which would you rather hear?

-a good player using great keyboard and sound system?
or
- a great player using substandard kb/sound?

another:

-a passable player using great kb/sound?
or
-a good player using substandard kb/sound?



------------------
Miami Mo

James Burton used to come sit in with me quite often. One night, the only guitar available was a really cheap acoustic, and the strings were about a 1/2 inch off the neck.
You wouldn't believe how he made it sound.
Finally after an hour, he said it was hurting his fingers!
I would far rather have heard that than me (a barely passable guitar player) playing a Les Paul through the finest amp in the world.
DonM

[This message has been edited by DonM (edited 10-22-2007).]

A Great Player
As keyboard demos show, in the hands of a great player, even entry level boards can be made to sound fantastic.

Bill

good player is the key

ok, so far agreement player more important--
let's go another step:

who would benefit more?

a passable player who upgrades to great equipment?
or
a great player who upgrades to great equipment?

No matter what
great player first all else next.

I reckon a great player would sound good on just about anything so it would have to be a passable player who upgrades to better equipment, but even then, it probably wouldnt be much different, apart from the confidence boost that player would get from playing with good gear.

I think the equipment only matters if it's distracts from the performance such as distortion, feedback and noise but even then a great player will sound better.
Equipment can help enhance a performance but a bad band with a great pa is just a loud bad band.

when I listen to whom ever playing what ever I'll make a decision....with MY EARS!

Huh?!

Lee Trevino, in his hustling days, used to take money from country club players using a coke bottle with a broomstick stuck in it as his only club. I still go to jam sessions featuring top jazz guys and the kb players are using kb's and amps that none of us would have anything to do with, yet they sound great. I wonder sometimes why we are all knocking ourselves out over equipment variations (i include myself) instead of just getting the best bargain decent equipment that is easy to carry and set up, reasonably rugged if necessary, has enough volume (and bass for those that need it for dance music etc) and then just use it til it breaks.

------------------
Miami Mo

Q2
The benefits will be the same for both, but it still won’t change the fact that the Great player will always sound better then a passable player.

Bill

sorry, man this wine is good

hey guys, stop drinking, you're distracting from my Lee Trevino story...Lee will be pissed. LOL......Mo

okay then, don't forget to share (HIC%) 'specially if it's that good

+1

No matter how good the player/instrument is you can make him/her/it sound bad with a bad enough instrument/player.

Basically, if goodness is ranked from 0 to 10 and represented on paper (X-Y plane) anybody would agree bottom left (0,0) is horrible and upper right (10,10) is wonderful. Here we are comparing the two points (0,10) and (10,0) or some such both of which I think would not be enjoyable. There's a lot of gray area in between.

I would most probably like the gray are: If the instrument is somewhat bad, compensate it with a good player and vice versa. But I don't think Eric Clapton would sound any good on a broom stick with twine.

Shiral

Ive been to Lee Travino's house in Alcapulco mexico ....but thats another story

but he would sound a lot better than me, if he had the cheapest guitar made and i had the best. (even tho i played a mean ukelele when i was 9 yrs old). and if a broomstick with twine made a sound similar to a guitar, he would still sound better than me. Lee Trevino couldn't play on the pga tour with the coke bottle, but he could whip a mediocre golfer.

------------------
Miami Mo

if Lee Trevino does not send me some money soon, i'm going to stop promoting him on SZ!

This topic makes me think of the poem, "The Touch of the Master's Hand"...Google it sometime and have a read.

Or, here it is on U Tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxfvox1oMGk

Ian




[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 10-22-2007).]

I don't quite agree, but it's my personal view anyway. e.g. What if EC is given a guitar with frets not exactly in the right position and you are given his strat? Of course, still you can play worse depending on how good you are (not to mean you are not good, I'm just trying to explain what I mean), but if you are an average guitarist you will sound better. Most probably EC will refuse to play that guitar, but if that's the case he accepts that he cannot make that guitar sound good.

I personally don't believe good instrument or good player itself translates to a good final product, it's got to be a good combination overall.

Shiral

I'm not a great player--mediocre at beest, but I can sing. My right hand is really messed up from a nasty disease that 8 docs and $5,000 out of pocket in treatments hasn't been able to fix. So, in my case good equipment saves my bacon--especially when my right hand's index and long finger look like they've been through a meat grinder. The bottom line, IMO, is a good player can get by with top of the line eqipment, an excellent player can get by even he they're using junk gear, but we all sound better when using the best equipment, even if our talent is limited.

Good post Mo,

Gary

BTW: I typed this with just my left hand. Talk about a handicap!

Lee Trevino can whip my ass in golf using a broomstick and a coke bottle and me a fine set of clubs, and Eric Clapton can sound better using a poorly-fretted guitar and me his strat(i don't play gtr at all).however to defend the other position i will admit that if Lee Trevino used a guitar to play golf, i could whip his ass, and if Eric Clapton played a broomstick with a coke bottle on it, I would sound better than him on a strat As Shiral correctly points out in spite of my facetiousness, there is a crossover point. However, I was just trying to put our manic searches for equipment nirvana in its proper perspective. I think we all overemphasize it. To a remarkable degree. but ain't it fun?

------------------
Miami Mo

Of course,
a great musician playing mediocre gear, will overcome the drawback and project his true musicianship to the audience and CONVINCE them of his superiority, when compared to a mediocre musician with better gear....


BUT

Being myself a mediocre (or worse) player, I have discovered that I FEEL I sound better when playing better gear, and that makes me FEEL better.

I am sure a certain percentage of that good feeling, comes back to me and actually MAKES me better.

Works both ways.

As I have said before, I was bored of my gear and my playing before I joined Synthzone... the enthusiasm here, and the newly discovered knowledge of softsynths, made my gear play better, freshened it up, which in turn made me WANT to play and renewed my interest in mysic, eventually making me better player than I was.
Does that make sense?

Why? WHY? Because that would be un-American, that's why. If you got it, spend it. If you ain't got it, spend it anyway. That's the American way and I'm proud of it. I think it is our patriotic duty to keep China's economy afloat and help preserve that trillion dollar trade deficit. Besides, braggin' rights are important for my self-esteem and I just know I'll sound as good as Eric Clapton if I could only use his same guitar/amp combination (maybe even better than him).

Oh, and another thing. Having the biggest and the best (and the latest) will certainly enhance my status as THE leading authority on equipment on Synthzone (even if I sound like crap using it).

Let's keep that cash flowing; Uncle Sam (Sam Ash, that is) needs it.

BTW, I notice a couple of people already have PR15's, do they make a PR18?

chas

trident, you make some good points. often inspiration comes from having a nice instrument. I gave up tenor sax 5 years ago when I found, by accident, an alto that played and sounded so good it just spoke to me and my playing has taken on new dimensions (not to mention it's a lot lighter and u know that's always what i like) the audience likely can't distinguish when i play my E60 vs my Korg i, unless i plyed them side-to-side--but just because of the 76 and keyfeel and a better piano sound, i find i practice on it much more than i ever did on my old Korg.

------------------
Miami Mo

Come on, Chas...tell us what you REALLY THINK!

(I totally agree-really funny stuff). By the way...in certain circles, Eric Claptan "ain't no big deal", regardless of what he plays. Some think even a youngster like John Mayer can blow him off the bandstand. To a certain degree, ability (musicianship) is somewhat subjective. I think Tuck Andress has forgotten more than Clapton ever knew.


Russ


[This message has been edited by captain Russ (edited 10-23-2007).]

Chas - the best post of this thread; well, almost

First off, nobody wants to play substandard equipment; not even the "greats." They would walk away from it before they played it. Secondly, I would hazard to guess that many of us have taken a few steps forward only to take a step or two back in the technology arena. Not all of our purchases have resulted in better results - ask zuki . Lastly, give any player a decent instrument and it all come down to one thing - TALENT. Abilty and knowledge run a distant 2nd and 3rd to talent anytime.

