Response to my Last Newsletter Editorial (23rd June issue)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chater-La
  • Start date Start date
Well...she does the up/down bouncing thing real well. I guess if I had her cleavage, I would do it too.... ;)

Hell, I would never get out of bed if I had those yummy bumps! lol

Sorry ladies, I like the boobies. :)
 
Not really harsh - just realistic. I know plenty of guys who have 'made it'. Major label releases, world tours, sell out theatre venues in 15 minutes. Others who were very popular regional bands - gigging every night, packed houses. Guys who do music for soundtrack, commercial, video games. Seriously talented multi-instrumentalists - drums, guitars, bass, keys, vocals, harmonies. My jaw drops when I hear their stuff, even the stuff they are just doing as a goof. They all are insanely talented, driven and occasionally were in the right place at the right time. I've been content to keep doing what amounts to the digital equivalent of '4-tracking' my whole life - writing songs and giving out cds and mp3s to friends. I never had the the drive, the talent or the luck to pull off anything more than that.

Others who were very popular regional bands - gigging every night, packed houses.

And they are probably the guys who are still sane and enjoying what they're doing...
 
That too shows that "luck" was not what got her to the top.

I just don't like her mainly because of her need to be so weird-extreme in order to get audience attention....but do agree she's pushed hard to get to the top, and has talents...maybe not as a great singer or player...but as an entertainer, for sure.

But I guess weird-extreme is her shtick.
I just wonder how she would do if she just got up and sang, without the weird-extream...but when something works, then you stick to it, I guess.
There have been other artists (Alice Copper comes to mind, and Marilyn Manson) who based their entire careers on weird-extreme.
Maybe I'm just more of a traditional musician, and prefer to let the music, the song, take the light...unless of course you are also a world-class singer/player, in which case your performance also takes the spotlight along with the music...
...but doing Theatre of the Absurd just to sell the music....mmmmm, not my cup-o-tea, though it can be entertaining to watch! :)

Yup Bowie as well....conjuring up controversial characters is nothing new, nor is it a sign of zero talent...its always been part of popular music


Luck did play a part in her success...she was handing in some music she'd written to the music company in NY where Kanye West had some involvement with (cant remember the full story), he heard her signing in the hall and suggested she record her own material...but without the talent she wouldnt have sounded good enough to do it, without the hard work she wouldnt have been in that office handing in work in the first place
 
As much as I love Bowie, he was a product of luck and just being in the right place at the right time too. If he didn't wiggle his way into Warhol's world, no one would ever know who he is.
 
Armistice,

"I don't know that I've ever heard Radio Birdman described as heavy metal before, more like Aus punk circa '75"

You could possibly be correct, but in the early/mid 1970's, bands would come into the studio with their Moody 60watt amps. Birdman came in with this wall of amplifiers and after setting up the mics, I asked them to play something (at that time I had not heard of them, so was unaware as to what was to come!!!!). Their first note, I think blew over the mic stands, cracked the bricks in the walls and I have been deaf ever since!!!!!!!!! Heavy metal or punk, I will let you decide.

Re sending a demo CD, at this time (mainly because I really do not like/understand the music genre --- I know I'm showing my age!!!!!) I am not really looking for a punk act, but if you want to send one (along with some bio material) please feel free to do so. If you apply the LUCK theory that has been raised a number of times in this topic's thread, you never know!!!!!!

David
 
Armistice,



You could possibly be correct, but in the early/mid 1970's, bands would come into the studio with their Moody 60watt amps. Birdman came in with this wall of amplifiers and after setting up the mics, I asked them to play something (at that time I had not heard of them, so was unaware as to what was to come!!!!). Their first note, I think blew over the mic stands, cracked the bricks in the walls and I have been deaf ever since!!!!!!!!! Heavy metal or punk, I will let you decide.

Re sending a demo CD, at this time (mainly because I really do not like/understand the music genre --- I know I'm showing my age!!!!!) I am not really looking for a punk act, but if you want to send one (along with some bio material) please feel free to do so. If you apply the LUCK theory that has been raised a number of times in this topic's thread, you never know!!!!!!

David

Cool... trust me, I ain't punk!
 
