Thats not true in my experience. Danny Elfman exists because of commercialism, and he makes fantastic music. Yoko Kanno makes much of her living composing music for soundtracks and the Japanese Pop artist Maaya Sakamoto. Michael Jackson holds the world record for the largest concert audience, having played the superbowl concert to not only the stadium but a televised audience of over 1.5 billion people. Utada Hikaru and Ayumi Hamasaki practically own the airwaves in Japan, and there are almost as many remix albums of Ayu's music as there are official releases, including orchestral, acoustic, and piano albums amidst more standard trance remixes.
Nobuo Eumatsu's music is beautiful and exists only because of commercial interests in the Squaresoft videogame company.
Not to mention those artists who simply don't CARE about how commercial or non-commercial they are. Yngwie Malmsteen, The Mars Volta, Metallica, Steve Vai, Paula Cole, Charmian Callon, Phil Keaggy, Incubus etc etc etc etc.
In fact, I think applying any kind of value musically to a non-commercial easthetic is COMPLETELY undermining the reason music exists. Its a sound. A vibration in the air. In the same way a hitler speech is still incredibly powerful and well spoken despite its horrific connotations, music can still be beautiful, uplifitng, melancholy, or anything else you care to describe, no matter who makes it.
For example. Panic! At the disco have that song about a wedding. Frankly, thats a good song. The band ****ing suck, but its a good song, and thats all I'm interested in.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian
As for me, my inbox is as of yet testicle-free, and hopefully remains that way. Don't the rest of you get any ideas.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart
I'll have you know, my ancestors were Kings of Wicklow! We're as Irish as losing a three-nil lead in a must-win fixture!
|
|