Does music career repay investment?

[Louigi Verona]

My opinion is that there is a hell of a lot more talent inside the box that outside of it. A lot of artists hide their lack of talent with terms like "alternative", "experimental" and "avant garde".

While this is true, a lot of talented artists are not recognized because what they do is not conventional and their works are dismissed.

[uncloned]

My opinion is that there is a hell of a lot more talent inside the box that outside of it. A lot of artists hide their lack of talent with terms like "alternative", "experimental" and "avant garde".

While this is true, a lot of talented artists are not recognized because what they do is not conventional and their works are dismissed.

LOL!

[Louigi Verona]

I wrote it for the LULZ exactly! =)

[uncloned]

I wrote it for the LULZ exactly! =)

Oh, bummer, I thought you wrote it because it was true.

g wrote:
My opinion is that there is a hell of a lot more talent inside the box that outside of it.

[Louigi Verona]

If something is for the LULZ it doesn't mean it is not true!!

[uncloned]

g wrote:
My opinion is that there is a hell of a lot more talent inside the box that outside of it.


these guys explain the talent in the box even better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I

its not as if writing a pop song was... a formula.

[g]

Instead of giving examples of "inside the box"-artists you think aren't talented (like lady gaga or the beatles), why not give some examples of a lot of talented artists not recognized because what they do is not conventional and their works are dismissed? Just face it, the conventions are there for a reason, and it's very rare that something new pops up that isn't related to new technology.

Anyway, it's just an opinion.

[psishock]

Vast Minorities
http://i49.tinypic.com/4lirk0.jpg

[uncloned]

Vast Minorities
http://i49.tinypic.com/4lirk0.jpg

g => what Psi said.

[Louigi Verona]

Instead of giving examples of "inside the box"-artists you think aren't talented (like lady gaga or the beatles), why not give some examples of a lot of talented artists not recognized because what they do is not conventional and their works are dismissed? Just face it, the conventions are there for a reason, and it's very rare that something new pops up that isn't related to new technology.

Anyway, it's just an opinion.

Actually, this is a very good question and although we are kinda joking here, I wanted to answer that.

First of all, names I can give you you do not know - obviously.

Second, it is important to understand that being not conventional does not necessarily mean a social gesture of going against the "crowd". It might simply be something for a peculiar (yet quite healthy) musical taste and its peculiarity simply results in smaller audience. But a typical reaction of a typical music lover will tend to be negative (or neutral if a person is cultured enough to understand that if he does not like it, it doesn't mean it's shit).

I know a number of artists who are dismissed by most people, but it does not mean they are dismissed by all - they have a small but a very devoted audience of their own. And this is almost always the case. If the devoted audience of a composer is limited to himself and his mother, then obviously he is not a composer in a sense we are speaking of here.

L.V.

[uncloned]

And God help you if even your mother does not listen to you.

[psishock]

lol, mum as the critical audience. Better than nuttin 4 sure, but a depressing situation indeed. =)

[rncekel]

Surely, there had been a lot of good composers that we don't know anything about. Remeber that, for example, Johann Sebastian Bach was considered to make "ancient" music at his time; his sons (now known almost only by old-music lovers) were far more famous than him. Or Vivaldi, who was forgotten until he was rediscovered by Bach. Or Albinoni, who was almost completely forgotten, until his Adagio became famous.
If so many of the respected and considered as masters were almost forgotten for some time, how many must have been completely lost?

Making commercial music is a respectable job. But if you want to make something new (not just for the novelty, but because that's what you feel), you must be prepared for having no success at all, because that is probably what will happen.

[Louigi Verona]

Making commercial music is a respectable job. But if you want to make something new (not just for the novelty, but because that's what you feel), you must be prepared for having no success at all, because that is probably what will happen.

These are very good words. In fact, a popular saying in Russia is:
"Some have a gift for arts, others a gift for popularity but it is very rare when two gifts surface in one person."

[g]

Vast Minorities
http://i49.tinypic.com/4lirk0.jpg

It's a cute picture, and somewhat true. Except that way less of 10% of all music is unholy, soulless, airwave-straddling corporate hell-pop, and way less than 90% is interesting, innovative, fun, genreless music. I would say the balance between the two is more like 1% each, the rest is just crap. Again, just my opinion.