Klarinet Archive - Posting 001083.txt from 1998/07

From: "Mary Sotnik" <marys@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] Re:Kell
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 23:07:43 -0400

Matt writes

<snip>
>moneys worth. If the audience is not happy with your interpretation,
>and news of this gets around, you may hurt your own chances of obtaining
>another performance and being able to perform again and make money to
>put the proverbial bread on the table. I believe the situation in which
>you are performing should weigh heavily on you decisions on
>interpretation. Allow me to give you an example.
>
>I mentioned on the list yesterday to newer bands that perform swing
>music, The Cherry Poppin Daddies and The Big Bad Voodoo Daddies. The
>use older songs, and licks from various songs in their own music.
>Usually it is not 100% true to the original works or even normal
>deviations of the works. BUt they updated the works for today's
>audience so it could be marketed in the mainstream alternative music
>world. In this situation deviation from established performance norm is
>a good thing. Especially if you ask the tens of thousands of fans these
>two bands have.

<snip>

I agree with what you say about pleasing audiences, though they're not
always that conservative (so I've read, anyway - I'd *like* to believe it).
Managements are often more conservative than audiences (they lose more
money, I suppose) and it's the managements who decide what and who to
program. The audience demand for new performers/interpretations etc. might
be higher than it looks.

Also, some unorthodox performers *are* successful (maybe because many people
get sick of hearing the same thing all the time). Though I don't know how
many unorthodox performers are successful *before* death :-) (not very funny
really).

Also, many people read the critics, so maybe to make a living you've got to
please the critics first and the audiences later... on the other hand, some
people *don't* read the critics...

Mary

-------------------------------------------------------------------------