BigBeefChief

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='481849' date='May 7 2009, 12:34 PM']Either. Niche market, not enough money to be made. Too many amateurs focussed on the musical form rather than the business opportunities.[/quote]


My penchant for grot mags alone surely elevates it above a niche market?

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='481840' date='May 7 2009, 12:28 PM']But it WAS once that big. Just not anymore. Music has moved on...[/quote]

....to be more focussed on image!

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='481837' date='May 7 2009, 12:26 PM']One of the things I do for a living is analyse musical and media brands. And frankly, I wouldn't take 'Jazz' on as a client - too long a haul for too little return.[/quote]

Surely it depends if your talking about the music or the magazines?

[quote name='rslaing' post='481827' date='May 7 2009, 12:20 PM']The type of music that survives the course has never been commercially successful, at least not to the degree of Girls Aloud and the like. But it has and will survive.[/quote]


You're right. Check these guys out:

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_beatles"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_beatles[/url]

Apparently a popular "beat group" back in the 60's. I've never heard of them!



I find you posts entertaining rslaing, but it concerns me that you actually used to teach people!

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='481818' date='May 7 2009, 12:13 PM']Disagree with the image and accessibility thing[/quote]


Really? Why is Jazz not as popular as "pop" acts that focus on image over musically?

You remember what I said about pompous attitudes.....

[quote name='rslaing' post='481804' date='May 7 2009, 12:02 PM']You mean the commercial money making side of the business is about image. Like the sh*te that Simon Cowell manufactures and was started by Pete Waterman and his cronies. Who will remember any of the chart acts and their primitive crap in 50 years time? Who would want to?

Good quality "proper" music will always survive, like classical and jazz for example, (or anything that is innovative) and the rest of it will just fade away never to heard again.

The main reason being that it has no substance and the ears get tired of it very quickly. Just my opinion of course, as usual.[/quote]


Image is important in all genres. Don't kid yourself. You think Elvis wasn't partly about image? The Beatles? Motorhead? Hendrix? The Who? No doubt all these artists will "fade away never to heard again (sic)."

[quote name='rslaing' post='481787' date='May 7 2009, 11:48 AM']Really? I thought it was about sound............[/quote]


I mean in terms of popularity, exposure, accessability etc. You won't reach large audiences if you don't have an accessable image. The majority won't persevere with music created by the "un-cool". If Gary Glitter were to release his best album yet, no one is gonna buy it, great music or not.

Regardless on my personal tastes, I don't think Jazz does itself any favours from an image perspective. I know music shouldn't be about image, but it mostly is! To an outsider looking in, not only is the music pretty inpenetratable, but the image of the elitist jazz musician/listener puts people off.
You read it on here all the time. Jazz fans say "I find Popular music doesn't satisfy me anymore". Maybe it doesn't, and there's nothing wrong with that view, but on a web forum it does sound slightly pompous!

I think that part of the appeal of Jazz to some is the feeling that its an exclusive club. If it were to start charting, these fans would move on to another genre. However, this can probably be said for any non-mainstream genre of music.

Personally, my views on the music are well documented. As a rule, I tend to stay away from music that is mostly popular with other musos. It does nothing for me.

[quote name='clauster' post='481647' date='May 7 2009, 09:39 AM']As a commerially profitable venture, Jazz may not be top-of-the-heap at the mo, but here in Tunbridge Wells we have more venues where you can regularly go to a jazz gig than you can for rock.[/quote]


I think they just do it to annoy me.

[quote name='rslaing' post='480954' date='May 6 2009, 01:24 PM']I did. But that is only more important to you. [/quote]


ermm, I don't think so!

What about all my fans on BassChat?

[quote name='rslaing' post='480943' date='May 6 2009, 01:17 PM']QUOTE (rslaing @ May 5 2009, 07:39 PM) *
Hopefully I won't start off another war here, but SIGHT reading is an essential skill too.
QUOTE (rslaing @ May 5 2009, 08:03 PM) *
it is a major benefit to any musician to be able to read music..period.

My answer (and to save one or two of the contributors having to accuse me of arrogance blah blah blah etc, it is only my opinion) :- Being able to read music is essential in order to become an "all round" musician, capable of meeting any opportunities that arise in the music profession. A musician will certainly gain more work if he has more skill.

Why do you suggest there a yawning gulf between being able to read music and being able to sight read? The only difference is if you can sight read, you get the "job" done more quickly. Being able to sight read is only a matter of developing your reading skill to a higher level.

