Function band vs integrity ramblings

[endorka]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='215325' date='Jun 9 2008, 11:48 AM']There are many examples of musicians staking their own claims to integrity over those of others (HM, I know, is full of these people) but, the minute one starts to change your art in order to increase its market value, you are compromised. There are many musicians who didn't and don't; Thelonious Monk, John Coltrane, Olivier Messiaen etc[/quote]

While I would not for a moment doubt the wonder, integrity and motivation of Messiaen, even he had a long term residency playing organ in a cathedral. Perhaps he would have had to bang out the odd tune he found somewhat on the naive or simplistic side. Maybe he even had to do requests? :-)

I really don't think this matter is as simple as many make out. Presumably even Messiaen had to eat while his art found its way into the world... without him eating, it would never have been made in the first place.

Jennifer

[P-T-P]

Surely to lay claim to true artistic integrity, every time you play it should involve:

1. Only playing because you feel like playing
2. Only playing what you feel like playing
3. Only playing something entirely unique
4. Only playing as an outlet for whatever it is inside you that you feel the compulsion to express through art
5. Only playing solo
6. Only playing while abandoning all rules and conventions.

Stray away from any of those and you're compromising your artistic integrity in some way, shape or form.

1 and 2 shouldn't need any explanation.

3. If you're playing something that already existed, no matter how new an angle you approach it from, you are merely an interpreter, not an artist. Even if you created the original, you're merely repeating what's already been done. You're your own greatest hits tribute band.

4. If you are playing for any other reason, then you are seeking to gain something or achieve something, be it money, kudos, applause. That is not art.

5. If you are playing with other musicians, unless you play utterly independent of what the others are playing, you are compromised as an artist. As soon as you lock into a groove with the drummer, link up with someone else's chord sequence or whatever, your work is dependent on the input of others.

6. In the purest sense, that means you're screwed as soon as you hit a note, but I'll take it as read that the medium itself, bass playing, is acceptable. What I mean is, as soon as you conciously start to use particular scales, arpeggios, keys etc. you're are effectively putting a boundary around your art. If it isn't utterly free expression, it isn't true art.

In short, I'm with whoever it was mentioned craftsmanship. That's all any of us are really. Artistic integrity is an ideal.

Anyone who claims to have it is really just trying to make themselves feel better about the fact that while their craftsmanship may be far superior to a lot of us, it doesn't stop lesser mortals from earning similar or more cash/praise by virtue of the fact that the big bad world, in large part, likes their art in bitesize, easy to comprehend, 3 minute chunks.

If anything I've said is causing a little spring of bile to well up in you, you need to get over it.

It's the way of the world, sometimes the most brilliantly thought out ideas are beaten out by the simplest.

I'll always happily acknowledge and respect those with greater ability than me, but I'd like to think they would be humble enough not to require me to do so and even more that they wouldn't be so conceited as to need to attach a false claim such as artistic integrity to add greater importance to what they do.

Edited June 10, 2008 by P-T-P

[Sean]

^^^^^^+1000^^^^^^^^


[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='215866' date='Jun 10 2008, 12:52 AM']going on tour with Take That are not artistic endeavours, they are purely commercial.[/quote]


I'd sell my Granny to camel herders to go on tour with Take That!

Edited June 10, 2008 by Sean

[Sean]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='215866' date='Jun 10 2008, 12:52 AM']I mean I sure as hell wouldn't play Mustang Sally for anyone, but that's just having standards.[/quote]

What if you were invited to jam with one of your heroes and it just so happened that the song chosen was Mustang Sally? Extreme example but just say...

Edited June 10, 2008 by Sean

[wateroftyne]

Make a choice!

a ) Work 9-5 in a call centre, or Dixons, or summat

b ) Tour the world, playing bass with with Take That

If you choose a), you're a freak. Really.

Edited June 10, 2008 by wateroftyne

[dave_bass5]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='215789' date='Jun 9 2008, 10:24 PM']but I bet that's more than off-set by having to put up with a tosser like Jay Kay on a daily basis.[/quote]


LOL. that killed me.

Couldn't agree more though.

Just wanted to comment on the Take that, BO debate.
while i agree the idea of boy bands isnt a good one (to me) i think the actual music behind the vocals was and is very good.
I bet Paul was happy doing the MD stuff and being happy is what counts isnt it?

