Quote:
Originally Posted by applesapples
It's actually a really sad thing considering what a true artist puts into his or her work, and what people are truly getting when they pay for it.
What do you guys think?
|
How do you define a 'true' artist? Shouldn't they be the kind of person that creates simply for the sake of creating rather than expecting commercial success and material wealth?
Avalon's stance kind of reminds me of something that my father recently said in regards to music and fame. Back in his day there was only one star and it was Elvis, then the Beatles / Rolling Stones came along, but now everyone seems to be a big star, there are too many of them to keep up with. While I don't agree entirely I can definitely see where he's coming from. The exposure to artists was significantly more limited prior to cable TV and definitely more limited prior to the internet, minimizing the exposure made it a lot easier to control the stars and how the mainstream perceived those individuals.
At this point the quantity has expanded to the point where the value of the individual 'stars' is less but that doesn't mean that music in itself has lost value, only that society and the masses of mainstream listeners don't funnel all their disposable money into a small handful of options anymore.
Quite frankly hearing any sort of exec complaining that music is going down or that it's failing is simply a reflection of some douche-y suit getting old and not noticing how long ago the 90s really were.