Great ... we have some common ground here, and lots of positive comments on "why to write". Keep it coming folks.

Well, let me disagree a little (by the way, I do think that Ensareyou made some good suggestions here) --------Anyway, I do think that one can evaluate a song, or a performance, with more than just whether or not you happen to like it. One of the songs on the Akai collection is a deeply sentimental song, performed in a very emotional style. This is waaaay too sweet for my taste, and makes me uncomfortable hearing it. However, I have to concede that it is well written, well produced, and for the style, well sung. My mother would love it, and no doubt many others will too. I can judge this a "good song" even though I don't like it. On the other hand, I really like blues music in all of its' forms. But I heard a new blues recording that was a "bad song", because it did not convince me. The lyrics, the vocal performance, the guitar licks----all just going through the motions. I did not feel for one moment that these performers were loving what they were doing. Instead, they were loving the IDEA of what they were doing, they wanted to be a blues band, wanted to be "stars" at whatever level. This is the acid test of your own music----would you love it if it was not your own? Do you love it for itself, or do you love it because you did it? Uncle Dave loves his kids' artwork, but would he love this same art if it was NOT by his kids? When I first started writing, I actually got mad if anyone did not like my songs. The thrill of creating something new was so intoxicating that I was sure that if I did it, it must be great! I was sure that my critics were wrong. But with time I came to see that these early songs were pure crap! I was fooling myself because I wanted to be a writer. When I could finally hear them like they were someone elses' work----I hated them! That's OK, we have to start somewhere, but the point of this rant is that "good " and "bad" have some objective validity beyond our own preferences. People can sling paint on canvas and say that it is art and you can't prove otherwise, but that don't make it a Michaelangelo! Art is about connection----with each other, with what is eternal, with what is universal to the human condition. People, at their core, have not changed from the days of Shakespeare, which is why those works are timeless. If you do some music that really moves YOU, then the chances are excellent that it will move others too. And THAT is a "good tune" -----Rant over!
Bill

Bill,
how beautifully phrased! I think that you have summarized my point of view as well.
Andrea

After reading the flames and missiles from some of those previous posts regarding TrT Jazz and the ensusing flames and missles in the counterattacks I have to say and conclude for the most part that I appreciate Ensnareyou's comments and the "reality check" he provided not only to TrT Jazz but to all of those on this Forum. His reasoning and explanations although somewhat rough around the edges by his sounding a little caustic at times in his replies during his dissertation, yet I don't think he was trying to be that way.

Reading your comments was really eye opening and I don't believe you were trying to belittle anybody but just pointing out some hard facts. And a good book I know says that "Open rebuke is better than secret love." In other words instead of kowtowing to something that may or may not be all its cracked up to be, instead you let it be known that something is possibly amiss and you want to correct that error and notion by pointing it out. I think you were right on in saying that a person might need to step back and re-evaluate the situation and to try and "listen" to what is being said. That goes for me too.

You know, they say that only a true friend has the audacity to speak his or her mind and tell you what they think regardless of the consequences. To do less, would, I think, make that person not really a true friend. As long as what is being said is constructive with the intention of helping although at first it may not sound or seem that way to the hearer. We can all learn from others not only on this Forum, but in everyday living. What we have to do is "glean" the good from it, use it for our betterment if possible, and enrich the lives of others because of it. Again, I want to say thank you for providing that "reality check" to me too. I am no record producer, just your average Joe who has some Musical experience and ability and who wants to grow in that ability and hopefully touch others in the process. Every insight I can get to achieve that goal should be welcomed. I count it a true privilege to have a record producer as one of our Forum members and for you keeping us wannabe's on the up and up.

Best regards,
Mike

Bill & Mike,

Interesting thoughts both, though I tend to both agree and disagree.

I think Dave and I are coming from an artistic point of view while others may come from a more commercially viable point of view. Those are two vastly different approaches. It does not mean they cannot be mixed and are mutually exclusive, however as it applies here they are exclusive.

IMO a true artist creates art fot art's sake and the financial rewards that may or may not come from it does not enter into the equation. VanGough is the perfect example of this (however out there in left field he may have been). The general public's or anyone else's acceptance of the work has ZERO to do with either the quality or validity of that artistic work. Again Van Gough...

