Do you play a musical instrument?

The position of orchestral musicians has been getting worse for years. Consider that out of the salary comes the cost of buying the player's instrument and keeping it running in top condition. 

A set of double bass strings of professional quality will be several hundred GB £s. Strings mostly need replacing annually if they don't break before that.

http://www.thestage.co.uk/news...pay-with-extra-work/

Published today, this gives an idea concerning the pressures on classical musicians, who are in the main not well off at all.

ATB from George

You are probably right George, but as I indicated earlier, those who have the ability to play an instrument must also be able to say, pick stock in a warehouse.

It may be beneath them, but in the name of ones art, a piffling price to pay.

There is a real world out there, and there must be a certain proportion of musicians prepared to accept it.

Regards Jim

Writing is completely different from performing music. Writing is an essentially solitary activity, and is incredibly boring (I know, it's how I attempt to make a living). If given the chance to choose between being a writer or a musician, I'd go for being a musician any day.

I know of no writer who writes to impress other writers (in the Vai/Bonomassa/Malmsteen sense of impressing other fretwankers) - apart from Martin Amis, and I only think he does it to impress his mate (or is it ex-mate?) Rushdie. Mind you, they're both shite.

Writers on the whole don't worry much about technique - most just aim for clarity and brevity; a few of the more ambitious ones will aim for beauty. After all, nobody accused Shakespeare, Waugh or Orwell of being flash, did they?

Dear Jim.

Most orchestral players are in no position to take on a job as a shelf stacker, or warehouse stock picker!

When the orchestra is performing away from home base they would soon be replaced by someone else!

In fact anyone who has the talent and done the necessary training to reach professional orchestral standard really deserves better than your dismissal of their current position.

Most orchestral musicians have more talent in their little finger than all the so called musicians nowadays present in the UK Top Forty put together. They certainly already suffer for their chosen vocation, and their second job continues to usually being teachers of their instrument. 

Nobody should think that the life of a real musician is ever going to be one that leaves them remotely wealthy.

But why should musicians be expected to sacrifice more for their vocation than teachers, or accountants or solicitors? The required training and skill is of a quite similar level after all. 

ATB from George

I loved music from the age of seven. I used to sing my own tunes from five at school and that annoyed the teachers!

When i started too listen to real music from the age of seven I began imagining music in my head, but had no idea how to communicate it.

This has never stopped but exists only in the half asleep moments before waking up. Stravinsky would be proud of some of the rhythms and crashing orchestral sounds i imagine!

One day I'll remember them long enough to write them down, but nobody would be interested in the days of Miley Cirus, would they!?

I cannot imagine anything more exiting than managing to write some real music down ....

ATB from George

No, this isn't true at all, and condescending to boot.

First of all, talent is natural aptitude, can't be learned. While it's true that many orchestral musicians have a greater technical virtuosity than many pop musicians (why are they "so called musicians"? ... if they play music, they're musicians, period), it's certainly not a given that technical virtuosity inherently translates to talent or to superior music ... there are many accomplished classical musicians who aren't very musical and have no natural talent, just as there are many non-classical musicians who are naturally musical and talented. You're making prejudicial assumptions.

I'm sure writing music isn't boring Fred - but writing prose (which, with varying degrees of success, is what I do) most definitely is. One occasionally gets into a groove, and of course one gets a buzz from being productive or completing something, but I find it really dull - I wish I were a painter, sculptor or musician instead.

I don't write music (I can't  play it either), so I can't speak from experience, but it strikes me as being a different process from writing prose or fiction.

Sorry for the confusion, Kevin ... you had preceded with "Writing is completely different from performing music." so I assumed you were comparing performing music with writing music, and you'd be correct; they are completely different.

I write prose as well, and, actually, do not find it boring either. And the process is not entirely unlike that of writing music.

Oh, I disagree strongly ... I consider myself a serious musician, and music is, if nothing else, sound, so quality of sound is paramount. George is right, most can't get rich playing music, so I can't afford the best gear, but I would if I could!

And, as I said earlier in this thread, what I'm most grateful for is the ability to listen to music and understand it ... I try to spend as much time listening as I can; it's never enough. In fact, I'm naturally suspicious of musicians who don't spend significant time listening to music.

quality of sound is paramount...I can't afford the best gear, but I would if I could!

Says it all Fred! The absence of quality gear does not suggest a disinterest in high quality sound.

Taking drugs has often been linked to creativity for artists (Sgt Pepper), which is false reasoning.

Char: assuming you haven't over condensed your own reasoning here, most people would agree that there have been many instances of creative artists who indulge in taking both illicit and legalised drugs. It's a fact not false reasoning. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Jimi Hendrix; to name but three. The Beatles were at it too, although Macca opened up in 2004 about  Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Day Tripper and Got to Get You Into My Life.

do not imply themselves each in the other

Would you care to clarify dear Char?

Writing is incredibly boring...

...but writing prose (which, with varying degrees of success, is what I do) most definitely is

Dear Kevin, Clearly that is from your singular perspective. It cannot be a universal truth. I know many people who derive great pleasure from meeting the muse as well as from reading / listening to / seeing / eating  the work produced. Forgive me for asking but, if you find it such a truly laborious process why do you persist? I can only assume that the financial reward is worth your pain. With sincere sympathy. I would hate to be trapped in a job I described as boring.

Loki, writing is just about the only thing that I have any aptitude for I and get a lot of satisfaction from writing well. Apart from proofing, I never re-read anything once I've done it (a bit like musicians who can't bear to listen to their own records I suppose) but I know when I've done a good job, or, on rare occasions, a brilliant one (I write a lot of articles and speeches for people, and they are often kind enough to praise my work). I enjoy that too.

