I just recorded the audio for a master class given by jazz pianist Richie Beirach who would certainly disagree with that.He said that the "job" of the classical musician was to consistently play the piece "the SAME but GREAT" and a jazz musician's goal was to continue to play something "DIFFERENT but GREAT".As for the whole "art" vs "craft" thing, I have always considered myself a craftsman, not an artist. My job is to facilitate the artist in presenting their music to an audience.PS The more you learn about some of those German and Austrian guys 300 years ago you find a lot of them FAR from "stuffy". A lot of them were just hustling gigs and commissions, trying to make a living and MAYBE attain some degree of fame, just like musicians nowdays.
This one I just don't get. There's a snobbery amongst original musicians towards cover bands. At least in my area there is, and some things I read online.
Original band all but one guy play someone else's songCover band all of them play someone else's song
Also, it doesn't require nearly as much, (if any), talent to do original music. You can't make a mistake in an original song. "I meant to do that".Only very talented bands can play covers correctly. Anyone can play an original....Even a monkee.
For the recordings, most of the Monkee's material was performed by session players. The cast did the vox. In live performance the band played on their own.As Hammer points out, the individuals in the Monkees came to the show with existing talent and experience (although the latter wasn't consistent on the instruments they played for the show).They had Boyce and Hart writing the songs, 2 of the best resident writers at Columbia-Screen Gems. That doesn't hurt a bit...
+1.. and some of the Monkees became very good friends with many of the groups/musicians of the 1960s including at least one (Peter Tork) recording with with the Beatles. Hammer
Page created in 0.135 seconds with 21 queries.