Edited June 10, 2008 by dave_bass5

[teen t-shirt]

Amen!! Dave_Bass5

i completely agree with your last statement...

if your happy doing what your doing then no matter what it is "integrity" shouldn't get in the way...

i'd be happy playing anything because of my love for bass i'll take any excuse to play on my own to a backing track or live...

but then thats just my oppinion...

[Jase]

[quote name='Sean' post='215891' date='Jun 10 2008, 07:47 AM']What if you were invited to jam with one of your heroes and it just so happened that the song chosen was Mustang Sally? Extreme example but just say...[/quote]

I'd be there...like a babbling fool, playing utter nonsense, forgetting everything I ever learned (like you do when trying a bass out in a shop)

[Bilbo]

[quote name='chris_b' post='215649' date='Jun 9 2008, 07:42 PM']This is why you don't have any integrity and why I believe your opinion on the integrity of others is irrelevant.

You took a gig you knew you were going to hate. You were disparaging about the audience, the venue, the other musicians and the numbers you played. You probably smiled at everyone while you were despising them and I bet you didn't refuse to take the money! Yet you seem to think you have integrity!!

With such a vitriolic attitude towards other players, it beats me why you want to play a musical instrument at all![/quote]

I appear to have offended you. That was not my intention. I think you have misinterpreted my perspectives on that gig (and the dramatic licence added for effect) and I feel that I shoudl respond.

I have acknowledged at least half a dozen times here that my decisions re: gigs indicate that, in my mind, I have little or no integrity - my reasons for arguing FOR some degree of integrity revolve around the fact that it is a trait I envy and feel that I should aspire to. I do not make my points from a position of authority or superiority.

I fail to see how I could be accsued of being disparaging to the audience at the yacht club - that would appear to be an interpretation on your part for which I can't be held responsible. The nature of the venue was unknown to me until I arrived and its astonishingly boomy nature may have contributed significantly to the poor playing (it is difficult to play properly when you collectively sound awful and can't really hear the detail in your colleagues playing). I said the music was poor not the musicians; the people involved are nice people; that is a completely different point. My Dad was a lovely guy but I'd never have booked him as a drummer!

And, yes, I did take the money - I did my job for the alloted time, incurred expenses for travel etc and the bandleader was perfectly happy wih my work - I wasn't. As for smiling - sorry, but I had a face like a slapped a*** all night.

Oh, an if it makes you feel any better, the drummer was the same guy on both gigs and someone who I have played with twice a week for the last four years. He also knows the difference between a diamond and a dog.

[Bilbo]

[quote name='P-T-P' post='215878' date='Jun 10 2008, 02:16 AM']6. In the purest sense, that means you're screwed as soon as you hit a note,[/quote]



One thing that does intrigue me here, and I know this is a Bass forum, is the passion people have for 'playing bass'. I have invested 28 years in the instrument and, like many of us, have a love/hate relationship with the thing but, I have to say, it is the music that I love playing, not the bass. As I said earlier, a great bass line only works in a great piece of music. It has no intrinsic value on its own.

as for playing Mustang Sally with John Scofield? Ok - but just the once. And only for money

[queenofthedepths]

[quote name='P-T-P' post='215878' date='Jun 10 2008, 02:16 AM']Surely to lay claim to true artistic integrity, every time you play it should involve:

1. Only playing because you feel like playing
2. Only playing what you feel like playing
3. Only playing something entirely unique
4. Only playing as an outlet for whatever it is inside you that you feel the compulsion to express through art
5. Only playing solo
6. Only playing while abandoning all rules and conventions.

Stray away from any of those and you're compromising your artistic integrity in some way, shape or form.

1 and 2 shouldn't need any explanation.

3. If you're playing something that already existed, no matter how new an angle you approach it from, you are merely an interpreter, not an artist. Even if you created the original, you're merely repeating what's already been done. You're your own greatest hits tribute band.

4. If you are playing for any other reason, then you are seeking to gain something or achieve something, be it money, kudos, applause. That is not art.

5. If you are playing with other musicians, unless you play utterly independent of what the others are playing, you are compromised as an artist. As soon as you lock into a groove with the drummer, link up with someone else's chord sequence or whatever, your work is dependent on the input of others.