Willy Nelson.
Good singer?
Have you seen his guitar?
Eddie

What is more important than the kind of gear or its pricetag is the ability to use it fully. IMO, some people will sound worse on great gear than they would on their passable gear, because they don't have the ability to use it.
Give my dad a simple mixer with bass, mid, and treble, and one reverb, and he will make it sound as good as it can. But give him a 31 band eq, compressor/limiter, and a multi fx unit and there is no way on earth he will be able to get as much out of that setup as he can with his simple mixer. Sure, the possibility is there that he can sound better on the great gear, but if he doesn't understand its workings, he will do more damage than if he'd stayed with something simple.

i know several excellent jazz pianists who play substandard keyboards and amps. of course if you sat them down in a room of kb's, they would pick one they liked better..but they don't want to be bothered keeping up w/technology. they play what they got a deal on years ago and that's that. it's a lot like most people who invest in a stereo and that's that for the next 20 years. and there are those "audiophiles" who are constantly searching, searching, searching for better components (and who listen so critically for every nuance it's hard to understand how they can just relax and enjoy the music. I was playing sax at a jam where the kb player had an old old Yammie kb set to piano sound that was nowhere near anything you can get today, yet he was a great player so nobody cared--he was surprised when he heard i played some kb and asked me to sit in..i begged off and told him i was just a synth guy, not a pianist-- he said "oh yeah synths are cool, i've played a DX7 every now and then." to him, synth means DX7!!! guys like him never keep up with the latest..they don't care about it (for good or bad) the live in another world from most of us here. ------------------ Miami Mo

[This message has been edited by keysvocalssax (edited 10-23-2007).]

Experience can be gained. Talent can't.

Talent, by its very nature always accelerates experience.

Ian

Mo, you're as right as rain. That's been my experience, as well, but sometimes it's just a matter of economics. Some of the finest jazz players I've known were also as poor as church mice.

chas

right on that bro. but there are those who would opt for being poor and be able to have that kind of talent. like the joke goes-- "definition of homeless: a jazz musician without a girlfriend."

------------------
Miami Mo

Known a lot of "homeless" players...so right!


R.

I guess we differ in our understanding of "substandard." Something bought 30 years ago is not necessarily substandard. I was thinking more of rickety & missing keys than the sound engine. My 1970's Casio CT-100 is surely substandard by today's measure, but it still plays well and sounds as good as it did back then.

You rarely ever DO hear the greatest players on the latest technology. Most of them are probably all too aware that any time spent trying to learn the OS and workflow of whatever is 'latest and greatest' is time they can't spend PLAYING (or practicing!)....

Unlike so many here, once they find something that suits them, they will skip several generations of new models, until something comes out that is SO spectacularly better (at what they need!) that they MUST have it. But incremental improvements don't cut it.

One thing to bear in mind is that, the vast majority of 'great' players refuse to use any auto backing whatsoever (no shortage of great players willing to play with them!). All they need in a keyboard is that it makes their favorite sounds, and that's it. No need for updated Songbook 'features', no need for a better OTS implementation. Just the sounds, ma'am...

For all of you out there that DO update and change arrangers and keyboards on a regular basis (more than one a year), just ask yourself this... If you spent EVERY hour that you have spent on transferring and tweaking SMFs, editing styles, updating Songbooks, and learning new or changed features on actually PRACTICING... scales, songs, solo techniques, do you think you would sound better on your current arranger WITHOUT the practice, or would you sound better on your old arranger after many, many hours' practice?

Me, I'm inclined to think the latter...

Diki, I wrestled with that latter thought. I know if I just keep adding to my existing 900, I would just get better, with more songs. But man, to miss out on the Telicon harmonizer and other wanted features .....I had to change for curiosity. You're a bit different than the arranger players because of the band diversity. I'm stuck with the same person every day and I tire of myself quickly

heres the evidence of performance over equipment. I think the guy is using a lower end PSR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WS4yNCPH9w

Yep...it's a PSR-2000 or 2100. Cool!

[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 10-24-2007).]

.

[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 10-24-2007).]

And not one lick of auto accompaniment... I rest my case!

Yes, the poor guy couldn't use it if his life depended on it.

Yea anyone can do it even a 13 yr old

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK7c95KNhx0

Im glad they dont use auto accmp...thats more $ in my pocket !

