If you missed it, here’s the link to Part 1 - The Incident.

Quick recap: While he listened to my Donna Lee Variations, Joe took an opportunity to publicly expose what he thought was ignorance and inexperience. He vibed me big time.

Joe doesn’t seem to want to correct an awful first impression. And I have no interest in pursuing a relationship; not even a musical relationship. What’s the point? If two musicians have a bad personal relationship, can they still have a good musical relationship? Can you separate the two? I don’t think so, and I would never put myself in a position to find out! If we don’t get along personally, why would we want to make music together? Down the road, I’m sure Joe will make good music, just not with me. The ball is in Joe’s court.

It’s amazing how just a few of Joe’s words can bring forward so many issues. Some of these issues deserve more discussion, but they all deserve consideration. I fear they have found their way into the jazz/music culture and we’re taking them for granted.

Thanks for reading!

If you missed it, here’s the link to Part 1 - The Incident.

Quick recap: While he listened to my Donna Lee Variations, Joe took an opportunity to publicly expose what he thought was ignorance and inexperience. He vibed me big time.

To vibe someone is to give attitude (either actively or passively). It can be as obvious as mouthing off, or as subtle as giving the cold shoulder. Why do people vibe one another? You may think that vibe-ing is similar to what I discussed in the previous post. But I think vibe-ing is different. It’s not meant to create a student-teacher division. Instead, it’s used as an attempt to tip the ‘social-status’ scales because for some reason, the viber has a need to express dominance. The fact that Joe vibed me publicly is telling of this.

Nobody likes being vibed, but there are always people who do it. It’s always inappropriate and uncalled for. I’m sure it has become habitual for some. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if vibe-ing is most prevalent in the performing arts where artists are constantly putting their egos/souls on the line!

How do you deal with being vibed? It’s quite simple. In my experience, you’re best option is to blow it off. If you’re being vibed, chances are there’s something happening in the mind of the viber that runs deeper than a personal conflict with you; it’s not you, it’s them. Once you’ve blown it off, then you can decide if you want to pursue a relationship. Good luck! Whatever happens, don’t vibe back.

Nothing positive comes from vibe-ing. Bottom line: Don’t do it. Ever. Tell your ego to bite the bullet for the moment and expose itself. You’ll be amazed at how much more satisfying it is and the return can be even greater!

Stay tuned for Part 8!

If you missed it, here’s the link to Part 1 - The Incident.

Quick recap: While he listened to my Donna Lee Variations, Joe took an opportunity to publicly expose what he thought was ignorance and inexperience.

If I were sixty years old, playing my Donna Lee Variations, things would have been very different. Joe may have dug it, he may have hated it, but I’m sure he wouldn’t have said anything, especially if I had a respectable reputation. That’s why this is an issue.

There’s often a division created between experienced, reputable musicians and the unknown and less experienced ones. It’s most apparent within a student-teacher relationship where both parties have accepted that a division is needed and should be respected. Although it is not exclusive to the older, reputable and more experienced; Problems arise when someone assumes a teacher role without the consent of his/her (assumed) student. It becomes more problematic when those ‘teachers’ feel they are entitled to a division and think their ‘students’ are obligated to accept and respect it.

Here’s the issue: Age and reputation can create the illusion of a proper division between teachers and students. From his perspective, Joe may have acted out because he thinks his age and reputation are enough to justify a proper student-teacher relationship. What’s worse is that he’s prepared to act on this presumption in front of friends and colleges! From my perspective, if Joe was playing Donna Lee Variations and I was listening, it would have been improper (and social suicide) to even suggest that he played a wrong note and engage in any public critique. For the same reason, after Joe’s ‘wrong-note’ comments, defending myself was complicated and almost impossible; “Who does Chris think he is defending himself from Joe, an older, respectable and more experienced musician?!”

If Joe’s intention was to create this division, his mistake was in overlooking a fundamental characteristic of proper student-teacher relationships: Mutuality. With Joe’s forced division and my unwillingness to accept it (especially when it comes to Donna Lee), there’s a conflict.

This issue deserves much attention; it runs deep. I’ve identified mutuality as a discussion topic, but I realize that it’s only part of the picture. For the sake of keeping the focus on Joe, I’ll be sure to revisit this issue in the near future!

Stay tuned for part 7!

If you missed it, here’s the link to Part 1 - The Incident.

Quick recap: While he listened to my Donna Lee Variations, Joe took an opportunity to publicly expose what he thought was ignorance and inexperience.

The tradition has been known to encourage cutting. Was this Joe’s purpose?

Doubtful. Doesn’t cutting involve having instruments in hand and letting the music do the talking? I’m not (necessarily) talking about stride pianists trying to outplay each other, I’m talking about general improv battles and on-stage competitiveness. May the best player win!

No, this isn’t what Joe was doing. Otherwise he would have kept silent and waited until the concert to show how Donna Lee really should be played. Let the listeners decide! But maybe the tradition has since morphed into something different. You don’t cut on-stage, you cut off-stage. You don’t use your instrument, you use your mouth. It’s not about the music; it’s about your reputation. You don’t need mutual respect, just the best put-down.

So maybe Joe wanted to keep me on my toes; he wanted to throw me off my game! I hope this isn’t a growing trend. It would grossly ruin an honorable tradition.

Stay tuned for Part 6!

If you missed it, here’s the link to Part 1 - The Incident.

Quick recap: While he listened to my Donna Lee Variations, Joe took an opportunity to publicly expose what he thought was ignorance and inexperience.

When is it advisable to compromise a relationship? Unless there is a serious conflict of interest or ethical issues involved, I would say: Never! Respect everybody, develop your people-skills and know how other people are responding to you on a personal level. Knowing how to nurture relationships is very important, especially for young artists.

Why would Joe risk compromising our relationship? Actually, it’s most likely that he either doesn’t care about nurturing relationships, or he doesn’t realize that he’s compromising them. The first instance is admirable only because (I’m assuming) he’s only interested in nurturing musical relationships. He seeks people he can connect with strictly on a musical level. This is only admirable to a point, which is when you realize that a person’s reputation isn’t enough to justify being an asshole.

The second instance tells that he is unaware of how people respond to his personality. It’s social awkwardness. If you’re an asshole, you’d better figure it out fast and start mending bridges. Your success depends on it!

Stay tuned for Part 5!

If you missed it, here’s the link to Part 1 - The Incident.

