Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My failed music career

newstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 45 posts

Re: My failed music career

#31

Post by atopos »

Non specialists are totally unaware of the extreme difficulty of performing solo live music, particularly with polyphonic instruments like piano or classical guitar.

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.

Re: My failed music career

#32

Post by lukeh »

I juggled both music and software for many years before deciding to focus on music (almost!) exclusively. This is a somewhat reductive analysis, but in my experience a successful performing or composing career doesn't require concert pianist-level perfection. Curiosity, honesty in one’s artistic expression, some degree of uniqueness and, finally, a dogged persistence, will suffice. Granted, it can be difficult to have that dogged persistence particularly given the economic parameters that musicians are subject to. So it is not for everyone.

(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.)

Re: My failed music career

#33

Post by sjclemmy »

CannisterFlux wrote: post #26

I find it amazing that anyone reaches the level of technical skill required to play a musical instrument while maintaining any kind of artistic drive. I play guitar for fun, and for me to learn anything that sounds any good takes hours of repetition to the point that when I can finally play something to a level that sounds passable, I am so utterly sick of hearing it that I start to dislike most pieces I've learned!…

I’m a competent amateur guitarist and I feel your pain. Learning pieces so they are good enough to perform takes so much practice and I too get sick of them before I can play them adequately!

Re: My failed music career

#34

Post by Rochus »

optimalsolver wrote: post #4

Something I've always wondered is why musicians peak so young, especially in comparison with other creative types. 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 Rollin…

I used to be a performing musician myself for many years and I have a formal musical education. The answer to your question depends on the type of music and activity. It takes a lot of time (much more than the famous 10'000 hours) to learn these enormous skills as e.g. a classical pianist and to be able to perform a classical work with the virtuosity and endurance that is expected today. If you don't start as a child, you lack the time until you reach professional age. Moreover, children can learn many things more easily than adults. In pop music it's completely different; you can be successful there without mastering your instrument, if you look good and have a good stage presence - or another characteristic that just happens to be important to a large audience. A young audience is naturally more likely to be attracted by young idols. A big portion of luck is needed in any case.

Re: My failed music career

#35

Post by spacechild1 »

lqet wrote: post #17

I re-watched Whiplash recently. It is a marvelous movie for many reasons, but I always wondered how accurate its depiction of a competitive Jazz band really is.

Many jazz musicians (including myself) would say that it's a ridiculous, gross misrepresentation of what playing in a Jazz band is about. For me it's infuriating to watch! I could go on for a long rant now, but I'd rather let an actual jazz drummer speak: https://youtu.be/7GfegGYzD1E?t=238

Re: My failed music career

#36

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

circlefavshape wrote: post #22
optimalsolver wrote: post #4

Something I've always wondered is why musicians peak so young, especially in comparison with other creative types. 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 Rollin…

One possibility is that touring musicians lose touch with ordinary life, and therefore no longer create anything that people can relate to. Nick Cave is a counter-example to the above, btw. I think he's just gotten better and better with age

> One possibility is that touring musicians lose touch with ordinary life, and therefore no longer create anything that people can relate to.

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.

Re: My failed music career

#37

Post by IAmGraydon »

CannisterFlux wrote: post #26

I find it amazing that anyone reaches the level of technical skill required to play a musical instrument while maintaining any kind of artistic drive. I play guitar for fun, and for me to learn anything that sounds any good takes hours of repetition to the point that when I can finally play something to a level that sounds passable, I am so utterly sick of hearing it that I start to dislike most pieces I've learned!…

You’re just wired a certain way. I can work on a 16 bar segment of a song for days and love it more each time I play it. The good ones never get old. Music affects me like an addictive drug.

Re: My failed music career

#38

Post by rikroots »

fiblye wrote: post #8
optimalsolver wrote: post #4

Something I've always wondered is why musicians peak so young, especially in comparison with other creative types. 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 Rollin…

Some musicians also refine their style and grow with age. 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 an…

I want to add Kate Bush to this list. She's always seemed fearless to me, both in her exploration of music and in her visual interpretation and performance of that music.

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 element used on a production site. There's also a lovely old-style carousel on the 'discography' page, using both and (for the img reflection) elements. Strange choices for 2020, but I was kinda happy to see them.

Re: My failed music career

#39

Post by uxenthusiast »

optimalsolver wrote: post #4

Something I've always wondered is why musicians peak so young, especially in comparison with other creative types. 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 Rollin…

You could consider the marketing factor: early work from lesser musician is designed to sell. Then when fame is there, maybe they can focus on something more driven by their artistic désires.

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.

Re: My failed music career

#40

Post by grasshopperpurp »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #36
circlefavshape wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One possibility is that touring musicians lose touch with ordinary life, and therefore no longer create anything that people can relate to. Nick Cave is a counter-example to the above, btw. I think he's just gotten better and better with age

> One possibility is that touring musicians lose touch with ordinary life, and therefore no longer create anything that people can relate to. 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…

Was listening to Rick Rubin interview Andre Benjamin on Broken Record, and they briefly touched on this and agreed that constant touring creates a bubble that is terrible for writers.

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.

Post reply on HN