The next thing is we as musicians are coming from a totally different place than the general listening audience is coming from. Once someone becomes involved in something and becomes technically proficient at something they loose the ability to JUST enjoy something on a totally emotional level. We are watching and listening for what riffs, progressions, mixes etc the artist is doing rather than a neophite who just watches, hears and says "cool tune." We have a more advanced way of listening to the work and try as we might we cannot get away from that, because it now is part of what we know and who we are.

I think an artist must first and foremost connect with themselves and what they wanted to say, if the general public and peers then like it and connect to it, then that's the icing on the cake. If it is commercially viable beyond that, that's the cherry and whipped cream on top of it.

In short, I do not believe art is definable, however commercial art is.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

[This message has been edited by trtjazz (edited 06-28-2003).]

Hmm...
as I said before, I tend to agree with what Bill wrote; I think that every form of art, at its deepest level, is an universal language and, thus, must be able to speak to everybody, more or less, depending on the degree of perception the listener has developed.
Frankly, I don't believe into the stereotype of the artist who lives on the top of a mountain, looking down onto the outside world which is unable to understand what he is trying to say.
At a compositional level, to me the real "art" is not a rational process, but has more to do with the left side of the brain, i.e. the so called unconscious, the intuition or whatever you call it.
You may or not like them as human beings, but I consider Paul McCartney, Elton John, Phil Collins, Billy Joel great songwriters, whose songs reach deeply into the listeners.
Elton John once was asked, during an interview, to explain his composing process; his reply was, more or less: "I usually sit down at the piano and start to play; if nothing good comes during the next 20 minutes I quit, because I know that it's not going to be a good day".
This, more or less, is on the same level as Paul McCartney saying that he woke up one morning with "Yesterday" already written in his mind.
(...frankly I believe that he put some work also in the post-dreaming phase...)

Two final remarks for my friend Terry: if someone asks for an opinion about his songs and someone else (like Scott) takes the time and the pain to reply in a constructive way, you cannot simply say "That's the way I compose", because then Scott (or anyone else) could reply "Fine, then why did you ask for an opinion?"
I know that Terry has a desire to leave a musical legacy behind, but I have a feeling that sometimes he is priviledging quantity over quality. Some of his songs are remarkable, but he simply leaves them there, kind of rough and unfinished (to my ears); like Scott once wrote, they are more sketches of musical ideas, but Terry unfortunately does not take the time and the pain to perfect them. He is entitled to do so, but then maybe Ensnareyou gave him a good advice, writing "hire someone who can do that job for you"; Terry then replied that he is not interested into the commercial aspects of the music business.
I have a feeling that something is missing here; two weeks ago, Terry posted on the SVPWorld Forum announcing his new CD (Jungle Jazz); after a while, since nobody replied, he wrote:

"Not even one comment after 5 days?
OK for you guys/gals I guess I won't listen and comment when you post new tunes either then.
Terry"

So, dear Terry, it seems to me that if you choose to play the role of the artist who does not care about the world and its rules, you should be coherent and not ask for other people's opinion; on the other hand, if you do that, this means that you DO care for what others may think of your music and then you should also accept their opinions and their constructive criticism.
Personally, I owe a lot to all the critics I have received on this Forum, and I owe a lot especially to Scott, whose candid remarks -albeit a bit irritating at first because did not flatter my ego- really helped me to correct a lot of mistakes.
Andrea

Andrea,
While I could post rebuttals to most all of what you have said here, I'll just leave it alone, and take the target off my back.

This is the only thing I will comment on as long as you have chosen to throw it in my face:
Not even one comment after 5 days?
OK for you guys/gals I guess I won't listen and comment when you post new tunes either then.
Terry"

This comment I made is all about the mutual support of one member to another not about accepting my work. If we post and expect answers to those posts then I feel when others post we are obliged to acknowledge those posts as well. It's all about courtesy more than about acceptance. Apparently the bit of sarcasm got lost in the translation to you. Look at the comment again, does it say ok, if you're not going to listen and ACCEPT my work then to heck with you? No it doesn't it just says, hey when you post you expect some sort of response, is it then so unreasonable that I should expect the same? You know, "do unto to others as you would have them do unto you."
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html



[This message has been edited by trtjazz (edited 06-28-2003).]