Making a Living with the L1®: Difference between revisions

Line 13:

# Triple system amplification tends to make all bands sound similar, so that any artistic excellence is lost in sonic clutter created by this. Thus, a "great" band can't really demonstrate their excellence. The triple system tends to make all bands playing in small to medium venues sound alike (blurry) and thus it seems to lump all bands as "mediochre" or "annoying" because of excessive levels and chaotic fidelity presented.

# Most musicians today seem to have other employment, because they can't support themselves playing. This contributes to wages going down.

# The American Federation of Musicians was once a powerful force in helping musicians achieve an honorable wage. Today it is almost ~~nonexistant~~, other than for very high-profile work such as Broadway plays, symphony orchestras, some casino gigs and movie film score work. I may even be wrong about this.

# The American Federation of Musicians was once a powerful force in helping musicians achieve an honorable wage. Today it is almost nonexistent, other than for very high-profile work such as Broadway plays, symphony orchestras, some casino gigs and movie film score work. I may even be wrong about this.

# Bands playing original compositions seem to be doomed to a life of scraping for gigs that pay nothing, unless they have some kind of recording that is distributed by legitimate means (a "record label", whatever this means in 2006). Popular bands playing popular music will occasionally trick an audience by inserting their original into a set. But if it is announced ("...and here's one of our original tunes..."), the audience mostly gets glassy-eyed and bored.

# Bands "creating" (or attempting to create) original music have a zillion different "music composition" software packages to choose from, many with prefabricated song "templates" in common song formats (A/B/A/B/C/A/B, ETC), or with sampled drum (and other instrument) loops. And so, budding artists or complete bands will use these to "create" new songs by playing them and possibly shouting or screaming lyrics without melody over the chord changes. My opinion is that this is not only a severe limitation on songwriting, it tends to be not-songwriting or discourage the creation of a real song. The great, enduring songs we all love and can sing to ourselves (from Bessy Smith to Sinatra, Ellington, the Beatles, Pearl Jam, Van Halen, Outkast, ...), I believe, started with either a story to tell or with a melody, not with a fully-produced, full-production music track that you insert your-lyric-here into. My children, some of them musicians but all of them music lovers and appreciators, complain that modern music isn't melodic or satisfying in many ways. And so, they seem to prefer music from the '60's thru the '80's. I think that instant gratification afforded by instant-songwriting packages has imposed a severe restriction on new songwriters, including a deep spiritual one. New music is the lifeblood of the musical community. Not everyone can compose, or, better, not everyone does compose, but the musical community needs new music to stay inspired and fresh, including for their audiences. I think that modern musical technologies in the form of equipment and software has spawned an unprecedentedly large community of musicians who seem to enjoy instant "success" without "doing the work". And so, I think this has given the difficult craft of songwriting ("originals") a bad name and a black eye. It's not to be trusted any more.

Of course, this is dangerous ground here. "Art" in general is often thought of as an unassailable topic, especially within the artistic community. I mean, who (including the author) is to say what's good and bad art, what's the best way to make it and so forth. Critics think they know, but artists often keep a distance from such opinions. Also, a colleague reading this said it borders on Old Fartism. Like "when I was your age, sonny, we made REAL music with sticks, leaves and a wire recorder". Beyond all this, I think that prepackaged compositions are like paint-by-numbers. You end up with something, but by nature you were severely limited in your choices. I think the best art is that which starts from scratch. Doing so, it gives the artist an infinite set of possibilities to craft their work from. If you're a piano player, you're limited right off the bat, as opposed to if you could compose for any combination of instruments. I didn't want this to make music-by-numbers users feel like they were bad people, merely to point out the limitations imposed by such methods. And, agreed, you have to start somewhere. Also, your early composition will not be good ones. I think you get better the more you try and the more you write. Music by numbers might be a great way to learn, like with training wheels. I wrote some songs using "Drum Drops" records that had the typical pop-tune format and was actually happy. One of those tunes still exists on my made-the-cut list.

On the other hand, here are what I believe are facts about live music:

Line 92:

Line 94:

Most musicians, in America anyway, play in 50-200 seat performing arts centers, restaurants and night clubs for money. Church musicians, I think, are not paid. They volunteer, but nevertheless play in similar venues. So, it's the vast number of musicians in the first category that I am addressing. I believe that this is the overwhelming majority of musicians playing for money in America.

How do you rise above simply accepting the current wage scale for most players? I guess, as I write this (it's just coming out as you see it), you first have to decide that it's unacceptable. This might mean turning down gigs because the pay is disrespectful. Remember; you ought to be getting paid at least $500 for a show, or you're not making enough to keep up with inflation.

How do you rise above simply accepting the current wage scale for most players? I guess, as I write this (it's just coming out as you see it), you first have to decide that it's unacceptable. This might mean turning down gigs because the pay is disrespectful. Remember; you ought to be getting paid at least $500 for a show, or you're not making enough to keep up with inflation. I'm stopping to think about all this, peparing to go on. I myself have a pretty bad business sense as a musician, so it's a pretty demanding load on my brain right now. However, like all problems, there is a solution. Identifying the problem is often the biggest step. The rest is merely work.

