The heretic thread approved by Roger Sadowsky or For those who pretend tone doesn't come from wood...

[4000]

1 hour ago, Stub Mandrel said:

 

That's why most hugely successful bands have producers like George Martin, Rick Rubin, Phil Spector and Pete Waterman to do the tweaking 🙂

Indeed.
 

‘Being successful’ (in the context of being popular and making money) shouldn’t factor into artistic decisions, unless that’s what you’re aiming for. I’d be lying if I said It wouldn’t be nice to have millions of people love what you do and for you to make loads of money out of it, but once again that is an entirely secondary consideration and - for me at least - has no bearing whatsoever on the creative process. 

[Al Krow]

1 hour ago, 4000 said:

Indeed.
 

‘Being successful’ (in the context of being popular and making money) shouldn’t factor into artistic decisions, unless that’s what you’re aiming for. I’d be lying if I said It wouldn’t be nice to have millions of people love what you do and for you to make loads of money out of it, but once again that is an entirely secondary consideration and - for me at least - has no bearing whatsoever on the creative process. 

Being a mediocre covers bass player, you'll need to please bear with my lack of an artist's perspective, but if what your audiences think has no bearing on your art, why "inflict" it on them? Why not just create something and enjoy the process and the outcome and keep your art to yourself? Or do you actually, deep down, want others to enjoy it too and you appreciate their reaction when one of your creations is positively received? What is your motivation for being a live musician? 

 

For me, the greatest artists throughout history from Leonardo to Shakespeare to Beethoven, and beyond, were all mindful of their patrons and their audiences. It didn't stop them creating some of the most beautiful art which will continue to echo down time - being appreciated not just by the audiences of their day but but also by each and every succeeding generation. 

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Al Krow

[4000]

1 hour ago, Al Krow said:

Being a mediocre covers bass player, you'll need to please bear with my lack of an artist's perspective, but if what your audiences think has no bearing on your art, why "inflict" it on them? Why not just create something and enjoy the process and the outcome and keep your art to yourself? Or do you actually, deep down, want others to enjoy it too and you appreciate their reaction when one of your creations is positively received? What is your motivation for being a live musician? 

 

For me, the greatest artists throughout history from Leonardo to Shakespeare to Beethoven, and beyond, were all mindful of their patrons and their audiences. It didn't stop them creating some of the most beautiful art which will continue to echo down time - being appreciated not just by the audiences of their day but but also by each and every succeeding generation. 

 

I’ve already answered the above; see previous posts and please read them thoroughly. 😉
 

I think you’re continually missing my point. My point is that what the audience wants has no bearing on the creative process, and that I will present them with what I want to present them with, on my terms, not theirs, and be measured by that. If they accept it, great. If they reject it, fine, but it won’t be changed as a result. 

[Dan Dare]

5 minutes ago, 4000 said:

I’ve already answered the above; see previous posts and please read them thoroughly. 😉
 

I think you’re continually missing my point. My point is that what the audience wants has no bearing on the creative process, and that I will present them with what I want to present them with, on my terms, not theirs, and be measured by that. If they accept it, great. If they reject it, fine, but it won’t be changed as a result. 

 

Perhaps you don't need to worry about making a living. Do you adopt the same stance with what earns your daily bread and tell your employer that they are getting what you  choose to give them whether they like it or not?

[4000]

Also, why have you stated that you’re “a mediocre covers player”, as if I’ve somehow implied I’m somehow above that? It just doesn’t interest me.
 

Why do some people who play covers automatically go into defensive mode whenever somebody who doesn’t play covers talks about being creative? 🙄

[4000]

9 minutes ago, Dan Dare said:

 

Perhaps you don't need to worry about making a living. Do you adopt the same stance with what earns your daily bread and tell your employer that they are getting what you  choose to give them whether they like it or not?

Utterly irrelevant. What’s that got to do with being creative? Have you actually read my posts? 

