Ok, joke s over... FUCK Sonic Youth.

424
tommydski wrote:Why even book the damn show if you don't have your shit together?


That's not the point. Bands often play NYC with shared gear. The club owners like it too, because it keeps the ruckus level down. The hubbub too.

Some places will have their own cabs. Last year I played up there at the Living Room and just brought my guitar, pedal board and Tiny Terror head - plugged it into the house 2x12. Our bass player used the house Ampeg 8x10. They had a drum kit too (minus cymbals).

We played up there at Makor, in February, and I just used the last band's amp. They had a house bass rig (SVT/8x10) because that's the hardest thing to get in and out of a club.

The point is you need to ask in advance and not assume anything. It's not the club's or another band's job to bail you out, so arrange things.

As much as I like to think I have "my sound" I'd rather go to a gig in a taxi, so I love this about NYC, but I always check.

-A
Itchy McGoo wrote:I would like to be a "shoop-shoop" girl in whatever band Alex Maiolo is in.

Ok, joke s over... FUCK Sonic Youth.

426
Ty Webb wrote:
sparky wrote:
tommydski wrote:Thanks a lot, sparky.

That's an excellent response that has given me a lot to think about.


Thanks tommy.

It was a good question, which I've been thinking about myself a little. I am writing a novel (along with 75% of British university-educated males of my age) and am wondering to what extent, if at all, I need to think of someone actually wanting to read the horrible thing.


I'm no musician and I've been leaving it to fellow musicians to comment so far, but as a writer, I can relate to this one.

My gut instinct, strictly as the "artist," is absolutely do not think of it. If a writer does not allow the audience to come to him, he hasn't written the book he's had inside him for years. He's written a de facto commissioned piece.

sparky, you know how difficult it is to write something about which one is uninspired. And the vast majority of fiction authors, to be brutally frank, only have one good novel in them. (Actually, most of us don't even have that.) It's the one they've burned to write since they first knew they were to born to put pen to paper. I think changing a single period or comma of that novel based on a hypothetical reader's expectations is the worst kind of self-sabotage.

And I'm not talking strictly for reasons of "artistic integrity" or any other high-minded but nearly impossible to define ethical concept. I'm talking about the quality of the work itself. Pandering is transparent to any semi-conscious reader and will kill not only the novel itself, but the sort of burning inspiration that leads a writer to write one in the first place.

Actually, I do think writers need to think of The Reader but just one: the writer himself. Write something that you'd love to read or you're fucked. Yeah, you'd think a lot of beginning writers would think of this. And you'd be wrong.

Ok, joke s over... FUCK Sonic Youth.

429
connor wrote:
Ty Webb wrote:
sparky wrote:
tommydski wrote:Thanks a lot, sparky.

That's an excellent response that has given me a lot to think about.


Thanks tommy.

It was a good question, which I've been thinking about myself a little. I am writing a novel (along with 75% of British university-educated males of my age) and am wondering to what extent, if at all, I need to think of someone actually wanting to read the horrible thing.


I'm no musician and I've been leaving it to fellow musicians to comment so far, but as a writer, I can relate to this one.

My gut instinct, strictly as the "artist," is absolutely do not think of it. If a writer does not allow the audience to come to him, he hasn't written the book he's had inside him for years. He's written a de facto commissioned piece.

sparky, you know how difficult it is to write something about which one is uninspired. And the vast majority of fiction authors, to be brutally frank, only have one good novel in them. (Actually, most of us don't even have that.) It's the one they've burned to write since they first knew they were to born to put pen to paper. I think changing a single period or comma of that novel based on a hypothetical reader's expectations is the worst kind of self-sabotage.

And I'm not talking strictly for reasons of "artistic integrity" or any other high-minded but nearly impossible to define ethical concept. I'm talking about the quality of the work itself. Pandering is transparent to any semi-conscious reader and will kill not only the novel itself, but the sort of burning inspiration that leads a writer to write one in the first place.

Actually, I do think writers need to think of The Reader but just one: the writer himself. Write something that you'd love to read or you're fucked. Yeah, you'd think a lot of beginning writers would think of this. And you'd be wrong.


I think we're saying the same thing. After all, why the hell would I burn to write something I in turn wouldn't want to read?
You had me at Sex Traction Aunts Getting Vodka-Rogered On Glass Furniture

Ok, joke s over... FUCK Sonic Youth.

430
Oh, I agree that we are saying the same thing. I just wanted to point out that with young writers (including myself), a somewhat accurate self-perception is often difficult to come by.

And after spending two years in a MFA program looking at about a dozen "rookie mistakes" per week, I can honestly say that 90% of the writers there are scribbling away at crap they would never read more than a page of if it didn't bear their own name.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests