Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: The Professor Jan 27 2013, 07:59 PM

Interesting comments from Pat Metheny on Youtube and it's effect on performers.





What do you think about it?

Posted by: klasaine Jan 27 2013, 10:07 PM

I think he's dead on it.
I would also add that it's totally lowered the bar for what constitutes a 'performance' ... as in ANYTHING now is a performance. I hate that at every gig I do I have to assume that somebody is gonna catch it on their crappy phone.
Does it inhibit me? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Having said that ... Pat Metheny's worst night is better than most folks best night.

Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Jan 28 2013, 10:02 AM

Honestly speaking - for any band which is at the beginning, the more it appears on Youtube, the more popular it can get so, I think that the phenomenon is beneficial to a certain degree.

What's your opinion on this? Do you perceive it as a bad thing thinking from the perspective above mentioned?

Posted by: The Professor Jan 28 2013, 10:13 AM

I think YouTube is a great idea, especially for us that can't afford to hire Press teams to promote our music/teaching etc.

But I do see his point. As someone that plays mostly jazz and improvised music, I do feel more pressure to "get it right" on stage, taking less chances maybe some nights because I know it will wind up on YouTube.

I think there are pros and cons to the situation, but overall it's a positive thing for many people. And it has helped my career out a lot, so I'm better off for it

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Jan 28 2013, 11:16 AM

Agreed -

Although I am big Metheny fan - I am allergic to established musicians complaining about youtube (etc).

Maybe I missed something specific to Pat Metheny, but youtube is fantastic at self-filtering: A good perfomance will get good exposure and a mediocre won't. The only exception I can think of would be if a live performance of an established name is unexpectedly disastrous (à la Dragonforce), but I don't really see that happening a jazz God such as Metheny...

My thesis is that Metheny (along many other fantastic improvisers like Holdsworth etc) now have to learn to deal differently with their self-criticism. It is a two edged sword though, as self-criticism is probably what has driven them towards perfectionism.

Posted by: PosterBoy Jan 28 2013, 12:40 PM

There have always been bands that have encouraged audio taping of shows and the trading community. Others not so much

Posted by: klasaine Jan 28 2013, 05:08 PM

I think his point is not that someone is 'taping' to share with other fans/musos (the Dead), usually of semi decent or at least representational quality but that it all goes out there to anybody and it's audio quality is generally terrible - it's a phone.

For new bands, especially pop and rock, sure - you need exposure and youtube is a wonderful thing for that.
For improvised music it's inhibiting to some extent. I don't think the musicians are stressing about the self-criticism. They know perfectly well when they do a crappy gig and they're able to perform/improvise every night because they can 'let it go'. It's part of the art form - sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you - cest la vie. They just don't want every crappy gig they do up for permanent public display.
It's kinda the antithesis of what the audience expects - that you'll just get up there and play, no worries.
I've also noticed that it seems like folks are paying more attention to 'taping' at the moment than they are paying attention to the gig at the moment. Whatever. Their loss I guess.

But it is a 'new day' so damn the torpedos, full steam ahead.

Posted by: tonymiro Jan 28 2013, 05:43 PM

Very much what Klasaine says. Also, Metheny and Holdsworth do improvise rather than repeat note for note the solos on the recording. Holdsworth even got in to a disagreement with Jobson when he was in UK because he improvised every night rather than repeated. Improvising as such almost certainly helps them experiment and encourages them to take risks because it is (supposed to be) ephemeral.

Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Jan 28 2013, 08:04 PM

Well, people should understand the various contexts and not film where improvising artists ask that - but hey, it's never easy, is it?

Posted by: Gabriel Leopardi Jan 28 2013, 11:09 PM

I understand Pat's point of view but I think that there more positive sides than negatives regarding the apparition of youtube. Sincerely I can't understand people that goes to a concert and films it with his cell phone (in a very bad quality) instead of just concentrating and enjoying in music but on the other side Youtube has gave us (the artists and the listeners) a lot of new way to contact with music, bands and a new way of sharing our art. So it's fantastic.

Posted by: klasaine Jan 28 2013, 11:46 PM

There are of course lots of positive aspects of youtube or any quick and easy video sharing technology.
IMO the 'negative' that's being discussed here is a HUGE negative and degrades the quality of the art/product.
But like I said - that's life. Deal with it.

Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Jan 29 2013, 09:24 AM

So far, Youtube has helped me A TON, so it's a hard to put myself in Pat's shoes - not that I am even 5% the experienced musician/ guitarist that he is - probably that's a major factor that enlarges the gap Who knows what's really going on in the man's soul? I think it's better to reap the benefits at each stage and try to see the positive parts

Posted by: klasaine Jan 29 2013, 05:32 PM

When you have control over your image and what's being put out there(?) - YT is awesome.

When your at Pat's level - you don't have that control. You've got 1000's of people constantly with their phones pointed in your direction ready to post anything and everything and there's nothing the artist can do about it. Hence his personal rant. Also, PM has always said what's on his mind and pulls no punches ... that's one of the reasons why he's a legend. He's not afraid to tell his truth. His career path demonstrates that he's been right about a lot of things. Time will tell if he's right about this.

*Personally, I've embraced it. Or lets say, learned to deal with it as positively as I can. Go to my youtube pages and you'll see a ton of stuff that I know completely sucks. I'm NOBODY and the only stuff 'I' put up there are the solo guitar chord melody vids and a few very quick teaching (supplemental) examples ... but there's all this other stuff in the cloud and I've made the decision to say "hey, this is me - the good and bad - check it out" instead of having folks 'find' it and then potentially snicker. It's given me a little insight as to why Russell Crowe may want to hit a guy with a camera.

Posted by: Jonas Tamas Jan 31 2013, 09:45 AM

I remember reading an interview with Guthrie Govan and he has said basically the same thing as Pat Metheny is saying in this video.

One of YouTube's effects is that it has raised the bar immensely in the level of guitar playing. I see a lot of teenagers on YouTube with an amazing technique - they would have been guitar stars back in the 80s with their chops. So YouTube is a great source of learning, but of course you should not forget other aspects like inspiration, musicality, theory and melodies on the way.

Posted by: klasaine Feb 4 2013, 08:23 AM

Only if they were in a band that wrote at least one good/catchy song. Which is a whole other kettle of fish.

Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Feb 4 2013, 08:26 AM

Exactly! A lot of people see these dudes playing the guitar like monsters and they ask themselves - how come they are not famous? But the true answer lies in the fact that these days, almost anybody having enough patience, discipline and time on their hands can become technically proficient as a player. But when it comes to write music, as Ken says, things are a lot different ...

Posted by: klasaine Feb 4 2013, 08:38 AM

There have always been 'kid' virtuosos. We just see and hear them all now because it's so easy to record and 'post' (disseminate). Every TV variety show, talk show, talent show ALWAYS featured a little kid who could 'shred'.
Check out these two from probably 1956 ...


And then this ...



the 'sync' is off but the performance is real ...



Sadly (or maybe not so sadly - ?) most of the little virtuosos don't end up as performers/professionals. There are so many other variables. A Joe Bonamass, Derek Trucks and Stevie Wonder are the rara avis in the industry.

Posted by: Jonas Tamas Feb 4 2013, 01:18 PM

Can't agree more!

Posted by: klasaine Feb 4 2013, 05:12 PM

Also, as anybody knows who's played in a band - even if only for a week - it's a completely different skill set to work with 3 or 4 other guys/gals, schedule rehearsals, get gigs, get your gear together for 'live playing', not freak out in front of an audience and not kill each other - let alone actually write a song.

Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Feb 4 2013, 06:12 PM

Ken, I was only thinking about the music - not about the whole ensemble... When it comes to that... Only God knows what sort of stuff can happen

Posted by: Gabriel Leopardi Feb 4 2013, 07:42 PM

Can't agree more! Well said Cosmin. After all, we are here because we love and want to make music!




haha this is so true! My band is close to reach 10 years of existence and the things that you listed here are not a detail!

Posted by: klasaine Feb 4 2013, 08:34 PM

Yes sir!
The music's the easy part innit!?

Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Feb 5 2013, 09:34 AM

Sometimes, it really is

When you are ready with everything and one guy decides he wants to leave the band, for instance, you realize you really have nothing at all ready In here, it's very hard to find someone having both skills, dedication and human traits... and that's not playing in 3 other bands already

Posted by: Jonas Tamas Feb 5 2013, 03:20 PM

It's so true.