6. In the purest sense, that means you're screwed as soon as you hit a note, but I'll take it as read that the medium itself, bass playing, is acceptable. What I mean is, as soon as you conciously start to use particular scales, arpeggios, keys etc. you're are effectively putting a boundary around your art. If it isn't utterly free expression, it isn't true art.[/quote]

I take it that the consensus definition of "artistic integrity" is being devoted to your art and not selling it short to pursue other goals? You've agreed that craftsmanship isn't the same as art, but I think it's also important to recognise that craftsmanship is completely necessary in order to express your art - if you can't play bass, how can you create music on it?
1. Some of us, when we don't feel like playing, still force ourselves to practise, in order that we don't let our craftsmanship slip and so let down our art
2. And some of the time, we also need to play something we don't like, such as some exercises or learning scales... and what if your main income is from a function band - assuming you NEED the money to live, do you rob a bank, sell your basses or get up there and play Lady in Red? You might not enjoy doing the latter, but you have to make a sacrifice for your art, and if you place your personal tastes before the need to carry on making music, I don't think you have any integrity
3. I just don't agree with that at all... I don't like Mark Ronson, but I think he's still an artist!
4. If your primary reason for playing is to make money or to be popular or whatever, you don't have artistic integrity, no... if you accept these as useful asides, great!
5. We are humans, and we work together - we also rely on a lot of other outside factors, such as our equipment and also the context in which our art is perceived... personally, I think that for the purpose of creating art, the whole world is an extension of the artist and everything has its input
6. Back to the point about making sacrifices for art, you're not doing your art any favours if you spend your whole life developing a unique musical instrument (no strings, coz basses already have them, no material construction, coz basses are already made of matter...) to play it on - as my previous point said, there are loads of outside factors which influence art, such as music theory and the invention of the basses that I use

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='215901' date='Jun 10 2008, 08:29 AM']Make a choice!

a ) Work 9-5 in a call centre, or Dixons, or summat

b ) Tour the world, playing bass with with Take That

If you choose a), you're a freak. Really.[/quote]
+1 You also have no artistic integrity unless you choose to play bass! Or would someone care to disagree with that?

[Wooks]

Whilst living in Germany I had the honour to run a Rock music webzine and part of that was to go to gigs and do interviews with bands etc. And from my experience I met a lot of talented musicians who are playing their own original material and they weren't making any money from doing so, in fact a lot of them ran at a loss all for the sake of playing their own material, and in some cases hating doing so!!!
Having spoken to various band members over the years they all say the same, there are songs on the setlist which they love and can't wait to play and others that they look down at the setlist and think a f**k not that song for 25th time this tour, I wish we dropped it. But because "the fans love that track" it stays in the list. So it's case of swings and roundabouts. On the other hand too I've spoken to bands and they absolutley love the chance to play "covers" during their set just add a different element to their show, and in some cases they have actually done a better job than the original!!
A prime example of integrity is in this months Bass Guitar mag, there's an interview with a ladieee bass player Grog, from Die So Fluid, (I've never heard of them myself), but she had the opportunity to play for Kylie, she was invited twice by Kylie's musical director to play and blew him out both times because she wanted to devote her time to her band this year. Which shows a lot of guts, but some may say that she is stupid because she probably threw away a sh*t load of cash in the process which she admits to have done.
The way I look and think is that you have to way up the fact that yeah integrity maybe good for the soul and give you a warm fuzzy feeling but it doesn't keep a roof over your head and pay the bills. I've seen too many good musicians hit the wall and have to call it a day professionally and are only able to play their music as a hobby like a lot of us out here are doing.

[dave_bass5]

[quote name='Wooks' post='216000' date='Jun 10 2008, 11:04 AM']both times because she wanted to devote her time to her band this year. Which shows a lot of guts, but some may say that she is stupid because she probably threw away a sh*t load of cash in the process which she admits to have done.[/quote]

Agreed but she did what she felt was right and enjoyed.

I play in functions band because its what i like and enjoy.

Same thing. just because i dont write songs any more doenst mean im doing something im not happy with.

The title of this thread seems to imply that you can do covers or have integrity. IMO you can do both.



Cant wait till part 2 of this thread :-) Might be the longest thread yet.

