[Mike Blackwood]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 CYakaAL@aol.com wrote:

> Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.  And we all know is that 
> today's music is a combination of art and commerce.  But when is enough, 
> enough?  And when does it become clear that an artist is more interested in 
> commerce than art?

When they make their art their primary income?  Hmm.  That's not true for 
many full-time bands though. (ie the Oils)
 
> In my case I'm not attacking a particular style of music or an attempt by an 
> artist to become more popular by playing more mainstream music.  What I am 
> attacking is someone who feels the need to showcase their talent at a 
> sporting event.  If that's not an appearance for the sake of commerce, I 
> don't know what is.

Maybe boosterism for a sport that artist enjoys?

> It also takes other forms.  Sheryl Crow who seems to be the favorite of so 
> many classic artists seems to be the biggest offender.  Her so-called single 
> (I say that because the idea of singles in CD days seems ludicrous) ends up 
> being released at the same it appears in an American Express commercial, that 
> also stars, guess who Sheryl Crow.

yeah, that's crass.

> Do you want your artist pushing a product other themselves and their music.  
> I don't.  I mean how much money does one need.  

Well, no, but they're not "my" artist.  The issue is between them and 
their concience.

> And they're artist who still have integrity.  Midnight Oil, U2 having only 
> slipped once and we may forgive them for thinking they had a message behind 
> their appearance.  We have Neil Young who even coined the phrase, "this 
> note's for you."  So all is not lost.
> 
> But some of these acts are nothing more than capitalism in its worse form.  
> And when the money stops flowing so does the music.

True of most pop music, I agree.

Hold together,
Mike