Edited November 18, 2021 by 4000

[peteb]

On 17/11/2021 at 15:06, Al Krow said:

 

I think the difference in outlook is driven by what we're both seeking to do musically. I play in covers bands and we're paid by pub landlords to bring in punters off the street and keep hold of the ones already there to increase bar sales, or to help get a birthday party or wedding bash going. So, yup, what we do is completely driven by audiences' "utterly random and disagreeing priorities". We love playing together and the set lists we do and if our audiences are really enjoying themselves that makes for a great night for us. The fact we get paid (sometimes very handsomely for function gigs) for enjoying our musical passion, is icing on the cake. And because we are paid, we have to be mindful of our customers. 

 

If you're an "artist", which I certainly don't claim to be, then caring more for your art and less about what the audience thinks is much more understandable and, of course, your prerogative. 

 

Absolutely, all great artists are aware of how their art will be perceived by their audience. Indeed, the whole point of art is to get an emotional response from the punter. Equally, most great musicians are aware of an element of performance to their art – from Mozart to Louis Armstrong to Jimi Hendrix. This doesn’t necessarily mean just ‘giving the audience what they want’, but you should be looking at the way that your music affects the audience. 

 

Unfortunately, here on good old Basschat, there seem to be people (on both sides) that think these two elements of being a musician are mutually exclusive. 

 

Any musician, even a “mediocre covers bass player”, should aspire to be an artist to at least some extent. Playing covers is a perfectly legitimate thing for any musician (be it playing the sexy fire song at the Dog & Duck or Beethoven’s fifth for the London Philharmonic). The art comes in how you curate your covers set and how you present your performance, of which a small part is how you develop your own tone. 

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by peteb

[Stub Mandrel]

42 minutes ago, 4000 said:

Why do some people who play covers automatically go into defensive mode whenever somebody who doesn’t play covers talks about being creative? 🙄

 

Perhaps because you framed playing covers as a creativity-free process of mimicking someone else.

 

If that's true neither Jacqueline du Pre or  Paul Robeson were creative artists.

[4000]

1 hour ago, Stub Mandrel said:

 

Perhaps because you framed playing covers as a creativity-free process of mimicking someone else.

 

If that's true neither Jacqueline du Pre or  Paul Robeson were creative artists.

Did I really?🤔

 

Of course it is perfectly to possible to bring your own thing to covers - many great artists have done exactly that, as per your examples - but most cover bands I’ve ever seen in my 58 years don’t, at least by design. And of course that’s perfectly valid, as most of their audiences may not thank them if they did. 😉 Regardless, playing covers wasn’t the issue I was commenting on in my initial posts, which I thought was pretty obvious.
 

Again, there seems to be some implication that because I may have stated/implied that playing covers isn’t typically creative in the same way that writing, recording and performing original material is it’s in some way inferior, which I haven’t stated at any point. To me that smacks more of personal insecurities than anything else. 

 

I still get the impression that when you start talking ‘art’, some people immediately seem to start feeling like they’re being talked down to, which isn’t the case at all. But just like someone playing covers is perfectly entitled to their reasons for doing what they do, I’m equally entitled to have my reasons for doing what I do and I’ve already stated those several times. 
 

 

“Here Kate, I reckon the second side of Hounds of Love goes on a bit, and I don’t like the way it’s recorded, it’s a bit too reverb-y”. “No problem Ted from Wigan, I’ll re-write the 2nd side just for you - have you any specific suggestions? - and I’ll try and take a bit of reverb off when I re-record it”.  Does that get my point across better?😉😂

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by 4000

[Dan Dare]

3 hours ago, 4000 said:

Utterly irrelevant. What’s that got to do with being creative? Have you actually read my posts? 

 

So the answer to my first question is that you don't? "Creative" is an over-used word these days. In my experience, people who use it a lot tend not to be all that "creative". I have indeed read your posts. You sound quite impressed with yourself.

[ped]

4 minutes ago, Dan Dare said:

 

So the answer to my first question is that you don't? "Creative" is an over-used word these days. In my experience, people who use it a lot tend not to be all that "creative". I have indeed read your posts. You sound quite impressed with yourself.