[P-T-P]

[quote name='queenofthedepths' post='215983' date='Jun 10 2008, 10:46 AM']I take it that the consensus definition of "artistic integrity" is being devoted to your art and not selling it short to pursue other goals? You've agreed that craftsmanship isn't the same as art, but I think it's also important to recognise that craftsmanship is completely necessary in order to express your art - if you can't play bass, how can you create music on it?
1. Some of us, when we don't feel like playing, still force ourselves to practise, in order that we don't let our craftsmanship slip and so let down our art
2. And some of the time, we also need to play something we don't like, such as some exercises or learning scales... and what if your main income is from a function band - assuming you NEED the money to live, do you rob a bank, sell your basses or get up there and play Lady in Red? You might not enjoy doing the latter, but you have to make a sacrifice for your art, and if you place your personal tastes before the need to carry on making music, I don't think you have any integrity
3. I just don't agree with that at all... I don't like Mark Ronson, but I think he's still an artist!
4. If your primary reason for playing is to make money or to be popular or whatever, you don't have artistic integrity, no... if you accept these as useful asides, great!
5. We are humans, and we work together - we also rely on a lot of other outside factors, such as our equipment and also the context in which our art is perceived... personally, I think that for the purpose of creating art, the whole world is an extension of the artist and everything has its input
6. Back to the point about making sacrifices for art, you're not doing your art any favours if you spend your whole life developing a unique musical instrument (no strings, coz basses already have them, no material construction, coz basses are already made of matter...) to play it on - as my previous point said, there are loads of outside factors which influence art, such as music theory and the invention of the basses that I use[/quote]

Remember, what I'm talking about is artistic integrity in it's purest form because I think it's only if someone has such an unsullied level of integrity that they can justifiably point to the rest of us and say we have no artistic integrity.

1. Practice is different to playing, in the context of artistic integrity. I probably should have used "performing" and/or "creating" instead of "playing." Thought there's an argument to be made that by practising you run the risk of getting in the way of being truly creative with your self-expression; for example by playing something just because you can, rather than because it's what you feel.

2. I don't disagree with this at all. This is what many of us here do to some degree or other. However my original point was addressed to those whose self-importance leads them to look down on those who do the function band thing.

3. Loads of respect due to Mark Ronson, but in the context of true artistic integrity, he's a covers act.

4. Yup, but as soon as there's any hint that you are performing/creating as a response to anything which might could be construed as a request to do so, that pure artistic integrity is gone.

5. In the broadest sense yes, art is self-expression and as such is bound to be affected by the artist's place in the world and what they see/hear/feel/taste etc. However, what I was referring to was ensemble playing. True self-expression, in an artistic sense, can only be diluted by the direct involvement of others in its creation.

6. The more you can free yourself from convention though, the more your art gets closer to the idyll of genuine self-expression.

There's nothing wrong with aspiring to be a true artist.

Nothing wrong with wishing you didn't have to play certain tunes.

Nothing wrong with having personal values you stick to in relation to your playing.

There's everything wrong with applying your personal playing values to others. Everything wrong with being a snob about tunes you don't like and ascribing greater value or importance to ones that you do, whatever your reasoning.

One man's art is another man's corned beef hash, is one woman's chapstick and another woman's swan.

Edited June 10, 2008 by P-T-P

[Bilbo]

[quote name='dave_bass5' post='216008' date='Jun 10 2008, 11:15 AM']The title of this thread seems to imply that you can do covers or have integrity. IMO you can do both.[/quote]

I absolutely agree that you can do covers and have integrity. Because of MY value base (which isn't any more or less valid than anyone elses), and because of my musical life experiences to date, I am not altogether sure that [i]I[/i] can. Not any more.

[tauzero]

[quote name='Huggy and the Bears' post='212338' date='Jun 4 2008, 10:12 AM']I tend to think of playing your own stuff as 'the good life' ie Tom and Barbara - if you can manage that lifestyle, I think you have it made[/quote]
Does that include shagging Felicity Kendall?

Dammit, I think I'm channelling tBBC.

[tauzero]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='215302' date='Jun 9 2008, 11:23 AM']I'm talking about artistic integrity: Refusing to play something bloody awful because it's bloody awful and you would be ashamed to take part in it.[/quote]
If originals musicians had the sort of artistic integrity that you are defining, I'd have been subjected to far less sh*t music over the years and 90% of local bands would cease to be.

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='tauzero' post='216264' date='Jun 10 2008, 03:46 PM']Does that include shagging Felicity Kendall?

Dammit, I think I'm channelling tBBC.[/quote]

I've always had the fantasy of Felicity Kendall AND Penelope Keith - whilst Richard Briers just watches.

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='tauzero' post='216276' date='Jun 10 2008, 04:04 PM']If originals musicians had the sort of artistic integrity that you are defining, I'd have been subjected to far less sh*t music over the years and 90% of local bands would cease to be.[/quote]

So that would be a bad thing?

