Re: Supertramp
- From: "Lumpy" <lumpy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:46:25 -0700
Paul P wrote:
Why is it that so many people claim some sort of right to a
musician's work but not to the work of any other professional ?
That's a good question.
I think part of the answer lies in the disconnect
between "amateur musician" and "professional musician".
I know a TON of amateurs who will pay money for books
and seminars and listing services (Taxi etc) that
"help them get heard", presumably with the end
result of hopefully being "signed" and then
earning income from their craft.
Yet those very same musicians play a TON of gigs
for free at all the local coffee houses.
That seems weird to me. If your desire is to make
money at your craft, don't play for free. Auto mechanics
and dentists and brain surgeons don't do their craft
for free in hopes of getting "discovered" or for
"exposure".
And then there's, of course, a ton of musicians who
self impose the "I don't want to be a professional"
constraint on themselves. I meet potential students
all the time that literally say "I don't want to become
THAT good, just brush up on my ability to solo" or
something similar.
I think both of those "amateur" status musicians
tend to view music as some kind of emotional "child"
of theirs. "I poured by blood, sweat and tears into
this song, it's my life. It's not about money,
it's about my emotions".
Then on the professional end of the scale, people
are writing/performing/playing for a living. It's
their craft, just like the brain surgeons and
dentists. They produce music just like a carpenter
might build a cabinet. They do a great job and they
are proud of it, but they recognize it as what it is -
A product that they are selling.
So you've got this disconnect between the Ams and the Pros.
The Ams (not every Am of course) tend to want to think that
they somehow "deserve" to use the music that the pros produce.
They offer lots of rationale like "it's not for money" or
"it helps the guy get exposure". Well, I really don't think
Paul McCartney needs the exposure of Joe Blow singing "Yesterday"
at the local java joint. And the "it's not for money" argument
repeatedly gets kicked in the balls. IT IS FOR MONEY. Paul
wrote "Yesterday" for the purpose of making money. He makes
a nickel when it's played, a nickel when I buy the record,
a nickel when I buy the sheet music etc. If the song is
popular, he makes enough nickels to pay rent.
I don't now if that addresses your enigma. But I too
have never been able to see the reasoning behind the
concept that "we should be allowed to HAVE it, free".
It doesn't work that way for groceries or automobiles
or guitars, it doesn't work that way for songs.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Something Years
www.LumpyMusic.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Tim C.
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Tim C.
- Re: Supertramp
- References:
- Supertramp
- From: Screaming Eagles 101
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Andy_D
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Screaming Eagles 101
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Lumpy
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Screaming Eagles 101
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Mark Seery
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Jack
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Mark Seery
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Tim C.
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Paul P
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Tim C.
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Lumpy
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Tim C.
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Lumpy
- Re: Supertramp
- From: RichL
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Lumpy
- Re: Supertramp
- From: Paul P
- Supertramp
- Prev by Date: Re: Playing Slide in Standard Tuning
- Next by Date: Re: Playing Slide in Standard Tuning
- Previous by thread: Re: Supertramp
- Next by thread: Re: Supertramp
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|