We work with what we've got

[gecko zzed]

This thread was triggered by some comments in another post about carpenters tools. The thrust of those comments was that creativity is the important thing, and that tools (i.e. the recording technology) are just tools. My response was:

I agree that creativity is the main thing, and I'd like to think a tool is just a tool. But I think it is a bit more complicated. A carpenter has lots of tools, and can therefore make lots of things.

But: some would-be carpenters (like me) are not as fully equipped, and doing some kind of carpentry is extremely difficult. For example, I don't have a router, so what is really easy for someone who has one is difficult for me. Some would-be carpenters are not equally skilled (also like me) in all their tools. I can hammer a nail in ok, but I can't saw a straight line to save myself. All I have is a handsaw, and that goes all over the place.

This leads to another thought: we all work with what we've got. But sometimes what we've got is just not enough to get the job done. I might dwell on this in another post, or maybe as a response to this once I've got my thoughts in order.

I then moved on to another thread, where I saw this remark:

I obviously am pretty new to all this but enjoyed trying to create the different sections and tie them together (it just sounds better in my head at this point)

I am currently involved in a recording project with a group of women who have written collectively about twelve songs dwelling broadly on the conditions of women in early colonial Tasmania. Their ideas are good, but their translation into music is not. This group has a strong interest in and passion for detailing life in that era, and that is reflected in the quality of their lyrics. They have good writing skills. But their musicianship has limitations. The main writer plays guitar, but basically only about three chords (you know, the G C D kind of thing). The others accompany on recorder (really nicely played) and cello (competent, but not outstanding), and the occasional piano (also quite good). This pallette of instruments should produce some great combinations and a variety of textures . . . but it doesn't. Instead the music is dull, tedious, very basic, and importantly, doesn't reflect the range of emotions inherent in the lyrics, which range from tragedy to bawdy.It all sounds very, well, 'churchy'.

There is criticism implied in my preceding remarks, but though I am expressing my view of their musicianship, I am not really critical. And the reason is that they are working with what they have. They can't do more than that. Their musical heritage, knowledge and skill is such that what they are creating is the best they can do. They really can't be faulted for that. It's like me trying to build a coffee table with my hammer, rusty saw and limited joinery skills. I'll get it built as best I can, but it will end up with uneven legs and I wouldn't go near it with a cup of cofee. But no-one should fault me if all I have are some worn out tools and less-than-average ability. That's all I have and that's the best I can do with what I have. I just won't be able to sell the coffee table to anyone. (They'd have adequate cause to find fault if I had a shed-full of first class tools and several wordworking diplomas . . . and despite that, produce a dodgy table!).

Diverdown made an extremely important observation: "it just sounds better in my head as this point". This is important for two reasons:
1 it reveals the difficulties we experience when we can imagine what it should sound like, but are unable to convert the idea into form. This is really frustrating. There are things that contribute to this inability: we lack the necessary tools to convert ideas into sound (we can't play, or don't have access to, the instruments needed to create the sound, we lack the ability to play or sing well enough, or we lack the technology or its mastery); and
2 it reveals that there is an element of dissatisfaction with what has been produced, and that element is what can push us towards achieving greater things (though I agree that it can also push us to give up altogether).

Back to the recording project. The women approached me to see whether I could help. They wanted to record the material, but importantly, they recognised that what they had created was not really what was in their heads. They sought my help with producing the material because they were aware that I had some ability in this area. I'm conscious that this might sound like bragging, but I don't intend it to be. I, too, work with what I've got. It just so happens that I've got a slightly larger arsenal of musical and technological skills than they have.That's no big deal. It's like . . . some people can run a mile in under four minutes, others can't . . . that's just the way it is. Those who can't aren't diminished by not being able to do so.

I started paying guitar when I was about 16. I was writing songs soon after. My playing was crap, my songs were crap, but I thought they were wonderful at the time because my brain was supplying all the extras needed to make them sound good. Over the years my musical horizons started broadening, and my playing skills increased, and I discovered that my brain was doing less work in filling the deficiency gaps. But even now, four decades later, I stand in awe of the people who I record and who are so wonderfully gifted musically. But . . . it's not a gift . . . because they've worked hard to achieve that level of expertise and to make most of the natural abilities they have.

I've finished work on February's challenge, and I will post it most likely, even though I'm disinclined to, because, like Diverdown, what I've got "just sounds better in my head at this point". My musical abilities are not up to scratch in being able to render what I hear in my head to something that replicates it in sound.

