Re: Serious vs. Serious

[adams%bosco.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey P. Adams)]

"Commercially successful music has no artistic integrity."

That seems to be an underlying attitude of many recent postings.
Do people really believe that?  Even if you deny it, is there
something inside you that feels that it's true?  Do you think
Phil Collins is a lightweight just because he has become pheno-
menally successful, or is it something about his music?  Same
for Tears for Fears, The Beatles, etc..

Hypothetical situation: If KaTe's next album were somehow to become
incredibly popular, outselling all other albums in history, and
winning fans among all age groups, cultural backgrounds, and
educational levels, would you somehow feel "It can't be as good,"
or, "Too bad she sold out."?

Is there something in you which wants to stand out from the crowd
so badly that you will like something more if it's not popular?

Hypothetical thought: Maybe there is merit to the above statement.
Maybe, just maybe, struggling artists have a different kind of energy,
and unpopular artists have lives more like yours and mine.  Who can
really relate to Tears for Fears's messages of suffering when we know
they're millionaires and are very successful in their careers?

On the other hand, maybe they're popular for a reason.  Maybe, just
maybe, their music is so good that even "normal" people find meaning
in it.  Think: Would you jump off a cliff just because everyone else
*wasn't* doing it?

What do you think?
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeff Adams                 "I can't see the lines
adams@bosco.berkeley.edu    I used to think I could read between" -Eno
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~