As much as I love Bowie, he was a product of luck and just being in the right place at the right time too. If he didn't wiggle his way into Warhol's world, no one would ever know who he is.

Mmmm...Bowie wasn't really a Warhol product AFA as I recall....maybe you're thinking of someone else?

What broke Bowie out was "Space Oddity", and then the emergence of his "Ziggy Stardust" persona which was influenced by Iggy Pop and Lou Reed.
He then reinvented himself again after that with the androgynous phase, and broke the Glam Rock genre.....etc...etc...
Bowie was on the leading edge of several genres and is credited with pretty much inventing them.
I don't belive he had any real direct/ongoing influence from Warhol.

I was heavily into Bowie's music for many years...from Space Oddity to out past the Let's Dance stuff.
I haven't really listened to a lot of his music after that other than occasionally hearing a new tune from time to time.
 
I don't belive he had any real direct/ongoing influence from Warhol.

Well - I agree with you that he wasn't a factory product - but Bowie made no bones about saying Warhol was his 'greatest inspiration' back at the start. I mean come on there's an homage to him called 'Andy Warhol' on Hunky Dory for gods sakes :0)
 
Back in his art school days, Warhol was an inspiration....but my point was that Bowie didn't become famous because of Warhol, and while Warhol had his hand in some artists' careers, he did not in Bowie's...which is what I meant when I said he didn't get any direct/ongoing influence from Warhol.

Apparently, Warhol hated that song and the two didn't have much to say to each other..... :D
 
...I'm not being baited into a meaningless debate about Bowie with you. Peace brother.

:facepalm: ;)

It's nothing to do with "bait"...just a discussion. :D
If your read some different account...I'm curious what it is...?
Apart from his art school Warhol "insprirations"...I don't recall that Warhol made/broke Bowie in the music world. Bowie did that on his own.

The way you wrote it..."If he didn't wiggle his way into Warhol's world, no one would ever know who he is."...it sounds like you are saying Warhol brought Bowie to the music world and listening public, which isn't the case.
The two didn't have any ongoing/long-term art-related contact, but again, if you have some sources to the contrary, I would like to read it. I was a big Bowie fan from the early '70s, so that stuff would interest me.

On the other hand, if you are simply saying that without the Warhol inspiration, Bowie would never have come up with the music that he did...that could be debated, but I would agree that some of his avant-garde stuff may have been different or not happened, though I also do think everyone has their own talent even if someone else initially "inspires" them.
Bowie, IMHO...is about 20 times more talented than Warhol ever was.
 
OK...but can you at least tell me the source of your info...?
I would love to read any kind of historic account of Bowie's rise in the music world.

The new book out by recording engineer Ken Scott - "From Abby Road to Ziggy Stardust" is on my list, but it will be mostly about the recording side of things.
 
I think it is all a matter of philosophy. I don't believe in luck as way to accomplish anything in life. What you might call luck, I call predestination. For example, you got lucky because this and that person discovered your music. But if you look carefully, this person was predestined to be discovered given the effort he made to write this or that song and to be at the right place at the right time. And like you said, talent has little to do with actually making it.

This argument that there are 1000's of much more skillful musicians out there and if a lesser musician makes it, he just got lucky, is completely false and maybe jaded. Nobody is going to put money, hard cash investment on an artist unless the investor thinks that he can make back his investment. If you look closely at a case by case basis as to why all those great musicians didn't make it you will quickly see that the list of failed attributes out weighed the risk to the investor. List attributes can be age, image, band makeup (e.g. drunk drummer), style, personality, dedication, motivation, flexibility, and of course the songs themselves.
 
I think it is all a matter of philosophy. I don't believe in luck as way to accomplish anything in life. What you might call luck, I call predestination. For example, you got lucky because this and that person discovered your music. But if you look carefully, this person was predestined to be discovered given the effort he made to write this or that song and to be at the right place at the right time. And like you said, talent has little to do with actually making it.

This argument that there are 1000's of much more skillful musicians out there and if a lesser musician makes it, he just got lucky, is completely false and maybe jaded. Nobody is going to put money, hard cash investment on an artist unless the investor thinks that he can make back his investment. If you look closely at a case by case basis as to why all those great musicians didn't make it you will quickly see that the list of failed attributes out weighed the risk to the investor. List attributes can be age, image, band makeup (e.g. drunk drummer), style, personality, dedication, motivation, flexibility, and of course the songs themselves.