Quick recap: While he listened to my Donna Lee Variations, Joe took an opportunity to publicly expose what he thought was ignorance and inexperience.

Think about what happens when you suspect ignorance and inexperience. Immediately, you’ve drawn a line and made a division: You have more experience, and they have less. In a manner of speaking, you have set yourself as the teacher, and he/she the student. How do you handle this?
It’s natural to listen for an artist’s experience and compare it to your own, but the lesson here is how you deal with it.

First, you have to know that when listening to music, it’s impossible to know the exact nature of an artist’s diligence and experience. What if I told you I’ve never heard a recording of Donna Lee, and that I wrote some variations on a melody I randomly pulled from a fakebook? On the other hand, what if I was a Donna Lee scholar? When listening to any performance, you may have your suspicions, but you can never know, especially when an artist’s technical skills are well developed. It’s impossible.

Second, because knowing is impossible, publicly expressing your suspicions is extremely risky. There’s a chance you’re dead wrong. There’s a chance that people will disagree with you. Also, because you’re assuming an authoritative position, you run the risk of compromising a relationship. This is especially true if you’re not the fellow musician’s teacher or he/she didn’t ask for your feedback.

To clarify, I’m not saying publicly expressing your suspicions is a bad thing; you just have to be careful. I know that you want to keep artists honest, but you don’t want to put your foot in your mouth, and you definitely don’t want to shoot yourself in the foot. Make sure you have enough ammunition and good tact to back yourself up. This means you have to be extremely knowledgeable of the artist, his/her music and the context.

In my opinion, Joe made three mistakes. First, he didn’t give himself the opportunity to make a well-informed opinion (he only heard one of ten variations). Second, he assumed an authoritative position when it was most inappropriate and third, he did nothing to mend an awful first impression. He misread me, my music and the context.

Not sure if it’s worth the risk? Here’s some advice that will work 100% of the time: Keep your opinions to yourself. Read this post on unsolicited opinions.

Stay tuned for Part 4!

If you missed it, here’s the link to Part 1 - The Incident.

I don’t know why Joe did what he did. But I’d like to identify some issues that emerge because of instances like this.

Quick recap: While he listened to my Donna Lee Variations, Joe thought I played a wrong note.

First of all, what makes it ‘wrong?’ Joe thought it was wrong because I played it differently from Parker’s recording. But I played it that way on purpose. Is it still a wrong note? Of course not! I played it exactly how it was meant to be played. I won’t mention the countless examples of respected artists performing standards with ‘wrong’ notes over ‘wrong’ chords in the ‘wrong’ key in the ‘wrong’ time signature with the ‘wrong’ phrasing and the ‘wrong’ instrumentation (‘wrong’ means: different from the original version/recording)

Side note: Some interesting questions you might consider: Would Charlie Parker (or Miles) have cared that I changed their notes? Generally speaking, how has the tradition accepted ‘wrong’ notes? Does that matter to you?

I might as well reveal the real absurdity, which is that Joe plays ‘wrong’ notes all the time with the rest of us. It’s safe to say that there are too many contradictions and inconsistencies to assume that one silly note is at the heart of this situation.

So why did Joe care about my ‘wrong’ note?

Here’s a likely possibility: Joe didn’t really care about the note. But he used my ‘wrong’ note as an opportunity to publicly expose what he thought was ignorance and inexperience. Yikes!

This opens up a variety of issues. Stay tuned for Part 3!

The next few posts revolve around an incident I had with a person named Joe. Joe is about twenty years older than me; a generation older. We’ve never met. He’s respected. I know who he is, and respect him. He doesn’t know who I am.

As I’m sound checking for a performance, Joe is hearing my Donna Lee Variations for the first time. As I finish the first variation, Joe yells out, “Watch that second-last note buddy….”

I ignore the comment and continue with the second variation. When I finish, Joe yells out again: “Hey buddy, you’re playing that last phrase wrong! Check out the recording. The last notes go like this: [singing]. Not: [singing]. You gotta check out Bird’s recording and fix that note!”

It’s difficult to describe the context here. Joe had no humour or kindness in his voice. Nor was he trying to politely educate me by generously sharing his knowledge. This was a put-down in the strictest sense. He was marking territory. He was making a division. He was being inappropriate.

I wanted to respond, but was frozen and speechless. An internal battle ensued as to how to appropriately resolve this. I felt I needed to defend myself without compromising the relationship. It was an awkward situation. A friend who is also well-respected in the jazz community was nearby. He was listening and was familiar was my arrangement. He said to me in good humour, but loud enough for Joe to hear: “Don’t worry, he doesn’t know.” I continued and finished my sound-check. There were no more words from Joe for the rest of the night…Only vibes.

I’m happy to be writing about this. There are so many issues here.

Stay tuned for Part 2!

I deleted my Facebook profile today. I now only have a fan page.

I also severely cut down my e-mailing list. Instead of sending random gig reminders, I’m going to start sending out quarterly e-newsletters. I picked about 50 supporters of my music (mostly family, good friends and close colleagues) from my original list and gave them an opportunity to unsubscribe. For the other 500 contacts, I gave them an opportunity to subscribe. My list shrank from 550 to 150. Not surprising…

The concept behind my new marketing efforts is simple: Speak only to those who are listening. The goal is to produce a high quality message, share it unconditionally and hope that supporters will carry it to the next level. If something moves you, and you feel inclined, please forward it to friends; I’m counting on you!

I’m starting over; if you haven’t already, I would encourage you to do the same!

These time savers have limited my digital multitasking:

Considering my goals and priorities, most Facebook status updates are useless. The Facebook feed is littered with useless information. The problem is that Facebook has been designed so that checking useless feeds has become frequent and habitual. This causes distractions, multitasking and wasted time.

In fact, you may find my status updates to be useless. Here’s what you should do:

• Click “Hide” in the top right of my feed
• Then click “Hide Chris”

Of course, you can always click “Edit Options” at the bottom of the page to add friends’ activities back to the feed. You can also hide useless apps!

It’s a beautiful feature; I wouldn’t be surprised if Facebook removes it. But in the meantime, I’m not wasting as much time on Facebook anymore!

These time-savers have limited my digital multitasking:

One hour of good, focused work will be more productive than three hours of open-ended multitasking.

For this reason, my time spent on a task is never open-ended. Lately, I’ve been timing all my work-related tasks. I use a widget timer that runs on Dashboard. Once that timer starts, nothing else exists except the task at hand. Ideally, I won’t answer the phone, check email or even get up to get a snack. When it runs out, I quickly finish, clear my head and move on.

