 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2004-12-30 22:29
Thanks John. I know we've had other threads about virtual music trying to take over or do away with live musicians, but I found it heartening to learn that the union was continuing it battle and winning.
As I sat here and thought about the virtual technology, my mind posed a question: what if this technology had been invented around 50 to 75 years ago?
How many wonderful bands and soloist performers would we have missed hearing?
Artie Shaw died today. If virtual music was going strong during his early years, would all of us have missed hearing and enjoying this musical genius?
As I tuned my AM and FM car radio yesterday and today, I was appalled by what passes as "music" today.
As I said, all of this has been commented on before and I really don't mean to rehash things.
That's why this BB gives me hope that clarinet playing will not become a lost art but will actually flurish as enthusiasts and professionals the world over meet and share their wealth of knowledge and especially their passion for an instrument that produces such wonderful music.
Just my thoughts...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-12-31 00:26
Dan wrote:
>
> As I sat here and thought about the virtual technology, my mind
> posed a question: what if this technology had been invented
> around 50 to 75 years ago?
It was. It was called an LP recording. Many a fine musician was put out of business because of it. Now we don't even notice (or care) about it, but it was the greatest destroyer of live music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2004-12-31 00:53
Interesting thought, Mark. I didn't realize that.
However, if it weren't for the LP, I probably wouldn't have heard Artie Shaw and a lot of other wonderful players. My thoughts were that the LP exposed and then enhanced the popularity of a performer which would in turn make him or her more popular on the touring circle.
Isn't making CD's something that many musicians aspire towards?
I had no idea that LP's and now CD's were destroying careers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2004-12-31 01:01
"It was. It was called an LP recording. Many a fine musician was put out of business because of it. Now we don't even notice (or care) about it, but it was the greatest destroyer of live music"
The new "destroyer" of live music is the CD and its use by DJs everywhere to entertain at clubs and partys like where our six-piece combo played almost every weekend year 'round--and now does not.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2004-12-31 01:08
Good point Dan. I love how Mark always has to tear down what someone says.
__________________
Don't hate me because I play Leblanc! ![[down]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley23.gif) Buffet
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-12-31 01:20
Dan wrote:
> However, if it weren't for the LP, I probably wouldn't have
> heard Artie Shaw and a lot of other wonderful players. My
> thoughts were that the LP exposed and then enhanced the
> popularity of a performer which would in turn make him or her
> more popular on the touring circle.
Like any truly revolutionary device, it was a two-edged sword. If you could bring the performer "home" so to speak, you didn't need to see them live. The expense of a recording is significantly less than the cost of a show. Recordings led to the "megastars" (like Artie) whose very existence and their PR crowded out lesser-known and promoted players. Not to say that they weren't great players, but of course getting the recordings out to the radio stations reinforced their popularity. They were the pop stars of their day, and used the "machine" just like the pop stars of today.
LeWhite, perhaps you should read what I have to say rather than react because you don't like what I say. It isn't pro- or con- anything or any one. It's history. Recordings brought about a decline in live music, that's fact. It also brought about good by allowing us to listen to people we'd never get a chance to listen to. That's fact, also. The recordings may also be (and probably are) one of the greatest contributors towards the global "homogeneity" of music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2004-12-31 01:27
It seems to me that the CD is doing 2 things: enhancing some careers while destroying others.
William: thank you for your comments. Sorry to hear about the loss of your steady gig.
What comes to my mind now is the old Professor challenge and that is "publish or perish".
Perhaps musicians should now apply this to themselves as "publish" (i.e. create and sell CD's) or perish?
Just my 2 cents worth...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ohsuzan
Date: 2004-12-31 03:24
Somewhere in here is the issue of music as commodity vs. music as art.
Music as commodity isn't new. Think meistersingers, guild musicians, and even kappel-meisters. Although these may also have been, from time to time, having fun or creating art, they were basically making a living at a trade which existed to serve the non-music-producing (i.e., the music-consuming) public. In fact, I'd venture to say that for everyone except the music-producing individual, music is and always has been a commodity. It's just that the technology of its consumption changes.
Music as art seems almost to be a byproduct of music as commodity. I'm not saying this is how I wish things were. I'm just saying this seems to me to be how it is. Which leaves those of us who first and foremost love to play and create music in a difficult position, as documented in the recent Clarinet BBoard discussions about the improbability of making a living as a woodwind artist these days.
I dislike the almost complete equation of "music" with "recorded music" in the popular mind. I hate looking in the phone book for a "Music Store" and finding nothing but listings for Sam Goody and Blockbuster and other places that sell recorded music. And I hate the expectation, fueled by recorded music, that 24/7 perfection is required in every rendition of every piece in order for it to be "good" -- viz., the recent "lip-synching" fiasco on Saturday Night Live: the artist is simply not allowed to be ill, or have a down day. Too much money -- or even a whole career -- is at stake.
