My failed music career
newstatesman.com
newstatesman.com
The technical - given enough attention, the right physiology, the right brain-wiring - really has to be finished ... completely 'automated'. Missing or wrong notes ... I was reading yesterday that Tom Robbins sometimes spent the whole day writing one or two sentences ... that kind of fanaticism required.
The artistic, on the other hand, is much more subjective, and demands much of the performer's attention. And then, Worse yet, there's the game. There are 'standards' of 'musicianship' ... vaguer still, but people 'know it when they hear it'. 'Maverick' interpretations won't cut it with conventional listeners. Etc. etc. Being well-established in the conventional repertoire might be defined as 'literate' enough to allow occasional 'peccadillos'.
That kind of 'career' is only one of many ... there's improv, jazz, pleasuring (in lounges, at home), composing, teaching. To fail at feeding utterly conventional (however learn-ed) expectations doesn't have to be the end.
As a music teacher I have assessed many students at that level, and as a performer I know pretty well what stage fright is. So I completely understand these feelings.
Some of my best students suffer from stage fright more than the rest of them.
My hypothesis is that the richer and deeper the message one can and want to express, the clearer her awareness of being far from her intention and, therefore, the bigger the chance to make mistakes.
The is certainly unfair. Better students may fail more than average students because they are better in their musical thought and musical capabilities.
Other ways of evaluating musical performance would be more adequate. One would be to collect recordings (with no post-processing) that students could prepare outside the stage with professional recording tools. The live performance assessment is still necessary, but not the only measure.
The gap between playing excellently and doing so at the stage is huge, and extra musical factors play an important role.
For doing well in live concerts you need specific preparation, you need to know and play by heart and fluently everything, of course. Then, you need to train on different stressing scenarios particularly designed to test that you can keep playing so. Finally, you need self-confidence on your own skill. Some people find useful to nurture their self-esteem; others (me among them) prefer to cultivate humility: what matters most is the music I'm playing, not me. The ideal is to become completely transparent at the stage so that the musical essence passes through me as it should sound.
First, let's qualify that statement. Is music, like mathematics, a young person's game?
Musicians tend to release their classic albums, i.e. what general consensus agrees is their best work, in their early years, not when they're 40+. Look at the biggest, long-running music acts today, such as The Rolling Stones. No one is going to their concerts to hear their latest material. They want to hear Jumpin' Jack Flash (released ~1968).
The early deaths of legends like Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain etc. are tragic, sure, but does anyone really believe these guys would have put out their best work at 40? The people lamenting wasted potential are perhaps misunderstanding how musical creativity works.
In contrast, writers tend to put out their best work after their formative years. If you think of your favorite writer, I'm willing to bet their magnum opus wasn't released before 30.
Why is this? What accounts for the difference?
It's pretty rare to see people older than their mid 20s hanging out in new/hot venues with the latest artists trying to build a following and living/breathing their craft. There's only so many years you can pull it off both as a member of the audience and a creator.
A few years ago I was a minor artist (more a hanger-on than anything) in the EDM scene of a major city for that back when it was the hot thing, and was around a few folks that made it. It couldn't have happened for people in their late 20s or older. That particular grind requires of fueling 18-22 year-olds appetite for drugs, alcohol, and rhythm from Thursday through Sunday, every week of the year. When you factor in the reality of rent and other costs of living, dueling roles as promoter, party goer, content creator, and performer, it really is not sustainable unless you're the azimuth of your craft and an age where you can balance those costs against your future.
David Bowie's got great music lineup spanning every decade of his career from the 1960s to the day he died. I think people who enjoy his music can easily pick out a definite classic from every decade and everyone has their own favorite period.
Tom Waits started out as an okay musician, and he grew into his own sort of music with age. He's known for his grit and grime, and it's much more profound in his later work than his earliest stuff. A song about being a worn out old drunk on the side of the road hits harder when you hear it from a rugged middle-aged man than a young 20-something.
With these two, Bowie constantly updated his image and tried new things. Tom Waits simply advanced the atmosphere he built up in his earlier work. I think a lot of other popular musicians put more energy and liveliness into their earlier works and can't keep up with it as they get older, or they end up following some music trend that they think will get them pop success instead of just doing their own music.
