[Dixielandjazz] Playing For Pay

[LARRY'S Signs and Large Format Printing]

Starving artists do exist.  The music and art history books are full of
examples.  What happens is this .  These people are usually ahead of their
time and as a result are different and it takes time, occasionally many
years, for the public to become used to whatever the artist has to offer.
Secondly these people are often very narrow and obsessive people and because
of that they are able to supply the concentration and focus that it takes to
become really great.  They usually don't, however, excel in anything else
and that includes human and personal relationships.  Their addiction and
obsession with their art leads to the starving artist as we know him.  This
person hardly if ever compromise their art for money or anything else such
as family or in some cases life its self (drinking, drugs etc i.e. Charlie
Parker).  Personally I prefer to not be hag ridden by my art or obsessed by
something.  I think that there is a fine line between greatness and being a
common stalker.  Both are compulsive obsessive.  One behavior we sometimes
reward and the other we don't.

Funny you should mention this:

snip> 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.

This was the very reason that they used for not giving us a raise on our
salary schedule when I was teaching.  When you tell someone this you are
telling him you really don't value him much and that he is satisfied with
your rotten motivation and probably mediocre job that he is doing.  While
not motivating it can have a negative effect.  I do realize in the arts it
is somewhat different

Larry Walton
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve barbone" <barbonestreet at earthlink.net>
To: <dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 10:39 PM
Subject: [Dixielandjazz] Playing For Pay


> "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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dixielandjazz mailing list
> Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz