Iirc Wolfgang Amadeus never wrote a piece of music without having been paid .... in advance.nineofkings wrote:A lot of the argument assumes an automatic conflict between commercialism and art. I don't think they necessarily need to be opposed, even though it often seems so .....
Would W.A.M be called an a...hole for that ? ( Reminds me this old J Richman song ' Pablo Picasso will never be called one ...., he could walk down the street etc etc '
)The very romantic idea that artist should just be starving, and preferably socially damned for what they do is nice and always very tempting. It is totally disconnected from reality though. 'De l'ame pour l'ame' is certainly cool, but it's only that.
Thousands of exemples show that talent and money received from talent are not directly related. Some genius receive what they *deserve* during their lifetime, some are rediscovered at a time, and most will remain totally unknown. In the same way, some typical a..holes, whose names can be different for me or you, will become famous and rich while having incredibly small artistic talent, except maybe the exact ones needed to become rich and famous. This is show business.
Then, no panic, Kvr has very few to offer regarding this. The most famous and talented Kvr composers chances to keep on starving with their music remain imho totally intact
So ... let the music go