So what does one do about this? I have to admire Hakea's example, because he (as I understand) has embarked on a musical spurt only recently. But he has had the bravery to tread this path and to recognise that learning doesn't stop at school. Creativity is important, but it amounts to nothing if you can't express it. And the best way to figure out how to express it, in my view, is practice and learning. We work with what we've got, and that will always be a limiting factor, so we need to find more to work with.

 

[mikeh]

It really depends on what you hope to achieve with the end result - or what you are prepared to accept as the end result.

If I want a piece of furniture that has quality build and is attractive I will pay to purchase it, or have someone build it for me. If I can't afford to pay for the quality - I have to lower my expectations. In that case, I will build it with my limited tools and limited skill and simply accept that the end result will not be what I envisioned - and perhaps, I will choose not to have that compromised piece of furniture in public view.

As musicians/writers/engineers - we have a certain amount of tools and skill - and we use that to create. The end result of what we create may not be what we hoped for (or what we heard in our head) - but it may be the best we can expect, using the tools and skill we have. If we don't want to show that created piece of music in public then perhaps that less than ideal end result is acceptable.

However, if we have visons that we want to sell that piece of music - we may have to accept that we have to pay others who do have the right tools and the right skill, to shape that piece of music into something more than we are capable of on our own.

If we are unable to afford paying for the tools and skills that others have, or are simply unwilling to for whatever reason - then we have to lower our expectations.

Naturally, the option is to improve the skills and tools we have - but in music and in carpentry, that can take a very long time and a large amount of money - and in the end, some people simply don't have the genes or mindset to be a great carpenter or a great musician (regardless of the amount of time and money we are willing to invest).

I think we hear so many great recordings of songs and have an unrealistic expectation that we can duplicate that level of greatness - and fail to appreciate or acknowledge the number of highly skilled people and the amount of very high quality, costly, tools that were used to create that music - and then we somehow are stunned when we can't seem to achieve that same end result.

 

[SEDstar]

...

Parts of this start to sound like what I have nicknamed "White Stripes syndrome" for a while...

for a patch there, the "ad copy" being put out for them while they were a huge hit act for a couple minutes... was basically this notion that:

"Oh, here's 2 people, in their basement... fooling around with a old 4 track recorder, and cheap instruments, with their great songwriting skills, you hear THAT come thru their music. Its the heartfelt alternative to over produced pop crap."

which had all these kids running around thinking all they had to do was just "jam" with their high school buddies in afterschool bands, fiddle aruond with a 4 track recorder, and anything more than that was just "over production" getting somehow "in the way" of great stuff "from the heart"

I thought it was pretty funny when someone in a national music rag finally "busted" them, and glibly pointed out that if that was all there was to it, what the heck was the couple hundred grand on recording and post production spent for? WHy couldn't they just play in the basement, record it, and release it on the intrnet?

answer: the writer pointed out that while the nation and the world thought them fresh and exciting and new, apparently new yorkers had been hearing them for almost 15 years at the clubs, and occasionally chuckling at their "antics" while they were "working on their schtick" with the whole...

"Are they brother and sister? are they divorced or married? why do they kiss so much if they are related, and/or divorced?"


which really brought the whole article around to a couple of things...

1) they were NOT an "overnight sensation", they had payed clubs around NYC for a decade and a half, learning to write pop songs.

2) it took them a while to learn what "ooh!" stuff enticed people, like the whoel brother-sister-divorced-married-whydotheykiss "schtick" so they were "newsworthy"

3) a whole SLEW of advertisement teams were hard at work, and very well paid, to construct their "image", which was ironically that there was no "production" when in reality there was TONS of it.



its all very misleading to "normal people" in small towns mis-led by this stuff.



I feel "cheated" to learn that some of my favorite "brilliant composers" just record a simple "one handed bubblegum melody" on a piano, put words to it (genius to be sure, but...) then hand it off to someone else, or a hired team (that you never hear of...) who does the "details" or writing all the rest of the notes you hear, and the accompaniment... you know, *actually writes the frickin' beautiful song you actually hear*

some of these get turned into huge, complicated, broadway numbers... and the composer is held out to be some sort of "modern day Mozart", when all they do is write simple one hand bubblegum melodies to words... some unknown "nobody" actually writes the whole dam song!! he just doesnt have the "juice" to ever get mentioned or interviewed!


A lot of the biggest acts ever... melody and lyric writers are hired, professional "hired studio guns" play all the intricate music you actually hear on the CD... it all gets recorded, and mixed, and slick post production in the very best houses... THEN, the "band" learns to actually play it, and goes on tour! But, they have "the look", you know.

when I read th inner liners of my favorite CD's, there's a lot of "unknowns" who are actually making a lot of the "magic" you hear other than the famous singer who gets "credited" with it all in the minds of the people buying the CDs...

