Every musician comes to a crossroad at one point in their careers; they must make a decision whether they want to lean toward being an entertainer or an artist. There are two extremes to these paths. The extreme entertainer has no musical vision of his own; he only plays what people want to hear, or at least, what he thinks they want to hear. The extreme artist only cares about his or her own musical vision; the audience does not matter. Is it possible to balance being true to your musical vision while being sensitive to your audience?
The debate of artist versus entertainer is especially prevalent in Jazz music. When Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie created Bebop, Jazz branched into two directions: the accessible pop music of the day and artistic music that required more active listening. Some Bebop bands even went as far as putting up signs that forbid dancing during their performances.
Miles Davis is another example of a musician who fought to be true to his musical vision. Again and again, Miles was always reinventing his music, despite what some audiences wanted to hear. When people wanted to hear "So What", he was already moving on to his next musical explorations. Miles even sometimes literally turned his back to audiences.
Does that mean that these forefathers of jazz didn't care about their audiences at all? No, but there was a point where they had the courage to draw the line and say "this is what we are doing, take it or leave it." Being true to yourself can be one of the hardest things to do as a musician. What if the great pioneering artists of the past just pandered to audiences or the almighty dollar? We wouldn't have the great musical works that we have today.
Not that I deserve to be compared to Miles Davis or Charlie Parker, but as a musician, I find myself often going against the grain of culture. I don't know if it was divine inspiration, but when I lead my own band to play my own music, I have chose the path of the jazz-fusion bass guitarist. I don't play this music just to please people or just to make money. If people like it or want to pay me to play it, great, but that is not why I do it. I play this music because I believe in it and I have an original statement to make through it.
It would be much easier for me to take a more typical musical path. I currently live the the worst possible place in the world for this type of music. It is funny the comments I get from audiences. "Hey, man, where's your singer? Y'all would be great if you had a singer" or "Do you know any Jimmy Buffet?" Sometimes even band mates make comments like "Why don't we play music people actually like." On the other hand, I have no problem playing hip arrangements of Christmas tunes or playing "Thriller" at Halloween.
So, how do you balance artistic vision while being mindful to your audience? Here a list of tips to balance the path of the artist with the path of the entertainer.
1. Melody. The aspect of music that resonates with everyone, including the musically illiterate, is melody. If your music has a singable melody, anybody can enjoy the music, no matter how complicated the harmony or rhythm underneath it is.
2. Communication. When a band is hired, there should be a clear line of communication between the band leader and the person hiring the band. The person paying the band should know exactly what they are paying for.
3. Be Prepared for Sacrifices. When a musician steps out of the ordinary, for example, someone playing jazz in South Alabama, he or she should be prepared to possibly take a hit financially, expect lower concert attendance or will have to take criticism from peers or critics.
4. Remember Tradition. Remember, jazz and pop music has traditionally mingled together (only in a sophisticated way) for quite some time. Actually, jazz used to be pop music. The most trite of popular ditties can be transformed into epic improvised excursions, like John Coltrane playing "My Favorite Things" or Brad Meldau playing Radiohead. (So far, I don't know anyone who has had any luck with a jazz version of "Margaritaville" though, which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.)