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 #  Triple system amplification tends to make all bands sound similar, so that any artistic excellence is lost in sonic clutter created by this.  Thus, a "great" band can't really demonstrate their excellence.  The triple system tends to make all bands playing in small to medium venues sound alike (blurry) and thus it seems to lump all bands as "mediochre" or "annoying" because of excessive levels and chaotic fidelity presented.
 #  Most musicians today seem to have other employment, because they can't support themselves playing.  This contributes to wages going down.
-#  The American Federation of Musicians was once a powerful force in helping musicians achieve an honorable wage.  Today it is almost nonexistant, other than for very high-profile work such as Broadway plays, symphony orchestras, some casino gigs and movie film score work.  I may even be wrong about this.
+#  The American Federation of Musicians was once a powerful force in helping musicians achieve an honorable wage.  Today it is almost nonexistent, other than for very high-profile work such as Broadway plays, symphony orchestras, some casino gigs and movie film score work.  I may even be wrong about this.
 #  Bands playing original compositions seem to be doomed to a life of scraping for gigs that pay nothing, unless they have some kind of recording that is distributed by legitimate means (a "record label", whatever this means in 2006).  Popular bands playing popular music will occasionally trick an audience by inserting their original into a set.  But if it is announced ("...and here's one of our original tunes..."), the audience mostly gets glassy-eyed and bored.
 #  Bands "creating" (or attempting to create) original music have a zillion different "music composition" software packages to choose from, many with prefabricated song "templates" in common song formats (A/B/A/B/C/A/B, ETC), or with sampled drum (and other instrument) loops.  And so, budding artists or complete bands will use these to "create" new songs by playing them and possibly shouting or screaming lyrics without melody over the chord changes.  My opinion is that this is not only a severe limitation on songwriting, it tends to be not-songwriting or discourage the creation of a real song.  The great, enduring songs we all love and can sing to ourselves (from Bessy Smith to Sinatra, Ellington, the Beatles, Pearl Jam, Van Halen, Outkast, ...), I believe, started with either a story to tell or with a melody, not with a fully-produced, full-production music track that you insert your-lyric-here into.  My children, some of them musicians but all of them music lovers and appreciators, complain that modern music isn't melodic or satisfying in many ways.  And so, they seem to prefer music from the '60's thru the '80's.  I think that instant gratification afforded by instant-songwriting packages has imposed a severe restriction on new songwriters, including a deep spiritual one.  New music is the lifeblood of the musical community.  Not everyone can compose, or, better,  not everyone does compose, but the musical community needs new music to stay inspired and fresh, including for their audiences.  I think that modern musical technologies in the form of equipment and software has spawned an unprecedentedly large community of musicians who seem to enjoy instant "success" without "doing the work".  And so, I think this has given the difficult craft of songwriting ("originals") a bad name and a black eye.  It's not to be trusted any more.
+Of course, this is dangerous ground here.  "Art" in general is often thought of as an unassailable topic, especially within the artistic community.  I mean, who (including the author) is to say what's good and bad art, what's the best way to make it and so forth.  Critics think they know, but artists often keep a distance from such opinions.  Also, a colleague reading this said it borders on Old Fartism.  Like "when I was your age, sonny, we made REAL music with sticks, leaves and a wire recorder".  Beyond all this, I think that prepackaged compositions are like paint-by-numbers.  You end up with something, but by nature you were severely limited in your choices.  I think the best art is that which starts from scratch.  Doing so, it gives the artist an infinite set of possibilities to craft their work from.  If you're a piano player, you're limited right off the bat, as opposed to if you could compose for any combination of instruments.  I didn't want this to make music-by-numbers users feel like they were bad people, merely to point out the limitations imposed by such methods.  And, agreed, you have to start somewhere.  Also, your early composition will not be good ones.  I think you get better the more you try and the more you write.  Music by numbers might be a great way to learn, like with training wheels.  I wrote some songs using "Drum Drops" records that had the typical pop-tune format and was actually happy.  One of those tunes still exists on my made-the-cut list.
 On the other hand, here are what I believe are facts about live music:
@@ Line 92: / Line 94: @@
 Most musicians, in America anyway, play in 50-200 seat performing arts centers, restaurants and night clubs for money.  Church musicians, I think, are not paid.  They volunteer, but nevertheless play in similar venues.  So, it's the vast number of musicians in the first category that I am addressing.  I believe that this is the overwhelming majority of musicians playing for money in America.
-How do you rise above simply accepting the current wage scale for most players?  I guess, as I write this (it's just coming out as you see it), you first have to decide that it's unacceptable.  This might mean turning down gigs because the pay is disrespectful.  Remember; you ought to be getting paid at least $500 for a show, or you're not making enough to keep up with inflation.
+How do you rise above simply accepting the current wage scale for most players?  I guess, as I write this (it's just coming out as you see it), you first have to decide that it's unacceptable.  This might mean turning down gigs because the pay is disrespectful.  Remember; you ought to be getting paid at least $500 for a show, or you're not making enough to keep up with inflation.  I'm stopping to think about all this, peparing to go on.  I myself have a pretty bad business sense as a musician, so it's a pretty demanding load on my brain right now.  However, like all problems, there is a solution.  Identifying the problem is often the biggest step.  The rest is merely work.