I honestly do not know how you "hear" the final slick arranged number "in your head" when the producer picks one tape of someone strumming 3 chords slowly, and singing softly over it on the demo tape they picked out...

*shrugs* and i equally wonder how much other great stuff I will never get to hear for one reason or another. bruce Hornsby, for example, I really liked a lot of his work... but a lot of famous people had to really PUSH for him t get a tape put out nationally, because he wasnt a good looking front man. Jeff Healy comes to mind here, too...

its all a lot like a soldier in the field. Sure, he's the "hero", and he gets th medals, and everyone makes fun of the guys running the radio, and working n the supply lines in wartime, they are all eggheads and sissies, you know... but, without those radios and supply lines and cooks... the guy in the field is dead.

wear the same socks for three weeks, and tell me how effective you will be fighting the enemy when you cant WALK with trenchfoot. I hear a LOT of how a "real marine" needs only his K-bar to tak on the enemy outnumbered...

but, if that were true? "we wouldn't make guns now, would we"



theres a LOT of people, whole teams of them, behind seemingly simple songs we eventually hear on the radio.

 

[Frankie Rage]

I feel "cheated" to learn that some of my favorite "brilliant composers" just record a simple "one handed bubblegum melody" on a piano, put words to it (genius to be sure, but...) then hand it off to someone else, or a hired team (that you never hear of...) who does the "details" or writing all the rest of the notes you hear, and the accompaniment... you know, *actually writes the frickin' beautiful song you actually hear*

some of these get turned into huge, complicated, broadway numbers... and the composer is held out to be some sort of "modern day Mozart", when all they do is write simple one hand bubblegum melodies to words... some unknown "nobody" actually writes the whole dam song!! he just doesnt have the "juice" to ever get mentioned or interviewed!

I have some sympathy with what you say but to my mind you are doing down the creative talent to too great a degree.

It's all about supply and demand.

It's the simple (but hard to create a good one..) "bubblegum melody" that goes a very long way in selling a song. It's what the audience picks up on and sings along to. That's why it's the melody and lyric that is copyright and gets paid out in royalties; not the arrangement, musicianship or engineering.

The reason that the studio musicians etc. are comparative "nobodies" is because professional session musicians, arrangers, engineers etc. are in abundance and as such they get paid Union rates. A lot of them are damn ugly too and the public doesn't want to watch ugly guys/gals singing and playing on stage/TV. Singers need in the main to look attractive. And as the World is choc full of good singers and musicians anyway, of course it's the pretty ones that get on TV and get the recording deals.

Don't blame the audience or the Industry for this. It's human nature to like to watch attractive people living out our fantasies. You'd have to be an absolute genius of a singer to get away with being ugly! Fat yes, Mama Cass and Demis Roussos did OK on a burger diet, so it can be done! But ugly? Stay home!

I do!

 

[Hakea]

I am currently involved in a recording project with a group of women who have written collectively about twelve songs dwelling broadly on the conditions of women in early colonial Tasmania. Their ideas are good, but their translation into music is not. This group has a strong interest in and passion for detailing life in that era, and that is reflected in the quality of their lyrics. They have good writing skills. But their musicianship has limitations.

Very interesting project. I can see why that could be a bit frustrating for them though. My immediate thought was about Peter Sculthorpe (For those who don't know his work he's a highly regarded composer who also hails from Tasmania) who has produced some marvelously evocative work with a very strong sense of place and time. It also sounds like the sort of project that could quite possibly attract grants and other support.

The fact that they've asked you to help is a very good sign, and suggests that they're not too precious about having their ideas fiddled with by a relative 'outsider'. How much will you be allowed to you do with it? Free reign or mostly arrangements? Does the project fire up your enthusiasm to write fresh scores for any of the pieces? Is that a possibility? Which means most to them - the end result or the enjoyment of the ongoing creative group dynamic? (EDIT: Oops. That sounds rather pompous... I meant do they they just enjoy the fun of mucking around together with words and sounds or are they more hardcore about the project..).

Back to the recording project. The women approached me to see whether I could help. They wanted to record the material, but importantly, they recognised that what they had created was not really what was in their heads. They sought my help with producing the material because they were aware that I had some ability in this area.