I gave my daughter a music lesson this morning, and she was amazed that I could sing (I have an awful voice) the part she had in front of her at the piano without having to play it, or having heard it before. That example is about using both attributes - I can read music, and because I can relate to the dots and hear the intervals that I see, I can transmit that (quite well, but not always perfectly) to someone very quickly. That is a primitive example for sure, but this ability that has taken years to develop is surely better than having to dig out the original version of the tune, prod about on an instrument and then have to try and memorise it? Imagine even the personal benefits, if a musician could read music, of being able to look at a piece of music and actually hear the chords that are written down on paper? And understand how and why they sound like that without having an instrument in their hands? It has to be a major benefit to their musicianship.

Can't remember who said it, but it went along the lines of the "the faintest ink is better than the best memory". Whenever I gig (which is getting less and less these days) I mostly don't use sheet music, but I always carry a decent library in case I get caught out with either a song I can't remember the changes for, or I have not played before. Thereby, hopefully doing a job that the non reader couldn't do?

And for those that seem to think I am dissing the non readers, I also spend more time playing without reading, than having to sit in front of a sheet of music. I also spend more practice time developing aural ability than reading about 90% of the time. But this does not detract from my opinion regarding reading skills. A musician should learn to read as a priority when starting out, and develop aural skill alongside, they will soon find out that aural musical ability will take up much more of their time as they develop and become as, if not more, important. But not for the reasons I have seen given in some of the responses in this thread.

But I still have the music reading ability if it is needed. It takes longer to perfect aural skill than it does learning to read music (although I don't think it is more difficult) so why don't non readers learn? I refer you back to my original theory that they can't be arsed (laziness) or they don't think there is a need. My previous pupils have actually ADMITTED these are the reasons so why should I change my mind?

I will continue to follow this thread out of interest but I can't really spend any more time trying to justify my beliefs in writing. If anyone can convince me that it is not important to have both reading and aural skills, and tell me why aural skill is all that is needed, that would be great. But I really can't see it happening.

And BTW maxrossell, regarding your post insinuating I think I am superior to anyone (and your other personal insults), I certainly know I am not, as do a number of other people on this forum that know me. I just happen to feel very strongly about people not just having instrumental skills etc, but the ability to have a greater understanding of music which can add to their talents. Being able to read music gives you that undersanding/comprehension, and I'm sorry, but unless you can read music, I don't think you would know what I meant.

Also, to answer your personal criticism "Which I guess actually puts him at a disadvantage, because whereas I'd happily learn to read music if I needed to, based on a lot of the stuff he says he probably wouldn't touch many of the skills I have with a bargepole because he thinks they're pointless and beneath him."

I assure you that you will be "better" at a lot of things in life than I am. But with 40 years experience, the odds are that I could be right about the odd thing?[/quote]


More importantly rslaing, did you like my band???

[quote name='Eight' post='480856' date='May 6 2009, 12:18 PM']Leave the superior aspect out - I've never said anything along those lines.



Let me try this another way.

There's two chaffeur jobs available. One requires the ability to speak Chinese. One doesn't.
I don't speak Chinese, how many of those jobs can I apply for? One.
Alice does speak Chinese, how many can she apply for? Both.

Now, you can throw up all the pedantic excuses in the world here ("AH but what if Alice can't drive; just because she speaks Chinese doesn't mean she can drive" etc.) but the fact is, on this occassion, Alice has a required skill that I do not.[/quote]



Yeah, but she's probably a commie.

[quote name='Eight' post='480914' date='May 6 2009, 12:53 PM']Ok yes, that's a fair point.

So the opportunities for readers are to be belittling. Non readers can be insulting.

Sorted. [/quote]


It works something like this:

Readers = arrogant
Non-readers = ignorant

[quote name='Eight' post='480906' date='May 6 2009, 12:50 PM']But you do that all the time without reading skills. [/quote]


I thought I was more insulting than belittling??

[quote name='Rich' post='480863' date='May 6 2009, 12:21 PM']Essential in order to do what, exactly?[/quote]


Belittle people on bass forums.

[quote name='rslaing' post='480506' date='May 5 2009, 11:07 PM']Would you tell me which present day jazz artists have a "paint by numbers" approach leading to worthless music? Thanks[/quote]

How about Pepe Shuckles, Milton Jones, Art Stilton, LeRoy Oxbow, The Catscan Trio, Lenny Bernstein....



The list goes on.

