represent something real for them. Of course they won't say it to the media, but its easy to realize... "With that being said you can be any age and experience success if you're honest in your music and songwriting." Simple Plan, they wrote songs for emo kids and they are 25-30 years old. that's just one example.

 

 

That is true...but does one clearly define success? It's different for everyone. Yes, many artists do make music that they don't care about...but when one is first starting out I think it's paramount to care about what you're doing and writing songs you really enjoy playing. It's almost like this, write emo bull{censored} and hate what you're doing, but enjoy a marginal amount of success (which is not truly guaranteed). Or be yourself and be overly prepared at the right moment, right place, right time in front of the right people. In that light I'd rather be dying for something as an artist as opposed to living for nothing like Simple Plan. Or if that doesn't work...just say {censored} THE WORLD and shock everybody. Dress up like a transvestite alien backed by a group from Mars and cover yourself in your own feces. It always works.