Wow! Did you notice his fingers never left his hands.

Neat!

You're right, Donny...they gotta split the take five ways...you get to keep it ALL!

I can't believe I'm agreeing with you
Yep split it 6 & 7 ways for more years then I can remember with my show band & all the problems that go with a big band....but once I went solo about 18 years ago I never looked back!
Might not be for everyone ..but it works for me

'And not one lick of auto accompaniment... I rest my case!'

For goodness sake ! did you see the clip ? He had a full band , ass kicking bass player , drummer , guitarist, did you here the style of jazz funk ? Arranger loop patterns could not work in this style of music.... There was absolutely no need to use the arranger functions but he chose to use the PSR for a reason. There is a roland XP80 in the corner I guess what most here would call a 'pro' keyboard this guy chose to gig with a yamaha lower end keyboard and he sounded outstanding. The point is that an arranger does not prevent musicians from using the instrument as a straight up keyboard as the sounds are outstanding and compare well with the other 'Pro keyboards' out there. the advantage the arranger has is in the ability to sound like a full band in certain situations where it is required . I would bet that if this young man put his mind to it he would sound better than michael Vonken and peter Baartman put together ( OK not better than Peter) but you know what i am saying. Its the musician that makes the instrument sound great not the technology.If we could get some younger imaginative musicians into arrangers ( this happening with the Korg PA range for sure ) We will see a diferent breed of arranger/performance musician using the instrumenst in ways similar to Jordan Rudess who in fact uses many arranger type functions such as panel memory registrations, loops and samples with in his live performance,.

[This message has been edited by spalding (edited 10-25-2007).]

Actually, I was referring to my earlier post (you read that?) where I said that most great players DON'T need or want auto accompaniment, and are happy using less than the latest, greatest in favor of something they are familiar with...

Like this guy...

As to all the rest of you so happy and complacent with your decisions to go solo and use arrangers, firstly, your arrangers will NEVER sound as good as that rhythm section, and in all likeliness, if you COULD play that well, you probably wouldn't be happy with pre-canned accompaniment, either. But, at least you are making ALL the money, and that is, after all, what it is REALLY all about, eh?

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 10-25-2007).]

I did read your comment Diki and i accept that most high level musicians do not use arranger keyboards and are happy using whatever they are familiar with. But thats just the point. They are not familira with arrangers and have no idea of their flexibility and explosive creative potential. Most top level musicians simply have no idea what an arranger can do nor how they can used in a group or solo setting.Right now the yamaha XS is being touted as the best thing since sliced bread and the main functions that are being relied upon to set this instrument apart from other pro keyboards is the arranger/performance functions. And its like somebody just switched on a light bulb in the "pro" musician market place. Suddenly musicians are starting to see the creative possiblilities with preprogrammed grooves and licks that move where you move musically .
Most musicians will have heard of Jordan Rudess and would rate him as being a phenominal keyboard player and yet they marvel at how he uses the Oasys Keyboard to such great effect. He programmes the keyboard including when and how to trigger samples loops etc within his live performances , saving and recalling performance registrations triggering loops via dedicated pads and so on. Sounds familiar doesnt it ? These are the EXACT SAME principles used in great arranger style performances.

The thing that stops great musicians from using arrangers is ignorance to the greatest extent , snobbery to a similarly great extent and for top end musicians, the availability of other great gigging musicians as in the clip i posted.

Well Diki I don't understand why you bother to post this on an arranger keyboard forum unless you are just trying to piss people off. Is that your intention??

.

[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 10-26-2007).]

.

[This message has been edited by cgiles (edited 10-26-2007).]

Chas,

The quote was accurate.

I have considered your statements and have decided to remove the post.

I don't wish to cause anyone the potential to be banned.

Ian

[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 10-26-2007).]

very well said. except i would change "great musicians" to "veteran musicians"

------------------
Miami Mo

I have considered your response and decided to remove mine.

chas

Thank you kindly, sir.