Several points there, but to take the one about "not really what was in their heads". I have found that the more experienced I get, the better my head gets at the internal stuff. When I play something roughly I’m also internally correcting it. So there’s two things going on - the sound I hear in my head, and the one I’m actually making. There can be other sounds too, such as an imagined rhythm track, sax solo or whatever. I also started to find that I was beginning to do the same when listening to submissions by other people - hear more than just what was there.

However, there was a “but....” to all this, and it turned out to be a very large “BUT....” . When I tried to translate what was “in my head” onto the page or the instrument, I effectively called my own bluff and discovered that what was in my head was only part detail and part wish list.

This is quite an intriguing phenomenon, and one that you could probably discuss and research indefinitely. But it does seem to be true that the brain can construct a sort of vague generalised sense of ‘backing strings’, ‘hot sax break’, ‘angelic soprano harmonies’, ‘crunchy bass line’ or whatever without actually needing to fill in the detail, and even get quite good at apparently playing them. I doubt that I’m unique in discovering that when it came to nailing my ‘inner voice’ to the page I hadn’t much idea what it had actually been saying - apart from some fairly vague mumbling. Giving my inner voice lessons in grammar and elocution has now become a major focus. Learning the craft as we say.

Doctors have the same problem - translating patients’ vague and often highly misleading mutterings about their symptoms into something concrete enough to make a diagnosis. So the idea of you taking the women’s rough ideas and turning them into something altogether more professionally structured and executed sounds like a fascinating opportunity. It rather reminds me of a picture my son did a few years ago.

Three Hens Looking at a Rooster

All the best at taking on the role of rooster. Keep us posted when the eggs start hatching...

Cheers,

Chris

 

[gecko zzed]

The fact that they've asked you to help is a very good sign, and suggests that they're not too precious about having their ideas fiddled with by a relative 'outsider'. How much will you be allowed to you do with it? Free reign or mostly arrangements? Does the project fire up your enthusiasm to write fresh scores for any of the pieces? Is that a possibility? Which means most to them - the end result or the enjoyment of the ongoing creative group dynamic? (EDIT: Oops. That sounds rather pompous... I meant do they they just enjoy the fun of mucking around together with words and sounds or are they more hardcore about the project..).

About the project:

They are serious about the project, so they're not just mucking around and having fun.

Before I took this work on, I asked what role they want from me; engineer, advisor or producer (reflecting progressively greater involvement with content), and settled on somewhere between advisor and producer.

I then recorded the basics for a couple of tracks: guide guitars and vocals, and asked them to let me play with those base tracks over a few days.

When they next returned, I played them what I had done, and they were impressed to the extent of handing over musical direction to me. It turns out that what I had done to the tracks was very close to what they wanted to convey.

What I had one was this. For each track, I listened intently to the lyrics and asked myself a series of questions: What is the real story here? What mood are we trying to convey? What should the listener feel? And from these questions arose more: What instrumentation, chordal structure and overall music feel would convey the right story and emotions?

From this I set about deconstructing what I had been given, keeping the lyrics and melody untouched (in deference to the writer and composer). But I had no qualms about ditching the guide guitar or about re-arranging verses. From a new structure I set about assembling a new arrangement under the guide vocals.

For example, one track as originally presented sounded very similar to Amazing Grace, and in fact they had tried (reasonably successfully) to capture a gospel feel. The trouble is, gospel and Amazing Grace had little to do with colonial Tasmania, which has its roots in English and Irish traditions, rather than in the slave trade on the Mississippi.

So I gave the song a more celtic feel, which disguised nicely its passing resemblance to Amazing Grace, and resonated more strongly with what would have been the music of that time and place, dispelling that vague feeling of cognitive dissonance, i.e. "I'm supposed to be here, but the music is telling me I'm somewhere else".

As the project has gone on, each song has been given this intense examination, and by allowing the songs to dictate their terms, rather than anyone trying to impose a particular style (or, alternatively, playing in the only style they know), we have twelve songs underway (some more complete than others), and each of which is now telling its story musically as well as lyrically, and in quite different ways.

Perhaps this time I am boasting, but it has worked well and the project is exciting to work on.





.

em.

 

[Hakea]

Perhaps this time I am boasting, but it has worked well and the project is exciting to work on.

Boasting is allowed, and apparently deserved too.

It sounds like a wonderful project, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading your account of it. Taking that gospel feel and giving it the appropriate Celtic twist sounded especially intriguing.