Personally, I try to blog for (no more than) one hour a day, transcribe for one hour a day, read for one hour a day and practice for four hours a day. These timed tasks and their daily limits are indicative of my priorities and my thresholds. It’s really important to know your threshold; once you exceed it, you’re likely being counterproductive and your time would be better spent on something else.

My Dashboard timer helps me organize my priorities, commit focus to all of my tasks and prevents me from overextending myself.

Sometimes the internet is the bane of my existence.

There’s always something more to check out; and it’s so easy and tempting.

I might find myself browsing so-and-so’s website, and then linking to another website, and another. I’m not learning or researching; these people don’t inspire me. I’m just curious. I’m creeping! Eventually, I’ll catch myself and realize, I don’t care about all this; I shut it down and return to the task at hand.

Does this sound familiar? Don’t you hate it when a one-hour task in front of the computer ends up taking two hours? This happens because we’re multi-tasking…or so we think. It’s actually physically impossible for humans to multitask. What our brains do is trick us into thinking we’re multi-tasking by switching our focus between tasks very rapidly. Once we’ve switched, it takes a second or two to regain the focus level we had on the previous task. Hence, our focus levels are always low and tasks take longer to complete.

There are ways to break these habits. Over the next month or so, I’m going to share some of my favourite time savers. Some are very subtle, but others have significantly enhanced my time management.

Here’s time saver #1:

All of my tasks are derived from my goals list. I’ve made a commitment to myself; nothing else matters except their completion. In this regard, sometimes it’s okay to be selfish.

Without a goals list, I’d be spending my time aimlessly. I’d be lucky to achieve anything significant. Even if I did achieve something, there would have been much time wasted.

My goals list tells me where to focus my attention

It’s getting out of hand; I’m averaging one “stranger” request every day. Not from people who are interested in me, mostly from people interested in promoting themselves. Along with their requests, I’m receiving their event invites, multiple page invites and desperate messages with links to their music.

So in two weeks, I’ll be erasing my Facebook profile!

I appreciate your readership, and want you to continue reading. If you’re interested in my work and like receiving and reading my updates through Facebook, please become a fan of my Facebook page. My page is mostly identical to my profile so you should receive all the same updates through your news feed. I’ll also send out a Facebook page invite in the next few days (only one I promise!).

If you’re interested in self-promoting, adding strangers as friends is counterproductive. At best, they’ll ignore you. Most likely, they’ll see you as a spammer; nobody likes spammers. But they’ll definitely think you’re boring.

Learn how to stand out; learn how to make an impact.

Here’s a link to part 7.

Quick recap: When it comes to playing solo piano, I’m always wrestling with physical issues, aesthetical issues with audiences and subsequently, issues getting gigs.

I decided to pursue solo piano for a number of reasons. One reason was because of its lack of representation. What do you think the ratio is between ensemble jazz pianists versus solo jazz pianists? How many jazz pianists have released more solo records than ensembles records? My guess is that it’s very unbalanced. I see an opportunity; there’s a void to be filled!

Side Note: Why is it unbalanced? Is the community to blame? The pianists? The listeners? The business? The tradition?

I’ve come to terms with many of the aesthetical issues surrounding solo piano. I mentioned previously that I can’t change listeners’ interests and that all I can do is share mine. But then again, maybe I can change their interests…

From part 6: “Could a Joe ever become a Bob? Whose job is it to convert him?”

If Joe represents an individual, then no, I don’t think he can ever change. But if Joe represents the culture or community, then yes, change is possible…gradual change. After my performance at Hermann’s in Victoria BC in October, I had a number of listeners comment that they wished Hermann’s would host more solo piano performances. That’s a start!

It was a magical evening; solo pianists can make powerful impressions. My hope is for students to pursue the glory of solo piano, as I am.

You can expect much more solo piano from me in the coming years!

Thanks for reading!

Here’s a link to part 5.

Quick recap: When it comes to playing solo piano, I’m always wrestling with physical issues, aesthetical issues with audiences and subsequently, issues getting gigs.

The following sums up many of the aesthetical issues; Peter Hum received this message from an Ottawa Jazz fan (I’ll call him Joe):

“Should I go to Paradiso Saturday evening?  Do you think Chris will play anything different? As good as his solo work is, I've heard it enough - his CD, last gig at Paradiso, and the JazzWorks fundraiser. I await your guidance.”

Peter asked for a response from me and I wrote:

“Listeners may be interested and find enjoyment in every facet of music-making. This could include process, evolution, creation and re-creation. I can’t change their interests; all I can do is share mine.”

For some people, there isn’t enough variety in solo piano performances (no matter how good you are!). For others, spontaneity is the highest virtue, and there isn’t enough variety in written/prepared music (especially after the second or third listen!). When I started exploring solo piano, I predicted that I would encounter listeners like Joe. Of course, if I were exploring trio music, I’d encounter listeners like Bob. You can’t please everybody.

My experience has shown me that, there are more Joes than there are Bobs in the jazz community. Many clubs aren’t interested in solo piano. If they are, then they’re often only interested in one short set or an opening set. Before I released ‘Solo,’ I spoke to a record company who was interested in working with me, but only if I was releasing a trio record. They told me that solo piano records are more successful if they’re released by artists who already have a reputation for playing in ensembles. Apparently, that’s how it’s “usually done.”

Here are two good questions: Could a Joe ever become a Bob? Whose job is it to convert him?

In the meantime, my marketing plan is simple: Find the Bobs; ignore the Joes.

Stay tuned for Part 7!

Sometimes the leader calls you with a gig, or sometimes you’re the leader and you call the sidemen. Either way, in an effort to entice, bargain and encourage, someone says that this gig is a great opportunity and will surely lead to more gigs.

If you’re using or hearing this tactic, be wary!

Leaders have to be relentless sellers; clients don’t fall out of the sky. At best, clients will ask you back for a second gig. That’s rare. Sometimes a client will recommend you to other clients. That’s extremely rare. Also, contacts made at that gig almost always fall through.

If you’re taking a gig because of a promise for more opportunities, you should be aware of the business plan (if one exists). If the plan is sketchy or if the leader isn’t the seller-type, think again whether it’s worth your while.

A few months ago, I wrote about competitions (here and here). This prompted a reply from Australian pianist and friend Daniel Gassin (his post here).