But the actual act of writing, the process, is really dull. It is also incredibly lonely (especially if you do it at night, which I often do), because it is a solitary endeavour. When I was a journalist (an enjoyably disreputable trade which I still occasionally dabble in), and when I worked in advertising, it was different because one had people around to bounce ideas off, and there was always lots of banter.

As well as copywriting and the odd bit of hackwork, I am also writing a novel. [My favourite joke: Two journalists meet in a bar. One says: "Did I tell you I'm writing a book?". The other replies: "Neither am I!" ]

The book I'm writing is good. It might be very good, or even brilliant. But whether or not it will be completed to my satisfaction, or the standards I require of myself, I cannot say. It may never be seen by anyone else, let alone published. I just feel compelled to do it. But writing it is a very long, very hard, slog. I will occasionally be excited by what I am doing but it is mostly boring. Which is not to say that the book is boring, but writing it is difficult and often tedious.

Hope that explains it!

PS - Writing, unless you're JK Rowling, or write for TV/cinema - which is beyond me I fear - is an abysmal way to make a living; it's possibly even more poorly paid than being a musician in an orchestra, as per George above.

This clearly demonstrates that it is all a matter of perspective, As a guitarist I know that Joe Bonamassa for example will have endured many a night alone (deliberating) to get from Three blind mice, to the excellence that he has achieved as a musician today,

Only to be described as a fretw@nker by someone who cannot play an instrument and on a music forum no less!

It seems that Loki, Fred and myself are more open minded, if someone on here was cogitating over the finer points and differences between the saxophonist Ornette Coleman and the more modern David Sanborn and I decided to add that they were ALL hornw@nkers, I would expect to be called purile and I'll informed.

But then I suppose everyone's a critic.

Regards Jim

OK, I'll bite.

I never said Bonomassa lacked talent or technique. He is obviously a gifted chap who has put in his 10,000 hours, works hard and is probably nice to kids, tramps and kittens. 

The issue is with the application of that talent.

I find what he does cold, unimaginative, tedious, joyless and rather pointless.  But you obviously like him - good for you. Enjoy! I prefer myself to listen to Gilmour, Vini Reilly, Hendrix, Davy Graham, Page, Johnny Guitar Watson, Michael Rother, BB, Townshend, Lonnie Mack, T-Bone, Garcia, etc etc but if you want to call them fretwankers or anything else feel free, it makes a difference not one jot.

And whether or not I, or anyone else, can play, is irrelevant. Bonomassa makes works which are in the public domain. Anyone who hears his music has the right to have an opinion on it. Unless you want to impose a "Jim Test" in which everyone who has an opinion about a musician has to exhibit a certain level of technical ability before they can offer up that opinion... not very open-minded, is it?

So yes, everyone's a critic. Why not? It's a free country. But I suspect what's really at issue here is that you are a bit miffed that someone doesn't like one of your own favourites.

And to be perfectly honest on a personal level i cannot believe that any writer of prose is not doing so to impress others (other writers also subconsciously,)with their level of brevity and clarity, in EXACTLY the same way that guitarists for guitarists or sax players for sax players do.

It is artistic expression and you either like it or you dont.

I can only imagine a world where all musicians can only play one note\sound over and over for fear of being over indulgent being as boring as the poetry described earlier.

Regards Jim

Oh no Kevin you have me all wrong! Bonamassa is not my favourite, a little known guitarist by the name of Drew Zingg is,(at the moment), and I am not trying to antagonise you in any way. I just wanted to bring to your attention to how such a throwaway comment might be seen by others.

Char dearest, I believe I have a right to an opinion in the same way that Kevin has conjectured and think that it would be best for me not to go onto a writers forum and deride those whom I probably know very little about, 

Especially as a part time journalist who has access to the public psyche.

No offence of course.

Regards Jim.

all artists?

Char: What if they disagree?

Which is not to say that the book is boring, but writing it is difficult and often tedious.

Kevin: love the joke . Thank you for unpacking your statement about writing being 'boring' to the more refined version above, with which I can sympathise. Although I recognise the agony of birth I have to say that I enjoy the thrill of the chase involved in creative or critical writing, and even more the triumph of the finishes (is it ever?!) product. My wife likewise. I'm sorry you find it tedious. For me it's more like tackling a crossword puzzle: sometimes it all goes swimmingly, other times more cranial effort is required. But I enjoy it just the same.

It seems that Loki, Fred and myself are more open minded, 

Nice one Jim,  not that we want to other the others! You have made a significant point, though, which is at the heart / intent of this thread which is to open a genuine discussion from an un-prejudicial viewpoint. Unfettered enquiry rather than doctrinal assertion. De gustibus non est disputandem.

I find crosswords really tedious as well Loki.

One of us knows how to have fun!

I know - it's me! I like watching unremittingly bleak Scandi-dramas, listening to Joy Division and Scott Walker and reading novels by mad, depressed Russians.

Yes Char, and I think this is perhaps where writers and musicians differ, bringing us back to Loki's original topic, a guitarist might hear a sound in someone else's work that they like (that is clearly defined on good quality equipment) and wish to incorporate it into his or her own style, making it not their own entirely but a diluted version or a hybrid if you like.

Fred affirmed that he liked to listen to music and was suspicious of those musicians that don't and I would agree that not only is it enjoyable but can only serve to improve your own playing.

Maybe it is the case that a writer feels compelled to produce entirely original works, feeling that reading the work of others is not at all conducive to fresh thought. But to me it seems common for writers to say of others "I wish I'd written that" so surely lessons can be learned in a similar way.

Regards Jim.

The musicians I know (and I know a lot) all listen to, practice and play music avidly. The experience is seamless, eternal and all consuming. The clue is in the collective noun...