No need to get nasty

 

Personally I totally agree with @4000  like I said, 99.9% of the audience don’t know what’s good for them, in the nicest way possible. But they like it when stuff sounds good. What sounds good is the band as a whole when they’re on form. People play in form when they’re happy with their sound and motivated to play. 
 

Other people don’t give a toss and just want to play. 
 

Some people even play rickenbackers. 
 

And for the record I should think Roger knows what he’s on about and has more hands on knowledge than anyone here, and I don’t think he’s making it up to sell more. I don’t think he needs to. 

[StickyDBRmf]

I prefer driftwood basses pre-soaked before performance in seawater from whence it was harvested. And brass hardware (corrosion issues).

[Stub Mandrel]

I think it's fair to say that anyone who plays in a genre is having some thought about the audience. Just because the audience may not appreciate the minutiae of pickup impedance doesnt mean they don't have some shared appreciation of aspects of music.

 

But art? In my experience art for arts sake tends towards intellectual masturbation. The fundamental purpose of art is either ritual or social. The aim is to create an emotional reaction in the recipient,  whether deity, critic or the woman in the street. Ultimately to have any worth true art, and perhaps music most of all, is transactional.

[BreadBin]

22 minutes ago, ped said:

No need to get nasty

 

Personally I totally agree with @4000  like I said, 99.9% of the audience don’t know what’s good for them, in the nicest way possible.

I was at a gig recently, the sound was terrible because the bass and guitar were too loud and had too much going on in the sub frequencies. Everyone there kept asking them to turn up because they couldn't hear properly thus confirming the above.

[Al Krow]

3 hours ago, 4000 said:

Also, why have you stated that you’re “a mediocre covers player”, as if I’ve somehow implied I’m somehow above that? It just doesn’t interest me.
Why do some people who play covers automatically go into defensive mode whenever somebody who doesn’t play covers talks about being creative? 🙄

 

Errr...simply because that's how I would currently rate myself. I certainly aspire to be a better player - but I'm not there yet.  Not being defensive at all, just realistic self-appraisal and certainly not prompted by anything you've implied. I could easily list off a bunch of fellow BC'ers (many on this thread) who are better bass players than me. Don't worry, it's ok I'm not feeling at all threatened just because you're self-identifying as being "creative"!

 

You've still not really addressed what your motivation for your art is, which was at the heart of my question - what is it about what you're doing that gives you a "buzz"? For me it's easy to articulate: playing tightly with my band to an audience who are loving the set and losing themselves in the music.

 

13 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

I think it's fair to say that anyone who plays in a genre is having some thought about the audience. Just because the audience may not appreciate the minutiae of pickup impedance doesn't mean they don't have some shared appreciation of aspects of music.

But art? In my experience art for arts sake tends towards intellectual masturbation. The fundamental purpose of art is either ritual or social. The aim is to create an emotional reaction in the recipient,  whether deity, critic or the woman in the street. Ultimately to have any worth true art, and perhaps music most of all, is transactional.

 

Mr Mandrel - that is very well put! 

[4000]

35 minutes ago, Dan Dare said:

 

So the answer to my first question is that you don't? "Creative" is an over-used word these days. In my experience, people who use it a lot tend not to be all that "creative". I have indeed read your posts. You sound quite impressed with yourself.

 

 

 

 

You’re reading between the lines and coming up with something that isn’t there. I’m not impressed with myself at all. I am to Kate Bush (to use my own example) far less than the tiniest micro-organism. All I believe in is my right - any artist’s right - to create and perform (in the case of music) whatever it is they’re creating on their own terms, which is all I’ve stated all along. 

 

FWIW I come from a fine art background, not an entertainment background. If some of the arguments put forward here were put forward to the majority of the painters, sculptors etc that I’ve ever known, they would laugh in your face. 
 

Oh and as I mentioned before, as soon as someone mentions ‘art’ or ‘creativity’ they start getting digs from people implying they’re probably actually a bit crap. Like you have. It doesn’t matter whether I’m good or crap as long as I’m doing something I enjoy on my terms. You want to try it some time. 😉

 

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by 4000

[4000]

27 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

I think it's fair to say that anyone who plays in a genre is having some thought about the audience. Just because the audience may not appreciate the minutiae of pickup impedance doesnt mean they don't have some shared appreciation of aspects of music.