Among other things, Daniel wrote that two of his fellow competitors, who weren’t selected as finalists, commented that they’d “rather be doing gigs and tours with leading musicians than winning competitions.” I can’t comment on which is more valuable to the individual, but they’re certainly not mutually exclusive.

Why wouldn’t you participate in competitions? I can think of three reasons:

1. You can’t afford travel and accommodation,
2. You don’t want to pass up a more fruitful opportunity
3. You’re aesthetically opposed to competitions.

Otherwise I would encourage you to apply for all competitions. Engage the community!

Let me be clear: a bio that states you won first place in a competition offers no more legitimacy than a bio that reads you’ve played with leading musicians. Ideally, the only thing that should give us legitimacy is our music, but that’s the paradoxical nature of the language and unfortunately, it’s the language the music community uses to judge us!

I try to react neutrally to flashy bios and resumes. I imagine that most artists are the same. Wouldn’t you want to hear if they’re good before booking them for a tour? However, reading that they’re won a competition or played with someone heavy will peak my interest; it’s hard to resist!

That being said, I guarantee that winning/participating in competitions won’t hurt you. It may hurt your ego, but so could playing with leading musicians!

The community will respond positively to both, so do them both!

At the beginning of every year, for the last three years, I’ve made a habit of writing down my yearly goals.

Writing down my goals makes them real; now I’m committed to achieving them! Because I’ve set an endpoint, it’s much easier to queue the tasks and put myself on a path of progress. This is why I write down yearly goals: they link the short term (tasks) with the long term (success). It also means they’re time-stamped and forces me to work on a deadline.

I divide my list between “work” and “personal”. “Work” is divided between “music” and “business”. “Music” goals include repertoire I want to learn, improv exercises I want to check out and albums I want to transcribe. “Business” goals include recording a new album, producing some video promo and blogging at least once every two days.

It’s important that my goals are specific. For example, I would never write: “Improve be-bop playing.” Instead, I would write: “Learn every Charlie Parker tune in every key.”

Also, my goals are always ambitious; they all require significant dedication. I’ve yet to complete every goal on my yearly lists.

But my goals are always realistic; I probably could complete all my goals, but I can’t always anticipate where my interests will lead me. Sometimes an unexpected project will transpire and shift my focus. If I don’t complete a goal, it’s probably because I was busy completing another unwritten goal.

Three or four times a year, I revisit my list of goals; sometimes I need a reminder!

My career has grown exponentially since I started writing down my goals.

I called him three times a week for two months. I left messages and I sent emails. They were never returned. Occasionally, I reached him on the phone. He told me he was too busy to discuss and to call back the next day.

Weeks later, I reached him again. He told me again that he was too busy to discuss. I asked him when he’d be less busy and I’d call back then. He said he was too busy to think about when he wouldn’t be busy. He was indefinitely busy.

With the current system, there’s no solution to this besides respectful persistence. You’re best to assume that he/she is too busy. Don’t let your dark side convince you that he/she is an asshole. Or else that’ll seep into your correspondence and then you’ll never get the gig!

In the meantime, is there a better way to organize club bookings? The current system must be frustrating for club owners too. I can’t imagine how stressful it must be to own, manage and book a club, especially with all these artists pestering them every day!

Maybe some kind of online, social networking or digital booking system?

Once artists/groups go through an approval stage, the manager/owner places them into a class. Those customized classes determine the frequency the artist can play and on which days of the week. Popular artists can play more frequently and on Fridays and Saturdays, while less popular or younger artists can only play once every few months and on Sundays and Mondays. Artists could manually book themselves into clubs!

Could booking gigs go Web 2.0?

When I was working on ‘Solo,’ I reached a point when I was deciding if I should approach record companies. I contacted a number of friends and colleagues and asked them for their advice. “Should I go for it?”

All of them, with the exception of Braid, told me to do it without a record company. Reasons varied, but were along the lines of: “You’re not ready,” and “It’s better to do it yourself.” I have two issues with this advice:

Firstly, it’s counterproductive. Had I taken their advice, I would have been responsible for artwork, manufacturing, licensing, distribution and publicity. Inevitably, with zero experience in any of these, mistakes would have been made, money wasted, precious time spent and most importantly, quality would have been lost.

There are experienced people whose job is to manage these tasks. Artists should be eager to work with them. They may not be eager to work with you, but nothing ventured, nothing gained right? Go for it!

Secondly, I’m afraid this counterproductive advice is part of a broader culture of negative education. I’ve heard many variations on these phrases:

• There are no gigs
• You need to teach to live
• Leave Canada to be successful in Canada
• The music biz is evil
• Record companies are evil
• Don’t go for it

These statements may be true for some people, but preaching them will prevent students from reaching their fullest potential. Let’s rethink this attitude because taking Braid’s advice was one of my best career moves; I’m extremely grateful for his insight.

Don’t listen to people who tell you not to go for it.

I’m happy to announce that I have exceeded one hundred posts! You’re reading post #101!

A few things I’ve learned and observed about blogging:

• Shorter is better
• Post frequently
• Don’t be silly
• Know your audience
• Trolls are unavoidable
• Be interesting
• Blogging is the new school (double entendre!)
• Transparency is important
• Abide by the above and readership will grow!

Oh yeah, don’t forget:

• The community needs uniting

In case you missed it, please read my reflection on music competitions (Link)

Australian pianist and friend Daniel Gassin recently shared his views of music competitions on his blog. He was a participant in the 2007 Montreux Piano Competition. I’m planning on responding to Daniel’s post in the near future. I’d like to address his questions and discuss musicians who’d “rather be doing gigs and tours with leading musicians than winning competitions.”

In the meantime, I wrote this:

Let’s face it: Competitions are here to stay. The concept may be absurd, but they’re not going anywhere. There will always be presenters to host them and artists to participate in them. So rather than fight against music competitions, I thought of a few ways to enhance them. Ideally, I’m searching for a formula where my idea of excellence can always be achieved.

Competitions are often geared towards young professionals. They’re tempted with prize money, but what they really need is business relationships. Prize money has a fixed value; business relationships can be priceless.

So imagine there is no prize money. Instead, all participants are compensated for their travel, accommodation and performance. Emphasis is placed on participants interacting with other participants. Those relationships are valuable and competitions should highlight that. Expenses are paid so that participants have an equal opportunity to take advantage of that.