“I'm a greater believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it” --Thomas Jefferson (or Stephen Leacock, depending on what source you believe)

In other words, the more I work at what I'm pursuing, the more I'll be ready to jump on that sweet opportunity when it presents itself. Others will say it's luck, I'll say it's skill. But the bottom line is that more often than not, success equals luck plus skill.
 
Not to get too hung up on semantics, but what you're describing as predestination, I would describe as preparation. Predestination means "hand of God" or whatever, and if he's deciding who makes it and who doesn't, then he's a clueless bastard... Same goes with fate, karma et al, and the various other spins you could put on the word...
 
I've heard bad things about Autism Speaks (e.g. People with autism aren't allowed to speak at their conferences.) You may want to do some research in who you cut that check to.

I did some research on this. You're right. Autism Speaks/Cure Autism Now, while I'm sure they're a decent charity, don't seem to jive with what I think an autism charity should be focused on. It's really semantics and point-of-view. They generally treat autism as a disease and feel it should be eradicated from the planet. That's probably a good idea in regards to kids not even born yet. But that doesn't do anything for the people that already have to deal with autism on a daily basis. "Curing", as if they're broken, an autistic person would involve completely changing who they are. I'm of the opinion that high-functioning autistics can be valuable and productive members of society if the non-autistics of the world were better informed and less ignorant. Anyway, so I think I found a few that are more focused on helping people with autism and less focused on exterminating autism and/or people with autism.

This one looks pretty good....
About ASAN | Autistic Self Advocacy Network
 
It's been seen over and over again, that talent of any kind is NOT the first or foremost commodity necessary to board the *success* train...although to possess talent helps to keep you on the ride. You do however, need the ability to sell yourself to someone who beleives in you..then ya gotta know someone in a position to make your dream/goal a reality.

I think talent and skills teeter a fine line of being one and the same. To me, talents are natural abilities you are *born* with..and skills, abilities you've had to *learn*...either way, if passion for what you do isn't there, you'll lose interest and so will those watching/listening to you.

Drive, persistance and self confidence to hang in there when people boo, laugh, discourage or mislead is a must, no matter how intraverted one is. Being an extrovert is a plus, but isn't always necessary..having a sidekick to *push* us into the spotlight can work well. Sonny and Cher a good example of this. Cher has said that Sonny gave her the courage to step out in the spotlight and do what she did. She developed courage of her own along the way to perform on her own when they split.

The point is...Cher had both talent and the ability to learn even more skills. She had someone who believed in her and encouraged her to believe in herself..and they made that connection with the right sources to become household, then worldwide personalities. Cher went on her own using her natural talents, with skills learned to succeed without Sonny at her side.

Luck, predestination, talent, skills?...they all intertwine somewhere along the way.

I believe one very important ability to have, is recognizing opportunity when it crosses your path. Making sure your talents/skills/confidence are honed and ready for that moment is an ongoing thing and you really can't have one without the other.
 
I did some research on this. You're right. Autism Speaks/Cure Autism Now, while I'm sure they're a decent charity, don't seem to jive with what I think an autism charity should be focused on. It's really semantics and point-of-view. They generally treat autism as a disease and feel it should be eradicated from the planet. That's probably a good idea in regards to kids not even born yet. But that doesn't do anything for the people that already have to deal with autism on a daily basis. "Curing", as if they're broken, an autistic person would involve completely changing who they are. I'm of the opinion that high-functioning autistics can be valuable and productive members of society if the non-autistics of the world were better informed and less ignorant. Anyway, so I think I found a few that are more focused on helping people with autism and less focused on exterminating autism and/or people with autism.

This one looks pretty good....
About ASAN | Autistic Self Advocacy Network

Yup, that looks far more like its focused in helping those all ready struggling with it. They probably get far less funding too...Autism Speaks is huge
 
Yup, that looks far more like its focused in helping those all ready struggling with it. They probably get far less funding too...Autism Speaks is huge

Yeah, I think I'm gonna go with ASAN. They have a Houston chapter. I'm gonna talk to the head honcho of the Houston chapter and see what's up.
 
Back
Top