Quote:
|
Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy
From my years of experience in the retail side of music as a commodity, the record comapnies influenced the store managers by offering good deals and fringe benefits on certain records. in australia at least the record charts are not influenced by the people are listening to but to how many units the stores buy and not how many the public buy. so for a musician to create something that is market specific and not from there soul is somewhat abhorent to me. i think the artist has the responsibily to make the music that cleanses and enlightens their own soul, and if that music is liked by others then that is brilliant, also if the music is liked only by the artist that is also brilliant. to me it is a cathartic ritual and not making about making money from it, although it would be nice to make a reasonable living out of making music.
|
See, the problem with that, is I would guarantee that even the most insipid, useless band you can think of - certainly signed at least - probably believes that they are expressing something worth expressing and their 'art' is the true manifestation of their soul. I think the notion of market forces is possibly a synonym for zeitgeist, which is to say, there's no sinister record label foisting things on the public -
everyone is the public. There's a good reason some very, very bland music is very, very popular, and that's because it means an awful lot to more people. Some of it I like, some of it I don't, but I don't have to listen to the radio unless I want to, and that suits me fine as a placid consumer of music.
AND STUFF AND THINGS.