Virtually every indie band does the latter as they start to get fame, and it often turns off their old fans immensely when they see them become just another soulless pop band.
"Weird Al" Yankovic's "crowd pleasers" are his parodies of popular songs, but he and his band have been playing them to a standard of musicianship that only got better with age; and he has also developed more and more original material that is as innovative as it is a fitting pastiche/homage to other artists.
Kate Bush homepage - http://www.katebush.com/home
Completely unrelated, but does anyone else get the impulse to open the inspector when they visit an interesting website for the first time? KB's site is built using Drupal (according to Wappalyzer), but there's some fascinating stuff going on in that page - it's been a while since I've come across an image <map> element used on a production site. There's also a lovely old-style carousel on the 'discography' page, using both <img> and <canvas> (for the img reflection) elements. Strange choices for 2020, but I was kinda happy to see them.
The most prominent example in the metal world of this is Volbeat and to a lesser extent Metallica. The first few albums were generally well received by music fans, while both bands slowly changed their style over the years to accommodate more mainstream audiences, leading to a drop in quality.
Counter-examples are bands like Trivium and Tool, which also have evolved musically over the years but not specifically in a direction to please a larger audience, they just kept making music they like for the sake of music.
Another counter-example is Radiohead, which almost got gripped by the music industry marketing and managed to spectacularly break out of it after OK Computer and the following albums.
They broke off the image that labels wanted to push them into and sell with Pablo Honey which would have been a shame.
But, they are not the genre that would be interesting to young crowd. Pretty often they don't speak of feelings that young crowd wants to see in music, they speak to people like me more. This stuff is followed mostly by where young culture goes, because they consume the most, pay the most and have interest to discover new things.
> The early deaths of legends like Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain etc. are tragic, sure, but does anyone really believe these guys would have put out their best work at 40?
I have listened to Kurt Cobain albums lately and what striked me was that the music was much alike song to song. So he would have to change up (angering some fans as result) or his n-th album would become out of touch. Kurt Cobain is precisely the kind of music that spoken strongly to some young people at the time - it expresses certain generational sentiments.
A serious painter could quietly produce work in a studio for decades until they are discovered, same is true for writers or just about art form but with music, and to a slightly lesser extent acting, if you haven’t made it by the time you are 23-25 you most definitely never will. You may become a song writer for hire but you’ll never be famous. The average consumer of music is profoundly disinterested in musicianship, song writing, virtuosity pretty much anything a musician could improve with time.
I’m utterly pessimistic about why most people listen to music. Pop music serves a function somewhere in between a utility kind of like air conditioning and a white noise to play in the nursery to keep the babies from getting anxious. It is also a vehicle to legitimize pop stars as more than just phone and makeup sales people.
I love music but I find myself bitter about it sometimes. It often feels like just something playing in the background while everyone is shopping. Or psychological filler to distract you from realizing how dull the movie you’re watching is.
Many of my closest friends are guys who play in hard rock bands and are not famous at all. We are all at the end of summer in our mid to late 30s. When they were younger there was a cockiness in them about being cool and playing music. Doing lots of acid and being wild. Now that our 30s have passed in a handful of heartbeats I don’t think any of them are keeping the dream alive of being famous as musicians. If anything, they are better than ever before as song writers, musicians, they are still very cool and quick but matured and better humans basically, still very attractive as men but their value as would-be celebrities is basically negative value now. They are still super cool to me and dear as anything in the world as my friends but to people 20 years younger than us, they are now perceived as culture vultures. Becoming old guys at the bar. They are definitely not there yet but it’s wild to see how many of the new ones hanging around acting like they own the world instantly perceive us as dated. Counting us out for no reason other than we are now old, at 36-38. The local scene operates this way, I imagine the music business is no different.
I truly believe most of the loved, classic albums which are almost all universally made by people in their early 20s were made by artists who became even more interesting as people when they turned 30, 40, or older. But they almost all lose that ghost in them which made them do something cool in the first place as they get older and become “too old” for the game. I think it’s heartbreaking to be so easily casted out and replaced. I think that kills the inspiration to make great music. Music is made for people, but if the people no longer want you because you’re old, are you really going to be excited to make music for them?