Ian

hi
Lee Trevino did not use a coke bottle it was a Dr pepper bottle they use to sponsor him too. and he use to use it at all his training and teaching demo's.
and he could beat most golfers using just that.
if you have the talent it don't matter what you play it will still sound good.
cheers
bill

Sorry all, I merely put my comment in as a counterbalance to guys like Donny, whose only comment on what was a great performance, AND a demonstration that pros sometimes DO use arrangers JUST for the sounds was a contentedness that they are making all the money.

I for one, and I believe, MANY here, STILL think that possibly the MUSIC itself deserves some consideration. Or should we stop talking about music, and just discuss financial matters?

We MAY be making all the money, but we certainly aren't making music as advanced as that clip with our arrangers (nobody has posted ANYTHING like that here!) unless we use them just to play with others. I do this regularly with my G70, have NEVER had to apologize or explain why I am using an arranger, and to be perfectly honest, as long as the MUSIC is exciting and fresh, the fact that I don't make all the money for the gig doesn't worry me one little bit.

But if my earlier post DID piss anyone off, well, first of all, sorry. But MAYBE it would be good to think about whether the music or the money is the most important thing in your lives...

May I offer a further thought on all this particularly when playing more modern songs say from mid 1960's to the late eighties. I have found it increasingly important that my rhythm support (style file) is as close to the original song as possible in order to satisfy the audience. Indeed there are times when only a quality midi file will suffice.
So good equipment (hardware) yes; but equally very good song specific styles (software).
Roger M

Money or music...great question, Diki. Sadly, those are the choices working musicians face. I'm convinced that the reason so many great players had major personal problems (drugs, poverty, etc.) is that they had a choice to make. More money to play crap or starvation to play what they considered worthwhile stuff.

What happens is, as you progress, you play yourself out of a job. As the music gets more sophisticated the audience gets smaller.

Some players blame the public, which is wrong. The public doesn't spend every waking hour learning, appreciating, playig and living jazz, classics..whatever. Some players resent the showmen of the world, considering them all fluff and no substance. Often, the showmen make all the bread, or at least more than the musician.

It all comes down to what each individual can live with. We have folks from both camps here, and I sometimes think these differences are ther root of some of the problems.

For me, balancing the integrity of the music with compensation and venue choices is a constant battle.

Best of luck, everyone, with the choices you make!


Russ

Beautifully stated, Russ. And what we need to remember is that neither camp is inherently evil, even if a few individual members sometimes come across that way.


chas

Very well said Russ!
It's the same here. With our seventies rockband we allways have the same discussion, the balance between what we wanna play and what the public want's to hear...

Allthough we plan our sets ahead, we allways have reserve lists just in case the public want's to hear something different..and we will just switch to another style...
So it's Public FIRST! and indeed usually the three chords songs work the best.

Fred

Indeed... the balancing act is the main thing. I simply get the urge to point that out every now and again when I read posts that simply ignore the musical side completely, and just crow about the money (and there are several here that do that).

And, of course, I use an arranger for solo and duo stuff myself, so don't ever think that the money end of it is of NO concern to me at all! But I DO like to try and balance things out, and remember that playing fine music (and it doesn't have to be jazz - I am equally happy with just about anything, as long as it is played with passion and commitment) is probably as important to my soul and survival as the money that I make.

But I think I would like to clear up one thing, from at least my limited experience...

I don't believe there is ANYWHERE near the resistance from 'other' players to the use of an arranger as your regular, band keyboard as some make out. To be perfectly honest, I believe most other musicians care about as much what YOU play, as you do which guitar THEY play, or what brand drumkit, or what type of bass. Basically, if you ROCK, they don't give a hoot. (Just DON'T fire up the auto section on the breaks at rehearsal, and play a bossa nova!)

But I am fairly certain that if you go into a band gig, and play the way I have heard many play on this forum (not all, of course, and whoever is reading this, of COURSE I don't mean YOU ), it is possible that, to be kind, they MIGHT try to tell you that it is the keyboard...

But it isn't... Just like the guy in the clip at the bottom of p.1 of this thread, no-one cares when you can play that well WHAT you play. Something to consider...

Performance or equipment...? Performance - EVERY TIME..!

