|
Miguel de Maria -> RE: Solo Guitar? (Jun. 5 2005 16:16:06)
|
Barney,
one thing I have noticed, and that is the amateur musician and the reality of the pro. musician are just about diametrically opposed. This doesnt' refer to anyone on this website in particular, but just what I have noticed in my dealings with musicians. There are a couple interesting elements to this discussion:
1. a need to be embraced by the establishment: most amateur musicians and average audience hold this to be the highest ideal--a record contract from a big company, reviews from a big newspaper or "impartial" observer, endorsements from known artists or famous people. The other side of this coin is a disdain for "self promotion"--someone who takes his own destiny into his own hands is looked a bit askance at, a type of social climber who ignores his lack of talent and in an unseeming way tries to make it his own way.
2. a disdain for money: those who don't get paid for playing, or who don't rely on it, seem to think that getting paid to play "taints" artistry in some way. Their favorite image seems to be the barber who plays guitar better than Paco, or the guy who works in the forge but sings better than the sellouts on stage. The other side of this coin is that anyone who gets paid and/or plays music that the audience likes is less talented, less devoted to music, tacky, of wanting moral compass.
These phenomena at first surprised me, but I have come to regard them as routine. It seems to me that many amateur musicians are threatened by the fact that some people get paid, so they erect these walls or conditions in order to diffuse it, a kind of defensive behavior. It is clear that if you don't believe in self promotion, then you will always be in your room playing the guitar. It is clear that if think that money taints art, then you will never get paid for it. It is also clear that the guy who plays 8 hours a day is going to play better than the guy who only does it twice a week.
The American poet Walt Whitman, now thought of as one of the greats, printed his first collection in a so-called "vanity press" (the word insinuates that if someone prints their own work, it must not be worth anything, 'real' artists are discovered and promoted by other 'disinterested' parties). He also wrote an article anonymously extolling its virtues in a newspaper! Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. wrote professionally, not in a museum. They were expected to write music that people liked. Da Vinci, Michelangelo, etc. painted on commission, as well. Did money "taint" the Sistine Chapel?
Art and Money will always be intricately related. Most of the best art of all time has been created with and for money, and little of the best art has been made without it. The fact is that professionals have a unique position to do great work because, well, that's their job. It's an interesting irony that amateurs often denigrate the very things which could raise them to the level of the pro.
|
|
|
|