Musically, I don't think you lose your abilities as you get older. In fact, I would say you become even better. The most visible example of this is among movie composers. Morricone was in his late 30s when he scored "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly". Hans Zimmer has done some of his best work in his 50s.
As did painters (often famous classic paintings are prepared by the painters students who work for them and then just finished or merely signed by the painter).
Heck, pop musicians have those. The top-40 is full of professional co-writers and ghost-writers and producer teams (while the "star" gets the songwriting credits).
Just watch this, including the audience reaction. It's stunning how good she still is.
Even composers are like that. Most continued to put out great work until death.
The thing with popular music, is that it's supposed to be popular, trendy, and just new. Talented composers start putting out innovative works when their are young, and in the eye of the general public, those are more salient, more praise-worthy.
Nick Cave is a counter-example to the above, btw. I think he's just gotten better and better with age
Reminds me of an article I read about R.E.M. around the turn of the millennium. The journalist notes that the band members (now all multi-millionaires) now spent their time moving from one posh luxury hotel or perfectly air-conditioned space to another around the world, living in an international cosmopolitan bubble even when not touring. This seemed the very antithesis of the struggle and feeling of local community from which several great rock subgenres had emerged, and it was no surprise that R.E.M.'s work had become bland.
In another part of the interview, Andre Benjamin said he loved going to the laundromat, and his biggest musical aspiration (at the time of the interview) was to play the bass clarinet well enough to be able to play along with anything/anyone at the park or beach (condensing/paraphrasing).
I think it's a combination of things, the career of a pop musician appears to be terrible for their art - probably bad for most of them as people, too.
Is that pop/rock musicians? If so, that's because pop is a young person's game/interest.
Tons of Jazz, classical, ethnic genre, electronic, OST etc, musicians have produced their best works in their later years...
For classical music, competitions and conservatoires will only take young people and if you don't go through their processes there's no chance of getting auditions for pro gigs.
I wonder if the author is one of those who needs a few more years to understand themselves well enough to perform at the highest level, by which time she'll be to old to pursue music professionally
The stones released a classic blues album lately. That was purely for them not so much for selling. They can afford that because of their huge fame.
(I never had concert pianist talent or technique, but it still did take me many years to shed the “louder/faster/denser” ideology of a modern jazz education. Also known as, lacking taste and maturity in one’s earlier years.)
The thing it took me a long time (and some therapy) to grasp was that I didn’t fail. I made a positive decision for the direction I wanted my life to go in, and took it. And more importantly, I didn't have to give up music just because I didn't make it my career. I now play multiple instruments and enjoy a much broader array of music than I ever did as a student, playing and singing American traditional, Irish, and folk music with my family and other people. Having let go of feeling obliged to make it a career, I felt free to make it a passion without feeling like I had to succeed. I wish more people felt like they could study music in college in order to make it a wonderful part of their lives, rather than "if I can't be Horowitz, there's no point in continuing with this".
This sentence resonated with me, maybe it's this feeling that keeps someone playing: "There were tricky passages I would dread, notes in the middle of chords I would bluff and hope nobody noticed. But in between attacks of nerves I felt a thrill, and a sense of harmony, when I managed to make the notes sparkle; when my mind, my hands and my ears were all in sync."
Unfortunately not. There are more and more musicians, since more and more music colleges are springing up, and fewer and fewer gigs, because it is easier and usually cheaper to hire a DJ, and people are just as satisfied. One could get the impression that today musicians are trained primarily to educate new musicians, a kind of end in itself, as is already known in other non-STEM studies.
Unless it starts to get awkward, actively cutting back on the "I" and "me" in writing, thought, and conversation seems to put the focus back on the topic.
The degree to which this observation applies to TFA is a matter of opinion, and piling on the author is not the intent.
On one hand there's something to be said about persistence and discipline. You can find loads of stories of people sticking through the hard times and being rewarded for it.
On the other hand, there's opportunity cost in sticking with a failing endeavor. I am a hobbyist musician too, I spend a lot of time at the piano but I sometimes think to myself "what if I just used all of that time to advance my career instead?"
The real problem is that you don't know what can happen so we're left making guesses. Maybe the author of the article could have found some niche as a studio musician and had a long and successful career. Maybe calling it quits and changing careers while they're young would unlock a new passion that they're much more successful at.