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 10-26-2007).]

a good performer in flat mono? or a passable performer in perfect stereo? or Satchmo/Caruso on a wind-up victrola?

------------------
Miami Mo

A GREAT performer in and on anything he or she so desires... (and I'll just be happy to be in the same room!).

The REST of us... the details matter a little bit more (to cover OUR shortcomings!

I think that the further down the skill ladder you go, the MORE important the best sounding gear becomes. A GREAT sound, played simply, will always sound better than a poor sound played as simply. And if simple is as good as your technique and imagination will take you, might as well make it SOUND pretty!

And, of course, the more you use your arranger's auto accompaniment as the main part of your act, the more important it is that it sound good, too. Cover up a cheap Casio with stellar chops and keep the ACC to a minimum, it's going to sound like a million bucks. But play simple single line melodies over the entire accompaniment style, and that Casio is going to sound, well, like a Casio!

Chops rule... Chops in stereo, even better (IMO), but chops, chops, chops....!

(This is me agreeing with you, Mo! )

It's the money! When you go on stage, look out there at all those people, evaluate your audience, play what they want to hear, play what gets their toes tappin, play what packs the dancefloor. Play the stuff they like to hear, take the check, take the tips, go home, prop up your feet, turn on the TV and take a cool sip from your margaretta. Play what YOU want to hear, ignore your audiences and guess what--you'll be playing in your den, office or living room. You won't be playing for audiences of any kind for very long unless you play what THEY want to hear. And at the end of the day, when that check is handed to you and you get a big hug and kiss from a good looking gal who hands you a tip, that's what makes it all worthwhile. My dear, departed father has a saying that was worth repeating "There's only one thing money can't buy--POVERTY! You can rent or buy anything else you need." And. that often includes good health and love.

Think about it,

Gary

------------------
Travlin' Easy

Play what they want to hear...but play it well.

Ian

i've tried Dr. Pepper and it tastes like it should have a broomstick stuck in it. I like Lee Trevino even more now! btw Gary, I knew a Margaretta once but she wouldn't let me take a cool sip of her, but she made a mean margarita.

------------------
Miami Mo

I'd just like to add... Try to play what you AND your audience BOTH like.

Far too many of us that DO have chops get all bent out of shape playing music that isn't at the cutting edge of improvisation, and as harmonically complex as we can get away with, and boom! There goes YOUR enjoyment. Sure, you're making money, but are you HAPPY? Money, as they say, only buys you a good facsimile of happiness. Why not try for the real thing?!

The trick is to find that kernel of truth and passion in even the simplest of musics. Playing simple musics with honesty and drive (and enjoyment - your audience can sniff that out faster than a week old herring) takes as much chops as blowing some Herbie or Chick. Witness how poorly most jazz pianists play pop or country music if their heart isn't into it...

You have to LIKE what you play. I am as happy playing country, or reggae, or alternative as I am when playing jazz. In fact, a LOT happier than when forced to play bebop standards to an audience that doesn't want to hear it with a bunch of players that can barely keep up!

Just play good music that you AND your audience enjoy, and the money WILL flow. And even if it doesn't, you will STILL be enjoying yourself...

Not much point playing music if you are NOT, IMO...

there is no way to determine what "people" want to hear, unless you want to be a virtual jukebox that can call up any request exactly as it was recorded. i know there are some that try to become that, but i don't think that's why most of us became musicians. even then, only a few usually make requests, so it's impossible to know what everyone wants to hear, and how they want to hear it. i remember playing new years eve at a country club about 10 yrs ago, all were codgers of similar age and class and ethnic background. yet we would no sooner go into a tune/tempo/style requested by one, then another would come up and say, how about something slower, and in the middle of that someone else would try to get us to stop and play a cha-cha, and the slow dancer would get teed off, and this went on all night. if we started playing Sinatra requests, somebody would scream "Elvis ! Elvis". now that's an extreme case, but illustrative. I think there are certain things we have to keep in mind to please an audience, but these are just things that make good sense for us as well as them: nothing too loud or too fast unless everyone has a head of steam on -- play the kind of tunes that most of the crowd would recognize, don't get too far-out, play appropriate length, etc. After those I think we should try to play our best in our own fashion, and try to have as much fun doing so as we can so the crowd catches our joy. There is no reason we can't be creative, or throw in an occasional original if it has a good groove for the occasion, and play things WE like. The audience will move in our direction if we do that. We can make them like what we like of we do it right..We don't have to be automatons and/or grinning patter-masters or have mercenary musical schemes as we perform

------------------
Miami Mo

This one quote out of ALL of this thread does it for me:


"The trick is to find that kernel of truth and passion in even the simplest of musics."