I must say that since reading your account of how you took your friend's lyrics and set them to music (firstly trying to guess what his aim had been, and then trying to deliberately do something different) I've been keen to try it myself. I've tried writing new lyrics to existing tunes (which doesn't seem that hard) and also following my usual style of developing the music and the lyrics alongside each other (I particularly like to get a feel for the musical rhythm before I go too far with the words). But I've never taken some text -'cold' as it were - and tried setting it to music. I suppose that's largely because I've not felt qualified for the task. But I'll never know if I don't give it a go, so I'll hunt around for some text this week.

Your thoughts above about "Working with what we've got" have also spurred me into hooking the keyboard up to the computer again and refreshing my memory about how some of the software works - either with note my note entry or using the keyboard. So thanks for giving me a number of pushes in useful directions.

Cheers,

Chris

 

[gecko zzed]

It really depends on what you hope to achieve with the end result - or what you are prepared to accept as the end result.

If I want a piece of furniture that has quality build and is attractive I will pay to purchase it, or have someone build it for me. If I can't afford to pay for the quality - I have to lower my expectations. In that case, I will build it with my limited tools and limited skill and simply accept that the end result will not be what I envisioned - and perhaps, I will choose not to have that compromised piece of furniture in public view.

As musicians/writers/engineers - we have a certain amount of tools and skill - and we use that to create. The end result of what we create may not be what we hoped for (or what we heard in our head) - but it may be the best we can expect, using the tools and skill we have. If we don't want to show that created piece of music in public then perhaps that less than ideal end result is acceptable.

However, if we have visons that we want to sell that piece of music - we may have to accept that we have to pay others who do have the right tools and the right skill, to shape that piece of music into something more than we are capable of on our own.

If we are unable to afford paying for the tools and skills that others have, or are simply unwilling to for whatever reason - then we have to lower our expectations.

Naturally, the option is to improve the skills and tools we have - but in music and in carpentry, that can take a very long time and a large amount of money - and in the end, some people simply don't have the genes or mindset to be a great carpenter or a great musician (regardless of the amount of time and money we are willing to invest).

I think we hear so many great recordings of songs and have an unrealistic expectation that we can duplicate that level of greatness - and fail to appreciate or acknowledge the number of highly skilled people and the amount of very high quality, costly, tools that were used to create that music - and then we somehow are stunned when we can't seem to achieve that same end result.

I agree entirely!

This leads me down another train of thought . . . the interactions between ability and expectations.

Let's say that 'ability' sums up the entirety of our musical prowess, and 'expectations' sums up what we may expect to do with that prowess.

We can develop four scenarios: (1) low ability - low expectations, (2) low ability-high expectations, (3) high ability-low expectations, (4) high ability-high expectations.

(1) low ability-low expectations
Somebody in this category may be just doodling around at home, maybe just for the fun of it. Because they have low expectations, there is nothing there to really push them out of this state to develop their ability further. Possibly they have potential, but it would take someone else to spur them on.

(2) low ability-high expectations
This is an interesting category, because so many things can happen. We often find people starting out on their careers in this group. They are still developing their craft, but their aspirations to make something of it will help that development along. This is where the gap between 'able to do' and 'would like to do' results in motivation, and the general tendency here is for 'low ability' to become 'high ability' and you move into another group (from LA-HE to HA-HE)(sorry about my abbreviations . . it's quicker).

But it can also result in frustration or despair. Frustration sets in when, despite your efforts, you can't make that gap smaller. Mikeh's remarks about 'buying in' help are relevant here. Despair sets in when you've actually been in High Ability-High Expectations, but for one reason or another, you've lost the touch, and you are not living up to what you used to be able to, i.e. you've migrated from HA-HE to LA-HE. This is a danger time for the frustrated and despondent. With help, they may be able to progress, but they may end up on a plateau. Life will be unpleasant unless they learn to manage their expectations. Lowering their expectations means migrating from LA-HE to LA-LE.

However, this all depends on another factor, which is self-awareness. The people I describe above are aware of the gap they have to overcome (or forget about), but there is a very large group who don't have this awareness. You see this frequently on Australian (or American) Idol; people who plead with the judges to let them through, because they are 'passionate about their music', or because it's what they've 'always dreamed about', or what they've 'lived for'. They believe that wanting something badly enough is sufficient to justify them getting it. They subscribe to the culture of entitlement, where ability is not part of their equation. In some cases, they are delusional; not recognising any lacking of ability on their part, and the inability to succeed is blamed on others: the 'system', conspiracies, 'who you know' and so on, anyone but themselves. They think they are HA-HE, but they are really LA-HE.

