Originally Posted by thelimpingtoad
The point is that pop artists create music for a specific demographic and are trying to make money instead of an artistic statement. While personally I don't use music to make money, as its a hobby for me, I do feel like a professional composer/songwriter needs to make money and the best way to do that is catering to what your audience will want. I don't think music is bad just because it is successful or intended for a particular audience. I think that's just good business... I also don't think music is good just because its artistic or different... a lot of experimental or "artistic" music written from the "heart" or "soul" can be complete crap.
Good observations, Matt.
Thing is, is it only
about making money? Sting said that The Police was about making money so he could play what he liked, but was it ALL about making money? Invisible Sun
? Demolition Man
? Did Stewie do that amazing sticking in Walking On The Moon
to make money? We all know the answer to that. The difference between making music for money or for passion is often blurred IMO. Simply to be good enough standard to go pro suggests some level of passion, even if it's in the past.
Then there's the idea of making music to please yourself. Is that better than creating music with the intention of giving pleasure to a lot of people?
In business the idea is to work out what people want and give it to them, as you intimated. So we don't judge bar owners for doing that, so why judge musicians? Because music can also be ART. Expression of the soul. Scaling the hieights of human endeavour blah blah. Some people have very little time for anything that's not high art, kinda like only drinking Perrier and refusing to drink tap water. Connoisseurs. Whatever floats your boat, eh?
As someone who enjoys Gary Larson's Far Side
to Monet and Rembrandt I admit my view of kulcha is a tad skewed :)