I worked for 20 years as a high-level church musician, turning (churning?) out a complex musical product on a weekly basis. Although I loved doing the music, it became, after a while, no different than any other factory production schedule. You had to be ready to pack and ship by Thursday, and the product had d*** straight better arrive in perfect condition on Sunday morning, or you weren't doing your job.
At this point, I am happy to have separated my financial and my musical lives, and I am grateful to have been able to do that. But I do feel the outrage of those who are more wholly committed to making a living with their music as consumer technology threatens their craft.
Susan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2004-12-31 15:59
I'd not say that consumer technology threatens the craft. Much as Wal Mart puts the small store out of business by economies of scale, recordings have done the same thing with "live music".
There's still a place for "live music" in the scheme of things, but since said live music can be canned in pretty much the same form as it is delivered, those with the "leverage" to get it recorded get to "undercut" the rest by offering a better product for less.
(And, you don't need to argue that live music is better from an entertainment standpoint. You do need to argue with the ones who don't want to pay the premium that live performances have to charge to pay the freight.)
If it's any consolation, even the "noise" groups are having a lot of trouble competing with the DJ element. I have some peripheral contact with what I call "groups" (ten or less on stage, with maybe one or two horn players), and if you think that some of us union folks whine a lot about how "we can't getta gig", you should hear the "rockers" and "poppers" when it comes to the DJ question.
You'll note that Artie returned to music in the end, fronting (but not playing in) a band that made its rep based upon his music. Even the greats don't have any problem taking the commercial route.
Push comes to shove, people don't just want good music these days. They want entertainment along with it, either in the form of a star aura (what people were paying for when they wanted to see Artie's band as opposed to someone who did the same thing as well but without the name in front of it) or something more than the music.
As much as I like playing music, I long ago learned that hoi polloi pretty well ignores the music once the vocalists start singing. We're providing the backdrop, while they actually provide the "connection" to the listener. So, I worry a lot more about vocalists and "appearance" than I do about the music itself.
We did a Sinatra number once that had the most botched up trombone solo I have ever heard in my life. I mean, it would have been better if the trombone lead had sat down during his obligation and not played a note. I (and several others in the group) were pretty much of the opinion that one tune had scuttled our reputation with the organizers.
Of course, it didn't matter one bit. There may have been a couple of trombone fans in the group we were performing for, but all that was heard during the break and in the post-mortem with the client was how impressed they all were with our "Frank Sinatra" (and, truth be told, he is quite good). The trombone horror story was something that we over-reacted to, and all for nought as it didn't even register on the people that mattered.
That's one of the reasons that all of the classic "big bands" went with vocalists as time went on. The average Joe (hoi polloi) doesn't relate as well to instrumental performance as they do to vocal, and the prettier the vocalist (male or female) the greater the appeal.
Rock does this well, and most of pop does it just as well. The rest of the music world hasn't caught on just yet, and they'll continue to pay the price.
Oh, and I've got a clarinet player who loves to do Nightmare. He does it well, but we'll not play it except for a straight "big band" job.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2004-12-31 18:59
Radio ate a hole in the live music audience before mass distribution of recordings had started. I also wouldn't be so quick to indict CD as a killer of live music. With the latest evolution of the technology it has become possible for anybody (sometimes a good thing, sometimes quite regrettable) to put out a CD at very low cost. As MC said, revolutionary technology is double-edged. It created a lot of new jobs while it was destroying old ones.
I think it is pretty safe to say that more money than ever is being spent on "live" music. The music and venues have changed radically but the turnout has probably gotten better. Before amplification it would have been inconceivable to put 80,000 people in one place for a concert. Today it is de rigeur. Ticket prices are astronomical compared to the cost of a CD whether you go to hear U2, the Met, or Jazz at Lincoln Center, but people still go.
What is tragic from a labor and artistic perspective is the disappearance of the live performer from live music. People pay those big bucks to get part of the experience you cannot derive from a recording. Yes, a lot of the public gets upset if the live show isn't just like the CD, but they still get pretty irate when they find out what they heard WAS the CD. Young Ashley Simpson is still eating crow for being outed on SNL. In my experience people are a little shocked that pro musicians actually make mistakes (contrary to what is found on the CD), but horrified when they find out that the music is completely a construct of the studio and can't even be performed live.
We need an FDA equivalent for music that requires full disclosure as to the contents of the product you get for your ticket. At a minimum, % live vs. % pre-recorded or synthesized. I don't want GMO-soy product and transfat in my kids' food, and I don't want VO's in my shows.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