[quote name='rslaing' post='480298' date='May 5 2009, 07:39 PM']Why bother to learn to read at all when you always hum, whistle or sing your ideas to your band mates, and they can then spend an inordinate amount of time trying to interpret what you are going on about? Then you can build a library of stale numbers (well they will be by the time you have learned them via the humming, la-la-la, "let's listen to the cd again lads" method) that everyone in the band will be bored with and then you can start on the cycle again [/quote]

I play in an originals band, so there's no CD to learn from. No one in my band reads. All music is communicated aurally.

[quote name='rslaing' post='480298' date='May 5 2009, 07:39 PM']Hopefully I won't start off another war here, but SIGHT reading is an essential skill too. If not just for the purpose of learning music that is important to you - very quickly. It's also cheaper than having to source the number you are trying to learn, maybe by buying the cd, or more than likely pirating it and copying it to all your band-mates and thereby scoring a double whammy by depriving the copyright owners/record company - who have provided the facility and financing - of any income?[/quote]

I play in an originals band.

[quote name='rslaing' post='480298' date='May 5 2009, 07:39 PM']"However, a side-effect will be a hideously self-indulgent originals side project churning out jazz muzak." What is that supposed to mean?[/quote]

People who study theory to a high level usually churn out crap music that only appeals to other musicians.

[quote name='rslaing' post='480298' date='May 5 2009, 07:39 PM']If it wasn't for people producing original music and sounds (whatever the genre), and having the ability to transmit their ideas by either technology, or more importantly by the WRITTEN element (for posterity and accurate reproduction of their ingenuity) you wouldn't even have heard anywhere near the amount of music you might have listened to.[/quote]

I play in an originals band. It's great that people can read and transcribe music. I'm all for. I'm glad people like you exist. Its not neccessary for everyone. We do a couple of covers. We learnt them by ear. Obviously to you this isn't a valid form of learning music. I'm sorry.


[quote name='rslaing' post='480298' date='May 5 2009, 07:39 PM']Maybe you could give us an idea of your preferred choice of music, and reasons for it, so we can have a greater understanding of your critical posts? That would be very interesting.[/quote]

I like all sorts. Feel free to check out our myspace site: www.myspace.com/gimmeshelta. I apologies for the bass playing in advance. You probably won't like it, so feel free to sling me in the bargain bucket with Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles.

I never play a song all the way through unless playing with by band. Get bored or shouted at.

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='480086' date='May 5 2009, 04:55 PM']So, sorry BBC -- learning to read music doesn't propel you down the whitewater rapids of the river to jazz-w**k noodlery and appreciating how "clever" things are. It's music theory that does that! [/quote]


Don't get me wrong, learning too much theory (and I include learning to read in this) sends you down a path of jazz-w***ery. However, if you want to make money out of playing bass, the most likely avenue is session work. I've never disagreed that learning to read is great for a session musician. However, a side-effect will be a hideously self-indulgent originals side project churning out jazz muzak.

Personally, I have no desire to be a session musician, but if that's your bag, then learn to site read.

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='480047' date='May 5 2009, 04:20 PM']One other point to debate: the value of learning to read vs that of learning to SIGHT read a gig.[/quote]


Now that's an incredible skill. If you want to take this music lark seriously and make a living from it, I can see a small benefit in learning to read to an average standard, but a huge benefit in learning to sight read a gig. Its something that I will never be able to do that's for sure!

I love the way guys like OutToPlayJazz and Jakesbass explain things. You can tell that noy only do they know their stuff, but also have a lot of experience in explaining it to numpties like me!

Good work.

Nah, it's only bass. Play the root, the odd pentatonic fill, show up on time and don't shag the singers missus. You're a pro. Job done.

[quote name='rslaing' post='479359' date='May 4 2009, 08:37 PM']One thing is for sure, unless a musician aspires to be able to play stuff that others can't (unless he is intent on being an average amateur - which is fine too) he will not improve his potential.[/quote]


Maybe I'm missing the point here. Everytime i practice am I supposed to be aiming to play things that others can't? I've been concentrating on playing things that sound good!

What a fool I've been!

[quote name='AM1' post='479367' date='May 4 2009, 08:45 PM']Before I make any further responses on the actual subject matter of the thread........[/quote]


You mean there's more to come?



Lucky us.....

[quote name='rslaing' post='479359' date='May 4 2009, 08:37 PM']Countries that hold high levels of all round, quality musicians with unbelievable skill (who can probably all read music) do exist. But you have to go to Japan for classical, and Italy, for "proper" jazz, if that is your preference.[/quote]


Can we get you a plane ticket?