AW: Why SHOULDN'T musicians be paid?

["Rainer Thelonius Balthasar Straschill" <rs@moinlabs.de>]

A thread which has produced some outstanding posts, among them Warren's
insightful one, to which Rick replied:

> them (and I"ve had to actively defend my stance of including 
> newbies at the festival to more experienced players at 
> times----there are a handful who won't play the festival 
> anymore because of it...........thinking it lessens the 
> quality of the experience.

This is a truly interesting approach - I hope there weren't any interesting
artists who don't show anymore because of this (or was this the reason for
the LaFosse discourse?).
I'm moving away from your festival into the world of festivals where
audients play handsome money and acts (mostly the headlining ones) earn a
lot of it, too - big-scale rock festivals, to which I was introduced last
year (believe it or not, I had to headline the biggest-of-its-kind looping
festival before actually attending a big heavy metal festival, and I might
have even diluted that experience somehow by going in a big luxury SUV
vehicle): there's the big acts (the likes of Slayer and Korn and Hatebreed
in that case), and then there's these newbie/unkown acts in the early
afternoon on a smaller stage - and the fun about this is that, while you
might be subjected to some truly horrible experiences, you may also be 
there
to listen to a new, outstanding act...

...but back onto topic again: wouldn't it make sense for your festival not
necessarily to ban newbies, but to ban acts which fall below a certain
quality standard (whatever that may be)? Or asked the other way round: why
is it better to have some truly uninspiring act instead of someone very
musical who was rejected instead because he already played last year?

(This, and I believe you know this, but as an explanation to other readers,
is completely independent of my own consideration for the festival last 
year
and the year before that, and I'm very well aware of the fact that if some
kind of quality control is implemented, I may easily be among the ones not
to get considered anymore. We already had that in other places *g*)

> Miles Davis was playing with musicians in their early 20's at 
> the end of his 
> life.   Why?    Because he wanted to be on the cusp of
> what is happening and he wanted to be inspired by these 
> brilliant, yet not completely accomplished minds.

Are you sure that was his motivation? There might be other possible reasons
('though I don't advocate them):
 * the younger players are cheaper
 * the younger players are easier to influence
 * the younger players are easier to control
 * he already knew all of the older players and wanted someone knew
 * ???

> In Zen Buddhism,  there is the concept of 'beginners' 
> mind'.....................that excitement one has when one is 
> brand new into something they
> are loving completely.   As with all things,  it's much 

...and it's harder to recreate that when you grow older for some people, 
but
(from my experience) especially for women. And that is (in my opinion) the
single most important reason why the big majority of outstanding artists,
even in our time, are males: because they are able to be overjoyed by
something like a little child even at high age.

> I wrote passionately at the start of this thread because I 
> sensed a resentment and an anger towards musicians who have 
> made their entire
> lives about making a living.    This was shocking to me , 

This is really interesting - I didn't read that in Warren's post at all!


Thanks again, Rick and Warren, for your posts!

        Rainer