Do yall think that a true musician(someone that plays an instrument and has perfected that) should be expected to adapt to the musical climate of today considering that the popular music of today has very little instrumentation or use of live instruments? For instance, I notice critics and the like always talk about an artist's "relevance" in todays music scene. However, if an artist came of age during a period where instruments were a huge part of the popular music and instrumentation was praised should we expect for them to remain "relevant" by putting down their instrument/instrumentation and adapting to the musical climate of the current day in order to remain "relevant?"

LoveAlive said:

in order to play an instrument and perfect it u need a little thing called TALENT. very few of today's artists have any kind of musical ability(ashlee simspon 50 cent etc.) and just about zero talent. i think talent is more important than playing an instrument or trying to adapt to the musical climate of the day. Prince & Michael Jackson nevr followed the ordinary and look how great they turned out!

As a Musician i would like to add that no one can perfect an instrument
its a constant learning experience!
Talent has nothing to do with it,
Consinstency does lol
if you keep at it, you'll get good basic fact
Musicians should adapt but they should hold true their cognitive nature
by mixing instruments with computers
thats how innovation is created

LoveAlive said:

A couple of points - if the musician in question makes a living from session work then definitely, they should apadt to the musical tastes of the time.

There's nothing wrong with established musicians taking their cues from newer musical forms, as long as they retain the essence of what made them popular in the first place. Cross-fertilisation: that's one of the very things that keeps popular music alive and vital.

It's not true to say that the music of today has "very little instrumentation or use of live instruments" - can you define your parameters please? Are you talking about RnB, rap, rock, pop, jazz? If you're talking about pure pop, then you need to make the distinction between musicians and entertainers. Someone like Ashlee Simpson would probably not call herself a musician, but she is nevertheless an entertainer, and in pop, entertainment value is almost always as important as musicality. Ever hear Elvis play guitar?

Not that this is answering the question, but if u can programme a keyboard or drum (which I can) then that is something surely. I can play acoustic a bit. But I got lazy.

Like body building, if u quit an instrument, even for just a month, u'll find it hard to pick it up again (unless u'd been doing it for years)

LoveAlive said:

That depends on whether or not they wanna get PAID. I'm gonna lay this out right quick, but before I do, understand that its NOT the way I feel; its the way it is. If you're an instrument playing artist, you have a few options:
1. Pick up on keyboards and start producing. You'll have a huge advantage over the "beatmakers".
2. Change genres to country, jazz, blues or classical. There will always be work in those genres for you.
3. If an artist came up in an earlier era, there's "old skool" touring to be done. Until their fans die off, they have work. Old school puts food on the table of a many working musician
4. Cover band hell. There's always room. Yeah, you may have had a hit back in '83, but $$$ talks. A past rep as a national artist can get you into practically any good money making cover band.
5. This is probably the least talked about option. Its kinda controversial, so I won't delve into it too deeply. GHOSTWRITE. Ghostwrite hits for artists that are popular. There are MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY ghostwriters in the music industry right now. Everybody needs a hit, but not everybody is willing to put $5Mil+ into YOUR ass. If you are "past your prime" by industry standards, you can write hits for others and hope that eventually someone wil remember you and let you get a foot back in or resign you. (Teena, are you out there?! We still love you!)
5. The good old musical director gig. You may be able to get on a "relevant" artist's tour as a musical director. Chuckii Booker did it. Others do, too.

Huge artists like Prince, Bowie, Kiss, or any other artist with a huge core fanbase don't have to worry about staying relevant. They just have to hock merchandise to fans and release an occasional CD and maybe follow it up with a tour. Its the minor hit wonders that have to make choices like that. Have you heard Justin Timberlake's new song with Snoop and CHARLIE WILSON?! See the choice he made? F*ck the GAP Band when the chips are down, I guess. A brotha's gotta make his chedda howeva. Ron Isley allowed R. Kelly to reinvent him as "Mr. BIgg" and it worked for him.
Staying relevant is only important if you are trying to extend your pop career like Madonna or Janet. If you are writing music because you want to express yourself, you need only but please your core audience. Everyone else can come and go.
[Edited 4/14/05 2:44am]