(3) high ability - low expectations.
In this group we have people who have considerable talents, but don't do much with those talents. Sometimes it's because they actively dislike commerciality. At other times it is simply because they just don't seek pubic acclaim or commercial success. In another project I'm working on I've uncovered a few greater songwriters and intriguing performers who play to no-one except themselves or their family in the lounge room . . . and they are content with that. I've also uncovered people who have something special, but who haven't realised it (i.e. they are HA-LE, but think they are LA-LE).

People in this group, like those in LA-LE, are not likely to migrate from it unless their expectations change, and I think that this would most likely have to come from someone else; a patron or a mentor, perhaps. While I don't begrudge anyone shunning an external world of entertainment, I view this group with a tinge of sadness, because so many people could get enjoyment from what they have to offer.

(4) High Ability - High Expectations
This group is populated with the high achievers; people are hovering around the height of their potential. With some luck, but a lot of hardwork and persistence, they will meet their own high expectations.

But there are many who don't. No matter how gifted or skilled some people are, they can't seem to make the breakthrough they are seeking. In this case, they are not fooling themselves about their ability; they are just not being recognised. There are many reasons for this, and again we see examples on Idol; people who are extra-ordinary, but don't capture the hearts of the voting viewers.


Having gone through all that, it is interesting to speculate on which quadrant frequenters of this forum would place themselves in (remembering though, that there is a continuum between low and high ability as there is between low and high expectations).

I'd expect that we'd experience people from all quadrants (but it is harder to imagine people in the extreme LO-LE visiting). It is therefore also interesintg to ponder on how we might deal with these differences when people post lyrics, or ask for advice or whatever.

While I don't see a stated goal for this forum (and nor odes it necessarily need one), at the back of my mind is a general theme of encouraging excellence . . . I hope that people who come here leave with a little bit more than when they arrived.

 

[SEDstar]

...

I once dived up the musical "journey" into various stages, but all based on ability and it (hopefully...lol) progressing.

I remember phase I was "the face"... as in, people make "the face" when you play ANYthing. in this phase it is almost physically painful to listen to. people RUN rather than listen to your next piece.

at stage 2, yuo only get the face in patches. Its still terrible, but it doesnt make anyone physically ill. a few kind souls will listen and give whatever critique they can, if you keep the little dittys mercifully brief. in tiny patches, you actually make it to "merely boring" for brief periods, lol

stage 3, no more of "the face", but you get "the shrug". congratulations, you have landed squarely into "boring".

stage 4, its still boring, but its a little less boring in a few patches... you begin to get SLIGHT encouragement that SOME progress is being made.

stage 5. humm. people can sit thru a piece, its mostly slightly boring, but not really irritating. you dont get the shrug, but you get a ho-hum look. Every now and then, the listener will point out a tiny patch where it actually sounds half decent... but you lose that quickly

6? for a few seconds here and there, you can begin to actually hear something possibly, almost "interesting", but its fleeting. some boring spots, but mostly ho -hum, with a few patches that show promise.

7? you clearly have some idea what you are doing. its rarely boring, but not completely interesting, People can begin to discuss parts they actually like, or dislike, and with no musical training listeners actually enjoy certain parts or instruments. A few tiny parts, you actually see a smile, or a fac light up... they occasionally "tap along" in places. you will get encouraged to try to do a little more...

8? you begin to hear its "actually half decent", or sopmeone says things like "its not my style of music, but its no bad..." or "I kinda like the intro part..." or "is that a real (whatever instrument) ?" people can begin to talk about what they like or dont like about various sections. You might not know WHAT to do at all times, but you can decide quickly what NOT to do...

9... more or less anyone will admit its fairly good. They will note its not ready for radio, or a CD... but you start to hear how you might wanna make a demo. SOmetimes whole songs are actually moderately interesting... you occasionally "really pull one off". SOmene actually asks for a COPY of "that one song..." they say things like "Huh... I cant believe you made this...", and you have to kind of prod them to nitpick at it... they are usually not sure WHAT needs to be changed, or exactly whgat part is slightly off unless they have some training.

10... eyes widen. steady listeners smile and nod... they freely nod theior head, tap along, or do the occcasional "air guitar" or "air drums". A few people want songs they actually LIKE put ona CD for them. You begin to hear things like "your pretty good with piano/guitar/drums/whatever"

the mere CONCEPT of being p[aid for your work is suggested to you. People want to know what the name of your band is.

you hear things like "you sound like that one song by ....." on this one...

AND... every so often, you actually drop someones jaw open and they actually get excited, and want to rewind and hear their favorit part again... they might play the CD you gve them for other people they know that like similar styles of music...

*shrugs*

I figure after "10", the only next step is to attempt to actually get PAID for what you do...

