Hi, Richard Webb! How are you?
on Thursday, 16 of February, I read your message to
alexander koryagin about "Whitney Houson R.I.P"
ak>>> and so on. Any job that requires inspiration must not
ak>>> be professional. Inspiration is a very rare thing.
ak>>> You can meet it just several times in your life. And
ak>>> any singer, beginning his musical carrier, must be
ak>>> aware that, or his life will be short.
RW> IN many ways all too true unfortunately, but for
RW> somethe profession is truly a labor of love, but
RW> they're not as prolific as the money machine would
RW> like, because they only present their creations to the
RW> world when they're up to the standards of the
RW> writer/creator.
It's difficult to be prolific in hit making, but it's easy
to be prolific in making mediocrity. And because of this we
find themselves under the heaps of it. One hit helps sell
twenty pieces of rubbish. Rubbish selling becomes a
profitable, habitual thing and perversion. We pay no
attention that our taste is lower and lower. At last, people
don't notice that 95 percent of the things they listen to
are not worthy to be listen.
However, paying for rubbish makes magic! After paying we
strain every nerve to like it. Or, at least, we never say
that we've bought rubbish in form of somebody's new album,
film, etc. ;-)
ak>> it is a very poor idea to do it every day, squeezing
ak>> out himself a scheduled mediocre love(!) song or
ak>> something of this kind, just to make money for living.
RW> And, though he made it a profession, he refused to
RW> succumb to the demands of the money machine. When one
RW> of his songs is good enough, in his mind, he'll present
RW> it to the world. He enjoys entertaining an audience,
RW> but he understands that other things are important to
RW> him so he can maintain that enjoyment.
The problem is that a hit is a rare thing by definition, and
composers are forced to rubber-stamp mediocrity. Because
they as a rule can do nothing else.
ak>> however paradoxically it can sound, the main balk of
ak>> mediocrity came to us from people who make art
ak>> professionally. They are forced to make money for
ak>> leaving and forge piles of things without troubling
ak>> themselves to wait inspiration. That's why we can take
ak>> the work of any so called "stars" and to see in it
ak>> just a few real things.
RW> True enough, and look at most of the work they present,
RW> it was not created by them, but created by others for
RW> them to present to the world, just to have something
RW> for them to put out there. AGain, Whitney was not a
RW> writer, was not her own producer. Whitney may have been
RW> a good singer, but that's all she was. This is why I
RW> give so little attention to most "celebrites" and the
RW> like. These are usually people with no character, and
RW> little class.
Summarizing, it can be said about the essence of show biz.
It looks like a wine maker, who knows that his few bottles
of fine vine are not enough for all the customers. After
that he takes a bowl of water, and makes a hundred of
bottles with the same label. ;-)
Shameless advertising industry crowns the process. Actually,
Whitney also was an ordinary customer, just like we are. She
waited for a good song(vine), but no was available. She
started performing mediocre things, but this process is even
more killing for a talented person than drags.
RW> IT's not these professions that are bad, it's the fact
RW> that people who enter these professions forget their
RW> humanity, because the great money machine pushes them
RW> to lose sight of it.
IMHO, the very idea to make big money from art, is vicious.
It leads to art degradation and profanation.
[...Once there lived an old man. He had three sons. Two
clever ones and a footballer.]
Bye Richard!
Alexander (yAlexKo[]yandex.ru) + 2:5020/2140.91
fido7.debate 2012
--- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds
* Origin: Pushkin's BBS (2:5020/2140.2)
|
