Support |
> From the critic's standpoint, theoretical interest is important. From > the performer's standpoint, the practical interest of the piece matters. > But from the lay listener's standpoint, it's only important whether it > sounds good. I think that's why so many obviously untalented musicians > become popular: they sound good. A performer may look at how they create > music and go "why, it's all studio trickery" and turn up his nose. A > critic may look at the structure of the music and say "why, it's almost > childishly simplistic" and turn up his nose. But the public listens to > the music and says "hey, that sounds good". > Yes, but the public are a bunch of brain dead lemmings. What makes a stupid majority's opinion better than that of a few hypothetical, pretentious individuals? You're right, the public aren't easily fooled; look at politics. I listened to your work, and as a performer I thought,"this sucks," but anyone who with the skill to create this improvised, and on the fly, would eventually make something interesting. As a critic, I listened to it and thought, "this sucks," it doesn't say anything that hasn't been said before; it's just filling space. As a member of the public, I would just switch the channel back to Britney - that's what all the my friends listen to these days, and she just did an interview on MTV.