Top prizewinners are offered the services of a booking agent who will organize performances and tours over the course of a year. Most likely, the prizewinners would tour as a unit. Let’s say the 2nd and 3rd prizewinners split a set, and the 1st prizewinner plays the entire second set. They would be compensated accordingly. It seems to me that this would be the most market-friendly way to organize performances.

Side Note: Variations on the prizes could include the services of a recording studio, teacher, photographer, videographer and/or a publicist.

Here’s the hook: The participants are also the judges. They will represent excellence. Prizewinners are voted for on a private ballot. No discussions! I don’t like the idea of judges discussing and trying to persuade other judges to be ‘more moved’ by a performance than they naturally are. Otherwise, excellence is at the mercy of a persuasive judge and there would be no point in having more than one!

What do you think? It’s a rough draft and may need some tweaking, but it’s a start!

I have wasted too much time and energy on things that are useless.

I have had many moments of weakness. I clicked the links, watched the videos and read the news. I told myself that I want to know about the business and what’s happening with the music scene. Energy is spent on taking sides in debates with no practical value. I catch myself thinking about non-issues. I get wrapped up in what others think about what others think. I read too much banter. Useless banter.

Maybe it’s useful for some people, but not for me.

If my goal is to create music, I’ll want to immerse myself in all things that contribute to that purpose. Otherwise, as far as this goal is concerned, those things are useless. The secret is in knowing goals and tracing the best path to achieving them.

Side Note: There’s an irony here. You’re here, visiting my website and reading this post. Are you reading this out of habit or because it’s useful to you? Does my blog and this post contribute to you achieving your goals? If not, then stop reading. You’ve got better things to do!

I’m getting better at filtering. I’m getting better at recognizing things that inspire, motivate and improve me. I’m also getting better at recognizing things that are irrelevant or have become irrelevant. The list is continuously changing. I hope I can achieve the day when everything I take in is useful and contributes to my goals. Or else, I’m wasting time. That is my ideal.

Know your goals. Stay the course.

From Ali Berkok’s Facebook-comments on Another Elephant (Facebook link):

“I really don't think a kid younger than 16 is at all ready for jazz.

I'll elaborate a bit: I think you can teach a younger person how to swing. I think a good jazz player, however, should have an understanding of how most of the developments in the music come from a degree of rejection of what went before. There's also the concept of musical movements being couched in greater social changes of the time they come from. You also have to know enough standard practice period music to get how jazz turns those conventions on their head (i.e. rhythm). I suppose there are some pre-teens who might be able to handle all that, but I've never met any.”

I disagree so strongly that I consider this a non-issue. The fundamentals for a jazz education can start at age three. Kids can improvise and play tunes at age ten. Pre-teens can communicate musically in jazz ensembles. Mid-teens can write tunes and start their own jazz ensembles.

I know this because I lived it. And kids are still living it at the Humber College Community Music School.

But there’s still something lingering:

Jazz education is maximum 40 years old in Canada (if not in North America and the world). Programs have been springing up (some with considerable resistance) in colleges and universities all across the country. Naturally, jazz is gradually seeping down into high schools where graduates of these colleges and universities are teaching and making a living.

Side Note: Remember this post? It fits nicely, especially these few sentences:

“Arts institutions serve much broader a purpose than creating performers…Not all graduates have the skills, perseverance (or desire) to be performers. But that experience remains with them forever. They have a unique perspective. They have a cultured perspective.”

I’m very fortunate that I’m part of the first generation of music students who had access to a jazz education from when I was 3 years old (at HCCMS). To my knowledge, it was the first of its kind in the world and is still at the forefront of jazz education today. I’m excited to think that more programs like HCCMS will be appearing over the next 20 years!

Unfortunately, this movement is challenged at the post-secondary level by classical-music education. That’s beginning to change. The jazz community also challenges it. That’s changing too, but there are still plenty of issues out there creating resistance (The Carolina Shout incident, Teachout’s article, Old vs. New, Ali’s comments etc.). They’re all related in that they expose the community’s disunity. I hope that ironing out these issues is only a matter of fully realizing the education movement. After all, how many of them would exist if jazz education was 80 years old?

I’ll be bold: I think this 40-year-old process is part of a greater movement that can change the face of music education. It can change the world! It’s only a matter of blood, sweat, tears and patience!

My job: Pave the way; Promote unity.

This is my response to Emilio Le Blanc’s comment on my original post:

Hi Emilio, 

Thanks for your comments.

Let me clarify. This post addresses instances where musicians have the freewill to accept, reject or negotiate terms based on their supposed value. In regards to instances where musicians are starving, being blackmailed and/or being threatened by murder, I’ll have to save that for another post!

I just returned from playing a gig where I received no financial compensation. I perform at this venue because I believe it still offers value that is equal to the value of my performance. I don’t complain because the action of complaining assumes that this relationship is unequal. Complaining would be silly because it is in my power to reject or renegotiate these terms! It’s in all musicians’ power to reject or renegotiate these terms.

You may ask then: Would I sacrifice a career in music if I thought the whole world undervalued my work? You bet I would!

As for the Fountainhead reference, it's a beautiful quote and expresses perfectly my feelings on this subject.  I won’t hesitate to share things that have moved and inspired me. Regardless, I don’t entirely understand your views as you’ve written them, so we’ll have to save the debate for another time.

Chris

There is something inherently absurd with complaining about your gigs that pay poorly.     

Somewhere in the booking of a gig, there's a buyer, and there's a seller.  Club owners, restaurant managers, wedding planners and concert promoters are all buyers that offer value (usually money) to performers (sellers) who offer their live music in return. When negotiating, buyers and sellers should be looking to establish a point of equal contribution where value-given is equal to value-received. Otherwise, the seller is undercutting himself or the buyer is throwing his money away. One side reaps the benefits of an unbalanced deal while the other side is left to respond to lost value.  Because of it's familiarity, I think this process is taken for granted.      

If you agree to play a four-hour gig for $50, you are bound by the nature of that agreement and cannot claim to be worth more or less for that particular occasion. You are worth exactly $50. Otherwise, you’re undercutting yourself.

This is an ethical dilemma. You know you’re product is worth more, yet you accept less. You’ve spent a lifetime perfecting your craft only to throw it away. You’re undervaluing your work, your craft, your purpose, your love, your music, and your life! You’re now offering the skin off your back. That lost value is made up with the price of your soul!

