[Dixielandjazz] Playing For Pay

[Steve barbone]

"LARRY'S at <sign.guy at charter.net> wrote (polite snip)

> people pay for art.  No one compromises anything by selling their art.
> Zillions are made every day by the record companies and the artists who make
> them.
 
And Elazar wrote (polite snip)

> when the motivation becomes making money more than making
> music or art, that tends to squelch the creative side of the enterprise,
> because the financial considerations will override the artistic ones.

How then to reconcile these two views? Perhaps "Art" is a somewhat nebulous
concept? I mean, Armstrong made those Hot 5 Hot 7 records for money. Why
else record? Yet they are some of the finest jazz musical art around
according to most of us.

On the other hand, agreeing with Elazar, if one's only reason for doing
something is for money, then whatever it is one does is subject to the
commercial temptations of making the money. Most millionaires claim that it
is not about the money, but about the achievements. And it is that
achievement which begets the money almost as an afterthought.

I have a personal belief about motivation. E.G. That money does not act as a
motivator. Paying someone more money does not motivate him to do better. It
only serves to keep the peace.

It is however, very important to most people, including artists. It is a way
of "keeping score" It is tangible recognition.

Now whether one produces good art or bad art is subject to personal opinions
of the beholder, most of whom are in no position to intelligently discuss
the subject matter other than on a like or dislike basis.

And we lovers of jazz (all genres) seem to share a haughty notion that once
a piece of jazz music becomes popular, we disrespect it because we seem to
think the writer/performer "sold out" to commercial interests. So we deride
Louis and Hello Dolly, or Kiss To Build A Dream On.

Strange viewpoint indeed. Especially coming from us, since on the other hand
we bitch loudly because OKOM is not more popular and we continue to declaim
that it deserves a larger audience.

Plus, of course, if starving and hard times and lack or recognition are
artistic attributes, then how come we don't like the art of all those
starving avant garde jazz musicians? Artistically they would be at the top
of the heap.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Is it art? Is it Jazz? What are either of them? Meaningless questions with
no firm answers anywhere except in one's own mind.

The secure artist, could care less about your or my accolades, or criticism,
or likes or dislikes or judgements. After all, as an artist, he knows
exactly what he is doing. Better yet, he didn't do it specifically for
either of us so what we say about it means nothing, except for the care and
feeding of our own egos.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone