[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Recording rates for musicians.
Steven Barr wrote:
Well, that's really old isn't it!? Look at all the misappropriated
music of blues players (black guys who had NO legal recourse). Led
Zeppelin made a career of it..
There is, of course, a subgroup (and has been since the
substantial development of commercial "pop" music) who
follow and support "folk" music (in the actual sense of
that term, not the recent commercial use which sees any
musician using an acoustic instrument for self-accompaniment
designated as a "folksinger"...this latter use is mainly
intended to establish where recordings are displayed in
Now, there is no doubt that the "cream" of classicalI don't think there's much of a cream in modern pop music. The cream is
all the hair product being used. On the other hand... There are some
incredibly talented engineers and producers that can take no talent
hacks like Britney Spears and make her marketable. I humbly point to
Quincy Jones as a prime example of such a genius. He can make anything
sound good. Pure genius.
musicians have tremendous skill and talent on their
chosen imstrument(s). In fact, I think that is true of
the "cream" of any genre...I find that B.B. King, for
one, can express himself emotionally through subtleties
in his guitar playing (and I try to do that in my
harmonica playing). However, in any genre there exist
musicians who know the "mechanics" of their instrument,
and play any note or sequence of notes they can read
from music or memorize as a sequence of physical
actions. What they CAN'T do is translate emotion into
a series of sounds made using these instrument. Finally,
we have the limited players...who have learned the
basics of playing their instrument and little if
anything more. Some may improve further with time
and experience...but some won't.
I slightly disagree. By "the end", they were pretty sound players.
Ringo could keep time better than his more talented rock stablemates
like John Bonham. Just as part of a rhythm section, he got to be pretty
good (my standard is Al Jackson Jr.). Paul played some pretty nice bass
lines (unless they flew Carol Kaye to England). George could come up
with well thought out solos and good hooks. And they could write catchy
tunes. If they'd been born 100 years sooner, perhaps they'd have become
a Schubert or Wolf.
And there are also other things that are harder to define.
For example, none of the four Beatles were spectacular as
players of their instrunments...but, when they were
gathered together (and provided with the aid and expertise
of George Martin) the results were a memorable sound!
Since the entertainmentAmazing how they like to shape musicians into something they THINK the
public wants to see. It reminds me of Willie Nelson (just the first guy
who came to mind). The guys at RCA didn't know what to do with him. It
was a very long time (15 years?) before they let Willie be Willie...at
industry seems to prefer trying to improve the saleability of
their existing talent, rather than search for new talent...and
since the saleability of individuals can depend on many
qualities other than actual talent...there are no guarantees
that those who are the most famous and thus the best paid
are actually superior to the rest of the group!
Don't forget teachers, librarians, firemen....
And those whose talent lie completely outside the entertainment
field...say, the best plumber in all of the state of New York...
are minimally paid in relation to athletes and entertainers,
and in some cases, are paid no better...if as well...to a
less-talented member of their milieu...?!
Steven C. Barr