Btw, what's wrong with being a "grinning Patter Master", being a Master at ANYTHING is a good thing (well, almost anything).

Speaking of mastering things - the original point I wanted to make was...

In regards to thread topic (I hope), I think I should point out that as far as equipment goes - old OR new - we should learn to MASTER THE BOARD WE HAVE before we throw it away for something with more Ram....

THAT can be almost as important as WHAT we play - being able to get the most out of what we HAVE right now.

Oh and I think "being a Jukebox" can be a good thing - it was just put in a derogatory way.

Being able to play a wide variety (and great number) of songs only makes MORE people happy.

If that makes me a Jukebox, then put a nickel in me - I'll play a song for ya!

no, playing a wide variety and great number of songs doesn't make you a jukebox. Many of us here including me can do that, but we didn't learn all those songs to be able to be a human jukebox, we learned them because we enjoy them or want to broaden our musical boundaries. just playing only what is requested as close as possible to the recording makes you a jukebox, and that WAS meant to be derogatory. if you want to do that, fine..if you can make a living at it, fine..just don't call yourself a musician. call yourself a human jukebox.

------------------
Miami Mo

Another guy that i think did a decent job of Grape vine on a prs 3000. I give him props for his chops and production skills. I bet this would sound awesome through a real PA

Anyways

Enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGHa-hrcsag

I believe if you do what you do well and put the music before the money, the money will come. Of course, I believe that this is the way it works in almost all endeavors.

I believe $100.00 for an hour's performance at an Assisted Living facility is ok, but it surely isn't "great money". I wouldn't start my car for a $100.00 job.

The trick is figuring out how to get paid well for what you are best at. For me, it's film scores for industreial/commercial projects I write, shoot and edit. For others, it's lounges or nursing homes.

My challenge is to maintain the integrity of the music, and for me, that means no Jimmy Buffet and lots of other "no-no's". Do I thinks others should do the same...avoid the same things? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

But I do think there is a line each of us should draw and stay true to ourselves.
I expect to clear at least $10,000.00 for each film score, but, if the company is questionable or I don't believe in the product, I turn the project down, with no negotiations.

There are some that disagree with this approach, and Gary thinks that this attitude results in no work.

I will be celebrating my 52'nd year of working at least 4 nights a week for the best
organizations in the area with 9 total weeks off in Feb-2008.

As far as music or anything else I do-the quality of the work is everything.


Works for me.


Russ

I LOVE JIMMY BUFFET MUSIC! I enjoy playing his music, I enjoy all the music I play and sing. And, when I stop enjoying what I do I'll get the hell out of this business!

Gary

------------------
Travlin' Easy

You've got to be kidding.

Are you serious?

i'm always serious, even when i'm not.

------------------
Miami Mo

My God.

Well this really does wreak of the worst Musical snobbery and elitism I've read in some time.

Seeing as I do what you've described for a living, I'll take this personally Mo, (even though I suspect you didn't mean it that way) because I've just got to take issue with this.

Having come from an originals (i.e. non-covers) background, I find it only too easy to create and play my own songs, with my own voice and style(s).
I too used to sneer and snigger at the poor souls who sold themselves out to reproduce other people's music. I was very into what I and others were doing in an "intense, Indy, serious Songwriters" scene. We were all serious writers and musicians - we were the only ones making "the real music".

Then I grew up.

I've come to realise that people who play ANY type of music for WHATEVER reason are musicians.

I guess I found out (and I'll quote again) what Diki said earlier:

"The trick is to find that kernel of truth and passion in even the simplest of musics."