Remember, there is never an obligation for you to accept gigs, and buyers are never obligated to hire you. Don’t let any buyers convince you you’re worth less (and don’t let other sellers convince you you’re worth more). Know your own price, and if the price isn’t right, say no!

“In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone…Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner.”

- Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

How many tunes should you know?

I was once told: if you want to be a player, you’ve got to know tunes!

They were referring to jazz standards. Tunes you call at a jam session. Tunes by George & Ira Gershwin, Rogers & Hart, Miles Davis, Wayne Shorter, Monk, Bill Evans and a host of others. Tunes that exist as part of the jazz legacy.

It’s a powerful statement, and has elements of truth, but it’s easy to dance around the language: “Does that mean, if you know lots of tunes, you’re a good player? If you know more tunes than anybody, are you the best player? How many tunes do you have to know to become a player? 100? 500? 5000? What if you learn non-jazz tunes? Does that make you less of a player? What if you’re only interested in performing original music?”

Here’s one way to look at it: If you want to perform music for a living, you have to be able to play something. You have to have repertoire.

If you want to perform music in ensembles for a living, you have to be able to play something everybody can play.

If you want to perform music in ensembles for a living, with no rehearsals, no discussions and no music, you have to have a common body of (memorized) repertoire that can be called upon at any time.

If you want to perform music in ensembles that only plays Charlie Parker tunes for a living, with no rehearsals, no discussions and no music, you’d better know every Charlie Parker tune.

(Side Note: In this case, you’d better know how to sound like Charlie Parker too!)

Let’s look at it from another perspective:

If you want to create an ensemble to perform music with no rehearsals, no discussions and no music, you have to hire the musicians that have the most extensive repertoire. You have to hire the musicians who know tunes. Otherwise, your band has nothing to play, and you don’t get any gigs! The more tunes you know, the more likely you are to be hired for this type of ensemble.

So how many tunes should you know? Maybe first you should ask: How do I want to make a living?

Every week, I get a few MySpace friend requests. Most of the time it’s from somebody on the other side of the world who is trying to promote their music. I approve the request and never hear from them again. I used to take a listen to some of their music, but now I don’t bother. It’s way too time consuming!

On Facebook, I’ll get twenty event invitations every week. I used to read them all to get insight into what’s happening in the arts community. My keenness tells me to know about everything and everyone. But there’s no time! There’s too much information coming from too many people. I have to be very selective.

These are examples of when MySpace and Facebook don’t work as networking tools. I used to add MySpace friends like that. But I recognized early how futile that is.

Online relationships need to be nurtured just like real relationships. Do you think by simply adding one more friend to your profile, you’re advancing your career? How about 500 friends? 10,000? Having 10,000 random MySpace friends is no different than having 10,000 business cards thrown in a box. Totally useless! Unless, you have the skills to stand out, make an impression and nurture genuine relationships with your friends/contacts.

If they haven’t already, I suspect that users will eventually become numb to all the information available to them on social networking sites. Which means you have to stand out and reach out to them in a unique way. Read this book. I would recommend using Keith’s tactics for online use. I think the skills required to build ‘real’ relationships can be easily transferred to build ‘online’ relationships.

I’d be interested to know if Keith has any plans to write a book on this: creating successful relationships in the digital world. As well as showing how the skills can be transferred. I’m sure he’d be able to offer more insightful strategies. I’m looking forward to it!

This post is a reflection on my experience as a participant in the 2009 Montreux Solo Jazz Piano Competition in July.

A truth about music competitions: Their objective is to reward excellence; Prizes are given to the most excellent participants.

This truth breaks down when you define excellence. Most people assume it refers to artistic excellence, but they’re often disappointed when they realize that artistic excellence can mean so many different things to different people. They’re especially disappointed when excellence is sought in non-musical forms. Like a participant who is excellent at drawing a crowd, or excellent at creating hype, or excellent at influencing judges! When it comes to music competitions, you can’t rule anything out. What do you expect when things are built on shady principles? No arts competition is immune to this inherent paradox: Presenting excellence objectively.

An interesting thought: Notice that even though we are aware of this absurdity, people rarely question the merits of competitions and competition winners because the language in their presentation compels us to assume artistic excellence is always achieved. Especially when we are far removed from the actual experience. For example, you may pick up a newspaper and the headline reads ‘Joe wins first place in music competition,’ or you see a two-minute news segment on a local pianist who is awarded first prize in a piano competition. Their presentation and language will always demand that you accept the implied objectivity.

From an extreme viewpoint, one could say that anytime we organize, participate in, or acknowledge the validity of music competitions, we are promoting this absurdity and giving in to the language that’s describing the impossible. It’s the willing suspension of disbelief. It can occur obviously, like being a judge or a participant. But it can also be subtle, like reading ‘Chris Donnelly places 2nd in the 2007 Jacksonville Jazz Piano Competition’ and subconsciously validating my name and music.

It’s too bad that competitions are so enticing; there’s something in them for everyone. For artists, it’s a great opportunity to network with other artists and (if lucky), walk away with some money! Judges are paid and held in high esteem. For presenters, they act as great marketing gimmicks. And for the public, they can be engaging, satisfying, dramatic and participatory. Music competitions will demand that everyone form an opinion despite their level of expertise thus they act as a means for the public to participate in the music community (and the absurdity). Everyone only has to sell his/her soul!

Actually, I’d like to believe I’m leasing it…hence this blog.

In regards to Montreux, excellence was at the mercy of these judges:

Chucho Valdés (Cuba) - presiding judge
Al Copley (USA)
Moncef Genoud (Switzerland)
André Manoukian (France)
Denis Matsuev (Russia)
Aziza Mustafa Zadeh (Azerbaijan)
Leo Tardin (Switzerland)

I didn’t speak to the judges about their decisions. I have my opinions, as does everyone else. But I decided that my experience as a participant overrides my experience as an artist, pianist and educator and so, for a number of reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to express them here. But I would encourage you to make your own decisions! The participants:

Zoltan Balogh (Hungary)
Elmar Brass (Germany)
Claude Diallo (Suisse) – Encouragement Prize
Chris Donnelly (Canada)
Thomas Enhco (France)
Beka Gochiashvili (Georgia) — 1st Prize (Shared)
Christian Li (USA)
Regina Litvinova (Russia)
Jorge Luis Pacheco (Cuba)
Peter Pinter (Hungary)
Mathis Picard (France)
Kuba Pluzek (Poland) – Encouragement Prize
Isfar Rzayev-Sarabski (Azerbaijan) — 1st Prize (Shared) & Public Prize
Matthieu Roffe) (France)
Xaview Thollard (France)
Franz Von Chossy (Germany) — 2nd Prize

Did the judges make the right decisions? I’ll let you decide. Maybe you agree, maybe you disagree.

