Whenever these discussions come up, hardly anyone ever mentions what defines 'success' for them. The attitude of most of the 'entertainers' is that whatever makes them the most money (they may call it 'pleasing the crowd' or 'keeping them on the dancefloor' or 'number of bookings') is what is important. For them, music is not the primary thing (and that's ok). For others, music is the ONLY thing, the source of their satisfaction, their primary goal. That's ok, too, because they are willing to make some financial concessions (but not musical concessions). Each views the other with suspicion, distrust, and sometimes even anger.

The musician assumes (sometimes falsely) that the 'entertainer' is incapable of playing good music. The 'entertainer' thinks the musician is a snob loser, and can't understand why anyone would deliberately minimalize their employment opportunities in order to play that 'weird' music that nobody likes anyway.

Until we recognize these different attitudes and approaches to the business, we will continue to have these debates with no possibility of a resolution. Still, I'd pay to see Russ do 'Round Midnight' in a chicken hat (I think).

chas