I (we) play some of the best (and worst) songs around in many genres.

I get to play "The Way You Look Tonight" (Kern/Fields) one of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard AND "Achey Breaky Heart" usually at the same gig!

I play both songs with joy, passion and gusto, (but I admit "Achey" receives more than it's fair share of Irony in my reading.... ).
I've had to learn to play accurately, WITH feeling AND style many Pop, Country, Jazz, Punk, Rap, Hip Hop and Blues songs.
I've even learned to play a passable Latin style (something I never thought I could do) by playing songs such as "Let's Get Loud".


My point?


I have found it MORE difficult to reproduce "The Hits" accurately than it took to write and perform my own work - something I never expected - and seeing as we often play for Dancers (professional and non-professional) they expect the original recordings to be done with a fair degree of accuracy as they rehearse with CDs at the dance studios.

It takes (for me) more Talent, skill, and, more to the point, DISCIPLINE to stick to the original (sometimes tricky) arrangements than it did for me to write and/or improvise.

It takes musicianship.

I admit, in our shows we probably do more than "just reproduce" all the hits (We sometimes change lyrics around for comedic value, I do my own solos when the mood strikes me etc) but, ostensibly, we do exactly what has been described (with much revulsion) by Mo.

Ya know, I've seen Chris Isaak in concert a few times. He was laugh out loud funny,(with some awfully funny "patter" - God, I think he was even grinning at times...) a GREAT singer, and a fair guitar player too.
I remember in one song, he played note for note a difficult guitar solo - just like the record.

Actually, come to think of it - he played lots of hits - just like the record - admittedly they were HIS records.

I remember the crowd loving it as he pumped out hit after hit (superbly) - guess he was just a Jukebox - and here I was thinking all the while he and his bandmates were Musicians!


I still write, record and play my own stuff, and I'm currently trying to sell some of those songs to established (and not so established) artists, with varying degrees of success i.e. none.... yet.
So when I do THAT, I'm a musician, right?

When I go out and play the clubs, I'm...........what????
Help me out here.


You talk of broadening our musical boundaries Mo, looks like you've narrowed yours considerably.

Good luck with that.

so it takes a lot of skill to be a human jukebox and people love it. i accept that. but i wouldn't want to do that except for financial reasons. i don't think most musicians would. what's that got to do with snobbery? but if you're going to tell me about how much creativity you put into it, and how you give it ironic twists, etc etc..then you are making it your own and you are not being a human jukebox, are you? and i wasn't putting down musicians who are entertaining or grin or tell jokes, there's nothing wrong with that, i was saying you don't necessarily have to do that to be successful.

------------------
Miami Mo

Mo, you may have been saying you don't have to do gags to be successful, or perform exact copies of the Hit Parade past and present to make a living, but your tone regarding both WAS negative AND derogatory (you admitted as much yourself) and THAT was what I was responding to.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the content and the intent of your posts.

But that wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened on these boards now would it?

Peace out.

methinks you are making a big issue out of something that isn't worth fighting about, and i'm happy to make peace with you. from what you told me of yourself, you don't sound like a human jukebox or a grinning patter-master. so no need to take offense, none intended. however, if you are NOTHING but a human jukebox and grinning patter-master i will respect your skills but not your musical soul...sorry, but from where i sit that is where it's at. peace out back atcha...

------------------
Miami Mo

Gary, I'm glad you enjoy what you play. I, do too. We just don't enjoy playing the same things or for the same people. I work one job where I get hired because I DON'T play Jimmy Buffet music or similar material. The owner says that's all he can find, sometimes, and certain upscale customers complain. He pays me $50.00 more a night than the others. He has a total of 7 upscale restaurants in the area and is building more. Everyone in the area asks for work there, and I never have. He calls me. Another upscale Italian restaurant owner has fired players on the spot if they violated his "no Buffet" rule. Buffet music music is inappropropriate for
all venues I work. I can't stand it and won't play it. Others can, and do and that's fine.

Works for both of us, so there's no problem.


R.

[This message has been edited by captain Russ (edited 10-29-2007).]