But one thing’s for sure: The winners were excellent!

Please comment and share your stories! Here’s mine:

I booked myself at a club. I found out the night before that the owner forgot to tell me he sold the club’s piano. Luckily, there’s a piano dealer in town who’s open at 7:30pm! I cold called them and negotiated a reduced rental rate, about $400, which includes moving in, moving out and tuning.

The owner was only willing to cover $100 of the piano rental. I was ready to walk away from the gig, but there was an article/profile in the local newspaper advertising the performance. So I decided to suck it up and play.

A week or so later, I found out that his cheque bounced. He promised to send me another cheque by weeks end. He never sent it. After many phone calls, emails and voice messages, I read in that same local newspaper that the club went bankrupt.

I lose!

The original post
First Variation

Last one. It’s simply put, but probably the most frustrating of the three!

You’re organizing a tour and hoping for tour support. The tour can’t happen otherwise.

You can’t apply for touring support unless you have gigs. You can’t get gigs unless you have touring support!

Catch-22

Is there a better way to distribute grant monies?

The original post

Here’s another one:

You have $10000 to give out to composers. The money is to be used to commission new musical works. You have 20 seriously dedicated composers who apply for and deserve the money. They also submit samples of their proposed compositions, which vary in thematic development and unity. Unfortunately you can only give out ten awards of $1000 each.

You make your decisions and give the awards out to the composers with the most thematically developed and unified music samples. You tell the other ten composers that they weren’t considered because their samples weren’t as thematically developed and unified as their peers. It is your belief that they need more time to explore their thematic material.

Of course, they respond and say they need money so they can create time to explore their thematic material, which is why they applied in the first place!

Catch-22.

What’s the solution?

You have $10000 to give out to artists. The money is to be used exclusively for lessons and training. You have 20 seriously dedicated artists who vary in technical proficiency and experience. They all apply for (and deserve) the money. Unfortunately you can only give out 10 awards of $1000 each and they’re handed out based on artistic merit.

You make your decisions and give the awards out to artists who are more experienced and technically proficient. You tell the other artists that they weren’t considered because they’re not as experienced and technically proficient as their peers. It is your belief that they need more lessons and training.

Of course, they respond and say they need money for more lessons and training, which is why they applied in the first place!

Catch-22.

To whom do you give the awards?

I hear many artists talking about the arts in Europe. From a North American’s perspective, appreciation for the arts and culture seem to be more prevalent. There are more gigs, more fans and more opportunities. Why?

I read this article and had some thoughts. Is it all about habit forming? Europeans have had a thousand years to develop habits that support the arts. Which means, unfortunately, that if this is a major issue for North Americans, there is no quick fix.

What will a North American do when they’re free on Friday night? How often will they go to the opera? My guess: Very rarely. If we took every North American child to the opera every Friday night for twenty years, and they were grew to appreciate it, discuss it and support it, what would the arts community look like after twenty years?

Some discussion points I’ll be considering for future posts:

How prevalent is the use of habit-forming marketing initiatives in the arts? How do arts groups address this issue?

From another perspective, artists now have the opportunity to use websites like Facebook and Twitter that are forming habits of a different kind. How does this trend affect the community?

Lastly, if habit-forming is a major issue, then does that mean government-sponsored arts-supporting initiatives that don’t take this into consideration should be scrutinized and reorganized to allow a shift in priorities?

Before the story, a preface:

Cold calling is one of the most awkward things entrepreneurial artists (or entrepreneurs in general) have to do. You have to introduce yourself, be cordial, ask if it’s a convenient time to talk, explain why you’re calling and make a pitch all in twenty seconds! It’s a very humbling experience. Cold calling can shrink your ego to its smallest size, faster than anything.

Which is why this is a funny story:

Just when I thought my ego had been beaten enough from all my cold calling, I get an email. It’s a performance opportunity! This is exciting. It’s rare that performance opportunities come to me. I usually have to go to them!

He asks if I’m interested in putting on a performance with his orchestra. An orchestra?! Wow, yes, of course I’m interested! He contacted me through my website-form, and left his contact information.

After some bounced email messages, I call him and leave a message. He calls me back shortly after. The conversation goes something like this:

Me: Hello?

Him: Hello, it’s < > calling, you contacted me?

Me: Oh hi! Yes, it’s Chris Donnelly. I just left you a voice message. Thanks for calling me back!

Him: Hi Chris, how can I help you?

Me: I got your email message, but I was having problems with your email address. My messages kept on bouncing back! So I thought I should call….

Him: Oh…. but you contacted me first, so what can I do for you?

Me: Ummm, actually you contacted me first. It’s Chris Donnelly, pianist from Toronto. You sent me a message through my website?

Him: Oh…. Sorry…remind me who you are again?

There it is. My first ever ‘cold return.’ I never thought they could exist. But they do! A harsh reminder to artists that even when they’re thinking of you, they’re not! He remembered me eventually, after I re-introduced myself and explained why he first contacted me. We may even work together!

A Message from Seth Godin: (Link)

For every performer, composer, teacher and entrepreneur: Is this relevant to what we’re doing as artists? Let’s explore. Of course, I’m going to assume we’re all dedicated to keeping our integrity!

The undertones in Seth Godin’s message are powerful. He assumes you have ambitions to take things to the next level. He assumes you think your product isn’t achieving the success it deserves. The diagnosis can be related to the product and/or the personality.

(Side note: He also hints that traditional means of marketing are breaking down and new methods are of the essence. We’ll save that for another discussion!)

Let me try to put this into context. I think it works in two ways. Either you’re offering something that’s already abundantly available in the marketplace, or you’re trying to introduce something different to the marketplace with little or no success. Regardless, the symptom is the same: People are ignoring you. Who are they? They’re the audience you hope to have! They’re the success you hope to achieve!

From a marketing perspective, the solutions to these two scenarios seem to complement each other. If you’re offering something already in abundance, you’ll have to promote yourself as something new, different and innovative. On the other hand, if you’re offering something new, different or innovative to the marketplace, you’ll have to promote your product as something that’s already in high demand; convince them they want you, or else they’ll ignore you! Does that make sense? Seth?!

