RE: In it for the money?

[YMEG09A@prodigy.com (MR THOMAS G FARRELL JR)]

-- [ From: Thomas G. Farrell Jr. * EMC.Ver #2.10P ] --

> Date: Wednesday, 17-Jan-96 01:01 AM
> From: Gary Lang                \ Internet:    (garylang@ccnet.com)
> Subject: RE: In it for the money?

	RE:> No he meant it. By the way it didn't bother me; he was just being
honest.> Hence the rest of this is a bit of passionate overkill.

	Aha, it was *you* who started this string!  Acutually, I remember all
those "The Who are in it for the money" comments during the 1989 tour. 
The press made a big fuss about that, their attitude being "what a
shock that the Who would accept money for their activities"... that
sort of thing, the underlying premise of which was "Money corrupts the
music... etc, etc."
	I also remember the Rolling Stones being asked if they were touring
that year for the moeny... to which one of the members (I think it was
Keith Richards) who said, "No, the Who do that."
	Yeah, Keith, and those huge inflatable dolls on the STEEL WHEELS tour
were an "artistic statement," right?


	RE:> You should note that I didn't editorialize, although I guess it
wasn't
> clear from the context.

	No, you weren't editorializing... but *I* was. Not at you, so much,
but the underlying premise behind these complaints about wealthy
musicians/artists that we see so frequently.  I've always found that
lingering, "Tsk, tsk, they're taking money," and its underlying
"Artists should maintain their artitistc purity by rejecting profits" -
type attitude, and its accompanying complaints about men in business
suits, etc, rather ridiculous and infantile... typical of the
idealogues in the news media and the Trent Reznor's of the world, not
adults.
	But again, that's just my opinion.  No offense intended.
	Every good wish--Tom Farrell