RE: Art movements and commercialism

["Brian Cady" <cadyb@home.com>]

> Performers such as N'Sync and individual artists like Britney
> Spears do meet
> the definition of commercialism, as they are marketed according to a
> particular formula that the managers know is a proven winner.
> Cute guys +
> dance numbers + visual show = success.  Take out "cute guys" and put in
> "sexy gal" and you've got another winning formula.  Notice I said
> "performers" here instead of "bands."  The faces are pretty much
> interchangeable, as long as they look good and can move to the music.  The
> performer's individual voice or what they would prefer to do has
> nothing to
> do with it at all.  They are told what to do by the marketing team.

Here's where I might have a problem with that. What if The Rolling Stones or
The Kinks do a disco song? Are they "selling out" or exploring a new form of
music? How do you know?

The problem with Britney Spears is not that she is marketed cleverly. The
problem is she can't sing worth a damn. If she could sing like Aretha
Franklin I wouldn't begrudge her one bit of the clever commercial marketing
or breast implants. Nothing matters but talent. If you start saying that
commercialism separates true artists from sell outs you'll soon find
yourself throwing away the best work of many great artists because too many
people bought it.

        -Brian in Atlanta
         The Who This Month!
        http://members.home.net/cadyb/who.htm