Here are a few specific scenarios. I’ll focus on scenarios related to performers because that’s what I’m most familiar with.

• You’re new to the scene and you want to break in
• You’re 1 of 50 collaborative pianists in the city
• You lead 1 of 30 jazz quartets in the city
• You have a Bachelor in Music Performance
• You’re trying to get a gig at the local club
• You’re trying to get more gigs at more clubs
• You’re talented

Competition is fierce just with the sheer volume of supply. Yes, on a deep level, everyone is different and has their own unique style and sound. But they’re still ignoring you! Why? Because this is what they see:

• You sound like everyone else sounds
• You act how everyone else acts
• You look how everyone else looks
• You want what everyone else wants

So far, I’ve reiterated what Seth said, only in music speak. For artists and musicians, the solution is clear: Be remarkable. How? Easy answer: Be the best! Master your craft! This way, you’re almost guaranteed to bypass the competition.

Another way is to use creative thinking. Look at what everyone else does, find the common element and enhance it. How do they present themselves? How can you do better? A simple example: You’re hired to play in a band that plays original music. You may notice that members of this kind of band are usually reading from a score. My advice: Memorize the music!

There are many other ways musicians and entrepreneurs can enhance their efforts in order to stand out (and still keep the artistic integrity!) Don’t take any part of your career for granted. Try looking at yourself objectively. Try to see what they see. How are your people skills? How do you dress? How do you act? How do you connect with an audience? How do you compare? What can you offer that nobody else can?

Thanks Seth!

A good quote is beautiful because it packs lots of meaningful information in a sentence or two. I hope you enjoy some of my favourites. Here’s one:

“It is not advisable to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener.”

- Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Generally, unsolicited opinions are only problematic when the opinion is negative or critical. Nobody minds a positive attitude! Negative opinions can come across as being rude and ignorant. Sometimes critical opinions are welcome, especially among friends and close colleagues. Context is everything. Learn to read it.

Don’t let your ego do the thinking. Maybe you feel a need to establish dominance or prove competency for people of more experience. That’s risky. Is it worth putting a damper on the relationship? Besides, what do you know? If you recognize that they’re of more experience, that’s good reading, but you’re probably better off listening than speaking. Be aware of the imaginary line that’s often drawn between you and the experienced. Don’t cross it. Respect it. It’s all about reading people and the context.

Your listeners will all handle your unsolicited, inexperienced, ignorant and rude opinions differently. If you’re lucky, they’ll embarrass you. But sometimes you’re not given that insight. You’ll never know how low you just sank!

One thing that will kill all your chances at success before anything else is a sense of entitlement. A certain someone is getting all the recognition while you think you’re clearly more deserving. Out of a sense of entitlement comes bitterness, spite, confusion, hatred and a prevailing darkness that clouds your ability to look at your career objectively and put things into perspective.

Accept this: There are people who are less talented who will be more successful than you. There are also people who are more talented who will be less successful than you.

Talent isn’t everything. Nobody has said otherwise. If those ‘less-talented’ and ‘less-deserving’ people are achieving the things you should be achieving, then they’re doing something you’re not! And if you’re measuring your career against theirs, then you should be learning from people who are more successful instead of passing judgment.

Narrow in and focus on your own career. Remember why you became an artist in the first place, and understand that recognition will never be a guarantee.

…is a frequent question music students and pre-professionals ask. Here’s a strategy you might consider:

First, ask yourself, what is my minimum? If the offered price is less than your minimum, it’s not worth your while and you don’t do the gig. Never undercut yourself.

Second, what do I think is the maximum asking price where the buyer will still be willing to hire? If a buyer says no to $1001, but yes to $1000, $1000 is your maximum. Figuring this out takes practice and experience.

You have your minimum and your (speculative) maximum. Time to negotiate! You want to get closer to their maximum and they want to get closer to your minimum. Good luck!

These two snippets are taken from Heather Ostertag’s speech from the Juno Dinner and Gala on March 28, 2009:

“Culture has proven it produces a positive return on investment”
“Music from both the cultural and business aspect is a sound investment.”

I have been seeing phrases similar to this used more and more frequently to convince the government for more arts funding. It popped up quite a bit in the previous federal election as well.

I should say that I’m not out to disprove anything. I just think that sometimes people habitually use and accept phrases like these and so my intuition is telling me to look at them closer. Kind of like the phrase “Toronto is the most multi-cultural city in the world.” Torontonians hear this everywhere, but I’m unconvinced. Do we accept these ideas because they’re based on empirical fact or because it creates buzz and strokes our ego as proud Torontonians/artists?

First of all, if you know where I can find studies that show investment in the arts produces a positive return on investment, please show me (for that matter, if you know where I can find studies that show that Toronto is the most multi-cultural city in the world, please show me that too!) I would be most interested in how much those positive returns are, and also how arts investment compares to other investment options.

I suspect that Heather Ostertag and others are guilty of over simplifying the meaning of investment. What do they mean by “positive return?” Do they mean positive monetary return? Cultural return? Intellectual return? Without any context to these arguments they seem redundant. It’s rhetoric. Which means they’re not necessarily targeting government officials, but also artists and the general public. For artists, it becomes a mantra they can instinctively use to encourage investment or combat cuts to arts funding. As an artist, I can say that I’m not the most knowledgeable in the fields of monetary investment and macroeconomics so simplification would be most welcome!

Lets discuss!

I’m sure we’d all agree that the ratio between good stuff and bad stuff on sites like YouTube is grossly unbalanced (this trend probably applies to all disciplines, not just the arts and music). Talented players and educators are not adjusting their marketing efforts to take advantage of all the opportunities online. Why? For one, creating and posting content online hasn’t’ yet become routine for respected professionals. Second, they’ve got better things to do! They’re too busy practicing, playing gigs, composing, booking gigs, teaching and trying to support themselves and their families. Making that transition would require serious dedication, patience and at least a few years of regular posting to creating a small following. They don’t have time for that kind of endeavor!

Instead, young amateurs and hobbyists are posting awful performance and instructional videos for beginners who don’t know any better. After all, what else are they going to do? They can’t play professionally because they’re not good enough. So places like YouTube become their outlet for performing on an international stage. The worst part is that they’re getting a head start in developing an online presence and a dedicated fan base.

Things will inevitably change. Hopefully fans will know the difference between quality and inexperience. But regardless, this is a great time to your foot in the door. It’s time to start flushing out all those inexperienced Internet ‘experts!’