i dont feel that you have covered music from another era, dude.
you did menti0on that you felt the era of motown was less commercial, but you havent really convinced me.
they didnt have street teams, sure. but they did make music to make money, so i am once again lost.
Why should I have to convince you? I don't *want* you to come to my side of the force.
I said I felt it was not fair for me to judge another era by my current standards.
*I* don't *feel* it's fair to judge a less sophisticated society by the standards I hold today. I never lived in the 50's or 60's and funnily enough I never lived in the 16th or 17th C.
I feel this way from what I have picked up about these era's in books and other people's opinions The only evidence I have is secondary source. So hell yeah, if you lived in those eras’s feel free to enlighten me about the social situation whether there actually was a question about artistic integrity back then. Heck if I know.
If I *were* to judge artists from those era's by my standards (as everyone seems so keen for me to do), on what constitutes a sellout, then yes, The Supremes were sellouts, consequently Diana Ross was a sellout (and a rather nasty one by all accounts) and yes Mozart not playing his own symphonies makes him a sellout. That is if I apply my standards to those people. Which in truth, I don’t.
see, here's the thing.
you are defining selling out in a way that makes no useful sense.
if it means letting go of your ideals, i can see a point to it. if all it means is that you use a proffesional singer to do a few seconds of singing for you, the term becomes meaningless. i think you should take this opportunity to examine your opinion. you might ask yourself why no one seems to think your opinion makes any sense and then start from there.
One more time with *feeling*
To me:
Sellout
- Selling/giving up your creative art completely - Artist sells music to somebody/something. No more creative control, allows it to be watered down/improved, whatever, it deviates from the original material.
- Giving up your right to creative input - an example could be someone who is just there to make sounds as part of the marketing plan. This includes singers, session musicians, anybody who doesn’t have a creative part in this endeavour. They just do what their told. If you’re not *creating* you’re selling out.
Being seduced by muh-ney and compromising your art. - Changing your art to appeal to the masses perhaps?
Let me stress again that Sometimes you HAVE to sell out to feed your children, mice or yourself? I'm not going to hate a person because they sold out. But selling out is selling out regardless of the motives.
I acknowledge that other people don’t think like me. Maybe they think, yeah if this is a way I can live large and have me some hoochies everywhere then I’m going to do it. Life is short so what the hell! Bring it on!! The concept of selling out maybe doesn’t even crop up in their minds. That’s fine, bully for them, but I can still call them sellouts and I will, if I think they are.
Well enough about me really, now a question for you o’ wise and all knowing ones.
Somebody started making allusions to a debate. So far it doesn’t seem much like a debate to me. I’ve stated something and all you people have done is comment on that with sometimes offensive remarks, offering little else. Do you not have your own proposition/ anti-thesis to what I've been saying apart from "No you're wrong, what planet are you on? "Teh mans? Yuk, yuk!"?
Since I’m SO wrong in your eyes what is your view on this subject? Money$hot, Copey's second head, The Flying Figroll, Nina Skryty , Ganesh I’m looking at y’all.
also...
How am I so out of touch with reality?
What is this rent you speak of? Oh! Is this that money thing that people give to my Poppa to live in his apartment buildings?
I await your responses/comments with bated breath.
Z |
