My latest beef.... WAIT! There's more.

[diogenes]

I think were basically all in agreement here. I am well aware it's not all about talent and it takes big bucks to break anybody. That being said, I was just saying that most of the ones that survive the big push are actually talented.

[ggalen]

Well, the ones that survive are talented at making sounds the buying public wants.Whether it takes a lot of talent and creativity to do that depends on the buying public, really.

[diogenes]

Feb 9, 2009, 10:31am, ggalen wrote:Well, the ones that survive are talented at making sounds the buying public wants.Whether it takes a lot of talent and creativity to do that depends on the buying public, really.That is basically true, but I think it's a very jaded way to look at things.

[ggalen]

Well, there are different buying publics out there for different genres of music.Some have very high standards for originality and musicianship. Jazz and progressive rock come to mind. But there are others with high standards as well.

[heinsite]

hey billy--forgot to say your last two posts are as usual "price-less"...that working hard to be a failure line has me laughing WAY out loud...thanks, needed that...wh

[mazz]

Glenn,What are your standards for originality and musicianship? Are you really comparing jazz musicians with pop musicians? If so, is that a fair comparison?Yes, some stuff that is "pop" music (and I use that term in the broadest sense possible, excluding jazz and classical) is made specifically to pander to the lowest common denominator by some corporate committee or something, but a lot of the folks that make "pop" music are very talented and dedicated "artists" that may have spent as much time on their writing, producing and performing chops as any jazz musician did on their instrument practicing scales and tunes. Does that make them less original or any less of a musician? I bet the answer would be different depending on who you ask.I'm not necessarily a fan of much "pop" music, but I certainly respect the woodshed time and chops that many of the purveyors of that music exhibit. It's just that they may not exhibit it in terms of "notes per second" or "ability to improvise on changes".Cheers,Mazz

[ggalen]

Mazz,I am just talking about successfully selling to a specific segment of the music-buying public.Just observing that some segments are happy with repetitive and very simple music.Other segments have a taste for more complex and original works.

[squids]

Language is so hard to use in discussions like this. There're all sorts of public out there but if we're talking about what's successful in terms of marketing and sales, I'd say that the public that's being catered to aren't audiophiles with sophisticated tastes or education. Comparing the two, the general radio listener to the audiophile....I don't even know.......I've never been able to understand American Idol simply fo that reason. They tell you that ta be successful you must find your niche, excel at it along with marketing, song choice, production, about a zillion variables but then on AI, they promptly make them sing songs from other genres that clearly aren't suited fo them and that if they had a brain in their head, would refuse if left to their own devices (or education), they're asked to choose from a pool of songs from different generations, lots of things that an artist probably wouldn't do. Hence, ta me, it's really a show not about talent but about keeping an audience. Jennifer Hudson might be an example of why I think the show is flawed.The fact that Alison Krauss has been successful in so many genres indicates that she has a predilection fo pickin' up different styles and makin them sound native to her with a certain integrity and an impressive display of nuance. This is rare in a singer; I've tried most everything myself and have to use different voices to pull it off; she does not, so that makes her extremely rare. Judging by her and Plant's acknowledgements last night, some larger group recognizes that ability. I also realize that awards shows are political to a degree but again, her dignity and musicianship rise above the norm, at least to me. I digress, I apologize. I jes feel that on some level, the general public can recognize something genuine from something not but it's not the norm simply because I don't think they're getting that exposure to those different styles on commercial radio and therefo, not receiving the education to really understand what it takes to truly stand out in any field except the one they're most exposed to: Commercial radio.I'm sorry; I bet this didn't make any sense.

[diogenes]

Feb 9, 2009, 12:20pm, ggalen wrote:Mazz,I am just talking about successfully selling to a specific segment of the music-buying public.Just observing that some segments are happy with repetitive and very simple music.Other segments have a taste for more complex and original works."Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, But when there is nothing left to take away."-Antoine de St. Exupery

[ggalen]

Well, I agree that extra "stuff" in a song that doesn't contribute to the whole should be removed.But I don't agree that repetitive and simple = perfection.I get bored. Maybe that's just me.