 

[Frankie Rage]

It's all about fitness for purpose to my mind.

Right now as a songwriter looking for my first commercial success (even a small one..) I would say I was MA/HE (Medium Ability/High Expectation) and I need to up the quality in the demo department; either by taking more care myself, along with better tools and/or involving other more capable musicians/singers (or all three).

Once in my "musical life" on the outer-fringes of the professional entertainment business, I had HA/LE (High Ability/Low Expectations) when I was in a band where what I experienced is what I assume very capable people experience. The band had two excellent singers and chose material that we could do well. The arrangements were comparatively simple and well within our musical capabilities. We ran through a song once or twice (I did extra work at home on the bass parts) then we went "live" with the material, probably only having played the songs two or three times a piece in rehearsal - it was fresh and very lively - and we went down really well in front of our audiences. Easy-peasy, almost no effort ...and they paid us!

It was so easy and it was just so much fun, no pressure, no problems, we got on well and had audience satisfaction every time! The band did about 150 gigs and it was a great time for me. We were fit for purpose and our only expectation was to have fun, which we did every gig!

Would that I had that now with my song demos now!

Prior to the above band, which was my "surge before I just gave in..." I had 6 years of LA/HE (Low Ability/High Expectation) trying to get one musical combo after another off the ground and failing miserably and with great disillusion throughout. I finally gave that up and joined a simple covers-band (the one above) and had fun and got paid.

Thereafter, a long fallow(?) period until now where I have just wrote and wrote and wrote (and then wrote some more...) with ever increasing ability (I hope...) and LE to ME. It's been good and has made up for all the earlier frustrations.

Fx

 

[mikeh]

I very much agree with gecko's 4 catagories - and I particularly like the comparision to the American/Austrialian Idol example. Since, I've been in the music industry for a very long time and at various rungs of the ladder, I've observed people in all 4 catagories.

My dad was a big band drummer (with high ability)- who before I was born had played with many "big name cats"- but by the time I was born, he had lowered his expectations to weeked wedding band (the big band era had passed, he got married and had a kid, etc). I met many "big band players" and I saw and heard how many musicians with high ability had been forced to lower expectations - and no doubt it impacted the way I've always tended to have a distrust of musical expectations (not a pessimist...........just a realist)

I had no real choice but to go into music (it was in my genes and I spent many hours around cats jamming at the house) - but at first I had low ability and low expectations.

By my teens I had high ability and "some" expectations (went on the road as a full time musician) and in my early 20's I was earning decent money as a musician and as a writer, had even sold a couple of songs. I was rubbing shoulders (or sharing joints) with many musicians, some who were "international acts" - and I thought somehow a golden opportunity would fall in my lap.

By my late 20's (after 7 years on the road) I realized that I was not going to get a shot at the golden ring. I determined that I would always be a "sideman/session player" and not at the high level I had hoped for - while I had high ability there were many people with even higher ability and much more determination, but much of the reason higher success eluded me came from drugs, drinking and a general failure to jump at certain opportunities (and I was not alone - I saw a lot of people crash and burn over the years)- so I gradually lowered my expectations and cleaned up my act. Eventually, I too became mostly a "weekend warrior"............just like my dad.

I've seen a lot of very talented people who for various reasons have lowered their expectations (or maybe never really had high expectations to start with. The fact is......the music industry is a very difficult and vicious way to earn a living. High ability requires more than musical ability, it requires the ability to manage business and a high level of personal motivation - that most people simply don't have.

However, one can find contentment having "success" on a smaller level. I now simply strive to be the best I can be and humbly accept whatever small songwriting successes come my way. If I have the respect of my musical peers for the level of ability I've achieved and more importantly, if they respect me as a human being................I can live with that - and actually, I find more joy in that than when I was on stage if front of 6,000 people.

 

[Hakea]

Fascinating to see how we all break it down.


I’m with Frankie in that I’d add MA and ME to the list. There do seem to be a good number of people with medium level skills and moderate expectations, comfortably inhabiting the ground between the Lows and the Highs. It also seems true that the popular music business (like many of the Arts) is very skewed in that the ladder of perceived ‘success’ has such an odd shape. There’s a huge cluster milling about at the entry and lower levels, who have almost no opportunity to make any money at all. Whilst at the other end there’s a tiny number who can rake in huge amounts of money, at least for a while. That particular ladder isn’t even necessarily based on artist talent or professionalism either.