Sod it, I've set myself up as the villain of this thread, I might as well play it with as much moustache-twirling as I can muster.

When someone brought up Take That and Boyzone earlier, all I could think about was how much they shouldn't be allowed to exist. So one of this bloke's favourite bassists toured with them - that does not make them acceptable! And as for Paul Turner, I can only assume he'll play anything if the money's right. To me that says nothing positive about his artistic integrity. Would you expect someone like Kim Deal or Mike Watt to turn up touring with 'N Sync? Not likely, because they aren't pathetic sell-out chumps.

[dave_bass5]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='216309' date='Jun 10 2008, 05:07 PM']Would you expect someone like Kim Deal or Mike Watt to turn up touring with 'N Sync? Not likely, because they aren't pathetic sell-out chumps.[/quote]

so your saying the Kim or mike dont like 'N sync's music then?

[john_the_bass]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='216309' date='Jun 10 2008, 05:07 PM']So that would be a bad thing?

Sod it, I've set myself up as the villain of this thread, I might as well play it with as much moustache-twirling as I can muster.

When someone brought up Take That and Boyzone earlier, all I could think about was how much they shouldn't be allowed to exist. So one of this bloke's favourite bassists toured with them - that does not make them acceptable! And as for Paul Turner, I can only assume he'll play anything if the money's right. To me that says nothing positive about his artistic integrity. Would you expect someone like Kim Deal or Mike Watt to turn up touring with 'N Sync? Not likely, because they aren't pathetic sell-out chumps.[/quote]

Yes but if you look at it from the point of view that playing for Take That or Boyzone might be the worst musical decision ever made, the doors that it could open for said bass player, not to mention the fact that they would be playing in front of big audiences is them doing their "right thing" - which I still say maintains your own integrity.

I'd go and play for fecking Boyzone if it meant playing to those audiences, having me own tech, tourbus, opportunity to go onto to bigger and better things, as opposed to playing in some basement sh*tehole to 3 people and a barman. The last originals gig I played, last month I think, they shut the bar in the end because it was costing them more to keep it open. It's just bloody demoralising

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='dave_bass5' post='216313' date='Jun 10 2008, 05:10 PM']so your saying the Kim or mike dont like 'N sync's music then?[/quote]

Neither of them are 11-year-old girls, so I'd say it's pretty unlikely. What's to like about their music? Either it's completely soulless by-the-numbers chart-fodder garbage or I've somehow missed all the critically-acclaimed work that you're referring to.

[quote name='john_the_bass' post='216324' date='Jun 10 2008, 05:23 PM']I'd go and play for fecking Boyzone[/quote]

I wouldn't.

Edited June 10, 2008 by thisnameistaken

[dave_bass5]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='216326' date='Jun 10 2008, 05:24 PM']Neither of them are 11-year-old girls, so I'd say it's pretty unlikely. What's to like about their music? Either it's completely soulless by-the-numbers chart-fodder garbage or I've somehow missed all the critically-acclaimed work that you're referring to.[/quote]


Now you see, your not being objective by assuming only 11 year old girls like that sort of thing so that puts your views in to perspective to me.
I'll not argue them but ill not take any notice of them either.

[queenofthedepths]

[quote name='dave_bass5' post='216369' date='Jun 10 2008, 07:01 PM']I'll not argue them but ill not take any notice of them either.[/quote]
Isn't that a bit rude? You're going to ignore his argument without even telling him where he went wrong?!

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='dave_bass5' post='216369' date='Jun 10 2008, 07:01 PM']Now you see, your not being objective by assuming only 11 year old girls like that sort of thing so that puts your views in to perspective to me.
I'll not argue them but ill not take any notice of them either.[/quote]

I lost patience with objectivity when manufactured teen bands came into the discussion. I will not position myself as a Take That apologist even for the purposes of objectivity, they suck in the worst possible way and they should all be put to death.

It seems you're content to say nothing for fear of upsetting a few people. I like to think of myself as a musician, and so if I don't loudly and proudly object to mediocre dross like Take That then nobody will.

[quote name='queenofthedepths' post='216374' date='Jun 10 2008, 07:10 PM']Isn't that a bit rude? You're going to ignore his argument without even telling him where he went wrong?![/quote]

He's told me exactly what his issue with my argument is, so that's fine.