 

But art? In my experience art for arts sake tends towards intellectual masturbation. The fundamental purpose of art is either ritual or social. The aim is to create an emotional reaction in the recipient,  whether deity, critic or the woman in the street. Ultimately to have any worth true art, and perhaps music most of all, is transactional.

Aa I’ve said several times now, I create music for me, end of. But as people do get to hear it (for whatever reason) it is ultimately transactional. That has no bearing however on the fact that I’m making it to essentially please myself. Do people on here really not grasp the concept of creating something for your own enjoyment? Is it really all just about pleasing a bunch of other people who likely disagree with each other? 

[4000]

On 17/11/2021 at 13:19, 4000 said:

Tell that to Chris Squire, Lemmy, JJB etc. 😉

 

Also as a songwriter and composer, an audience reaction is far less important to me than making sure I’m doing things how I want to do them. I don’t write or play for the audience, I write and play for me. If the audience likes it - which they generally seem to - that’s a bonus. If not, it doesn’t really bother me. And more to the point, I’m certainly not going to change what I do on their account. I write and play for the same reasons I paint, to fulfil a creative urge. A potential audience is utterly secondary. Of course your motivations may be different. But my point applies to recording too, not just live. At what point do you start tailoring your writing and recording to your audience? I’ve never considered that in 40 years of playing. 

 

With regards to the “bass is a bass” thing, as a portrait painter, if I’m painting a portrait of someone I want it to capture them. It just looking “like a person” is not the aim.😉

Al Krow - see my post above. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by 4000

[peteb]

2 hours ago, 4000 said:

“Here Kate, I reckon the second side of Hounds of Love goes on a bit, and I don’t like the way it’s recorded, it’s a bit too reverb-y”. “No problem Ted from Wigan, I’ll re-write the 2nd side just for you - have you any specific suggestions? - and I’ll try and take a bit of reverb off when I re-record it”.  Does that get my point across better?😉😂

 

 

You do undoubtedly have a point - it is for the artist to bring their vision to the masses, who may or may not like it. The better artists (including Ms Bush) to so in such a way that their audience will still be able to engage with it.

 

[4000]

1 minute ago, peteb said:

 

You do undoubtedly have a point - it is for the artist to bring their vision to the masses, who may or may not like it. The better artists (including Ms Bush) to so in such a way that their audience will still be able to engage with it.

 

Indeed, and I don’t believe I ever implied that they shouldn’t be able to engage with it, just that they shouldn’t dictate the creative process. 

[DubDelay]

Tonewood threads...

 

[Al Krow]

@4000 - thanks. I get that fulfilling your creative urge is your motivation. No issues with that and genuine applause from me (still not feeling threatened btw 😉)

But if you don't care what an audience thinks, why potentially waste their time having to "wade" through it? Why not just keep it to yourself? What makes you want to share it with an audience?

Would it be more accurate to say that you do care what an audience thinks, it's just that you're not going to let that influence your creative process?

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Al Krow

[Al Krow]

1 minute ago, DubDelay said:

Tonewood threads...

 

This is actually far more interesting! 

[4000]

On 17/11/2021 at 17:35, 4000 said:

I play and record mainly to fund further recordings (plus I like creating an ‘album’ in the same way I like creating songs or paintings) and to have a night out with my mates. 😉 I’d be just as happy - happier probably - rehearsing instead, if I could make money doing it. 
 

The point of creating something is simply to create something, for me at least. I’ll also put it out there in case someone else happens to like it, but they don’t factor into the creative process in any way shape or form. I’ve never tweaked a song or recording because I think someone else may prefer it, that would be utterly pointless from an artistic perspective.

Al Krow, as before. 😁

[Al Krow]

4 minutes ago, 4000 said:

Al Krow, as before. 😁

Gotcha, thanks, Enjoy!