But if you remove the unrepresentative products of the commercial mega-hit machinery, there’s a different ladder to aim at. It just doesn’t get the same attention. In this case achieving ‘success’ can be measured as getting the position you wanted in a music academy, building a successful career as a session musician, securing a position in an orchestra, setting up a recording studio that attracts regular work, teaching and mentoring students from home, or even just being a skilled hobby player who is good enough to entertain friends and satisfy their own standards and expectations.

But how does this work in practice? One of my neighbours is a great trumpet player. He never made a CD or had a hit, but he did have a successful career in which he ended up as Head of Jazz studies at the State Conservatorium, and received international recognition for some of his work. I’d still put him down as a high achiever. Another friend is the best classical guitarist that I know. He studied at a music college, and then played classical pieces in a very accomplished duo. But there wasn’t enough local work to sustain a full time performing career so he now drives an ambulance for a living and plays only for himself and friends.

A third friend has been in the business for around 40 years. He co-founded a band that was big news on the local scene for a while, but mostly makes a living by having a number of strings to his bow, or rather his guitar. He now plays in a band that gets paid work but not enough to sustain the members without having other incomes. He also does a lot of solo gigs, teaches about half the week, and has a small but adequately equipped studio behind his house. So a he adds jingles and backing music to the list too. Another good friend runs a small local music shop. Commercially he barely scrapes by, but he’s leading a life he could only dream about in his younger days. He gets to play every day, teach young students, meets everybody involved in music locally, and has a shop full of toys to play with. He hardly makes any money, but he’s in heaven.

The members here wouldn’t have heard of any of them, but none of them seem like failures to me.



So I tend to break it down into Fantasies, Dreams, and Plans. The trick is to know which is which.

Fantasies are those imagined moments when I’m chatting to the stadium audience, wowing them with a sax break, fending off groupies, or whatever. I have no intention of actually trying to make these come true. Whilst it might be fun to cherry-pick a few imaginary buzzes I would definitely not want the whole package that goes with that life.

Dreams, on the other hand, are things that are not quickly attainable but which I’m interested in trying to turn into reality. I used to dream of being able to get my fingers to behave well enough to be able to strum a few chords and do a rough and simple campfire style song. I also used to dream about gaining enough basic knowledge about music to understand some of what musicians were talking about, and to be able to join in the conversation. Another dream was to one day learn to write and play a song or two of my own...

Plans are the strategies that I use to turn the dreams into reality. They’re the reason that I achieved the dreams mentioned in the last paragraph and have started working on new ones. Take it step by step and be realistic about what you’re doing, and it’s amazing where you can end up. I’ve got goals in the pipeline now that I didn’t even know how to dream three years ago.

As long as you keep the balance between Ability and Expectation under control there’s no reason why you can’t keep re-adjusting your sights, and have a perfectly satisfying and enjoyable ride along the way, wherever you end up. In fact, it's enjoying that journey that is in itself the payoff for me. I've had fun from the every first note and all I ask is to be able to keep learning more.

That’s how I see it anyway.

Cheers,

Chris

 

[Frankie Rage]

My current expectation - to get commercially published - may well be HE or even UE (Unrealistic Expectation) BUT if I can get my best six songs demo'd well and each one TURNED DOWN at least a 100 times by professional publishers THEN I'll be satisfied that I have, at least, tried.

After writing songs all my life from aged 7 onwards, I reckon I owe myself that!

Fx

 

[mikeh]

As long as you keep the balance between Ability and Expectation under control there’s no reason why you can’t keep re-adjusting your sights, and have a perfectly satisfying and enjoyable ride along the way, wherever you end up. In fact, it's enjoying that journey that is in itself the payoff for me. I've had fun from the every first note and all I ask is to be able to keep learning more.

That’s how I see it anyway.

Cheers,

Chris

You have indeed hit on the key. The music industry, more than almost any industry can be a series of highs and lows. The people who can indeed maintain balance and re-adjust are the ones who can continue to find joy in the process.

In the music industry, it is almost a given that no matter how high you climb up the ladder - your stay at or near the top will be brief - and your decline will be swift. It doesn't matter if you are a top selling recording artist, a writer of hits or the hottest local act...................at some point, you become yesterday's news and newer, younger, hipper, more original artists come along to take your place.

The ability to make peace with that and re-adjust to a career of teaching, or being a sales rep for an instrument company, or working for a publisher.....or simply playing locally on weekends, etc - can make life outside of the stage lights more complete. Or as Hakea indicates, pursuing a different musical path to start with can perhaps avoid the crash and burn that many full time, professional "working musicians" experiance.

Which brings us back to the origianal point of this thread - working with the skills we have and maintaining a balance between those skills and our expectations.