Quote:
Originally Posted by mr dave
why does it matter?
really though, i don't get it. it's a never ending debate by fans who (generally) have little to no actual personal knowledge about the musicians in question; basing their views on what they've gathered from 3rd party sources or public performances (whether it's a concert or an interview). yet the issue persists, the debate rages on, year after year first in the back corners of bars and now from forum to forum.
i'm far FAR more curious to know why music fans think this is a contentious issue.
|
That's exactly it. I don't really think it matters. But, as you said, it seems to matter to many people.
The reason I presented the question in this way (entertainers vs artists) is because I wanted to get at the issue of people slamming bands because they 'sell out'. (To answer another post, the reason I presented it in the rock and metal forum is because it appears more common in the rock and metal communities.) I see a logical inconsistency in that argument.
The argument: 'A band sells out when they become mainstream.' , appears to be based on the premise that the band should not care what listeners think. What would be the reason for that idea? Is the goal to have as few people as possible appreciate their work? Surely not.
I would think that the idea (erroneous, I believe) is that the pursuit of 'art' is the important thing, and the artist should not sully himself with such mundane considerations as fame and fortune.
I was hoping that people would say 'both', though I was curious to see if anyone would actually support the idea the audience does not matter.