??????????????????

I realised a long time ago that what you make people feel is just as important as what you play.

Everyone starts out playing for fun. Then, IF success comes along, it can turn out to be playing for the money. Guys like the Stones, I think, end up where the wheel has turned full circle. The larger part of what they do now is for the fun aspect. And, like many people, what else do they know.

I think it was John Lennon who, when asked a question along the lines of fun vs. money, said, "We started out playing for kicks, then it was for the money, and now it's back to playing for kicks again."

How true.

Playing for kicks is fun, but getting paid to play for kicks is BETTER!

Good post, Chas.


Russ

Or maybe 70 years of being Frank Sinatra, who toured WELL after his heyday, banged models and movie stars (and even marrying a few!) from here to Timbuktu..

No sector of the music biz is immune from those a bit past their shelf life. I could probably name a dozen of your greatest influences that toured bombed out of their brains on junk simply for the money, when they weren't capable of playing as well as their heyday...

For every Quincy Jones, there's a Charlie Parker

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 10-26-2009).]

In the unlikely event of such a sad occasion, would it be possible for you to carry with you something like a donor card directing that that last payday be directed to me, which I will use to start a Diki Memorial fund and post-a-thon. I have already recruited Dominique (Liontracs) as a (eager) sponsor. Fran will be kicking things off with his own inimitable version of 'St. James Infirmary' on his nearly-current Mediastation (just needs a new motherboard). Donny will be accompanying him on his new Audya with AJ waiting in the wings with a toolkit and the latest copy of the soon-to-be-completed instruction manual. The understanding is that a eulogy will not be necessary as you have already written and recorded it and that it will be available as sample content on most new Open system keyboards with at least 5 terabytes of sample memory. .....wait, am I going too far, here???



chas

I take your point Chas, but funny you mention The Stones. Have you seen Martin Scorcesse's "Shine a Light"?
Amazing.

I think musical performance is a part of show business. Unless you're playing in a vacuum somehwere there is the non musical part to playing music. Who are we to suggest they don't still love performing and likely doing it just for money?

We don't have to pick between the two.

------------------
Bill in Dayton

Ok, I think the question has drifted a little bit. The original post questioned whether it was necessary to spend $300,000,000.00 to create the proper environment for you to enjoy a piece of music. I'm thinking that with a set THAT extravagant, even I could walk out on stage nude, scream incoherently into the mike, play a couple of factory arps from my Fantom G7 (at earsplitting volume, of course), and quite a few people would leave the concert thinking they had experienced something remarkable. I mean, how much should you have to spend to keep the sight of Tori Spelling from making you want to barf? Why not just start out with Meagan Fox? Shouldn't good music be it's own reward? I know there is supposed to be good and bad music in every genre', but (and call me old fashioned) I have not, as yet, been able to put a qualitative value on Punk Rock, Heavy Metal, Trance, etc. There is no 0 to 10. There's just zero. Therefore to sell it (I'm not necessarily talking about U2 here, before someone gets upset), we have to create this incredibly expensive fantasy experience, of which 1% is the actual music.

I guess I'm just old and out of touch, but it seems to me that that kind of visual extravaganza would actually DETRACT from the music instead of enhancing it. And isn't that what it's supposed to be all about, isn't that why we come, the MUSIC.

chas