Anti-establishment Vs Commercial?
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:30 pm
Hello all.
If you don't mind, before i ask the question, i'll tell you a story about the guy i once knew.
He was what they call "rebel musician", not big in terms of commercial success but loved by young people who like to hear something that has no chance of being on TV. No big venues, just "flat concerts" and small clubs, but still popular enough to be able to sell his albums.
One day he got a call from Kiev (a bit more than 1000 km from the town where he lived), an invitation, like "we are eager to have you playing a small concert here". He then asked, "How much?" — "Ahem, what? You want money, do i get it right?" — "Well, i do have to eat and all that, you know..." (oh yeah, i've seen that, i mean guys and girls who seem to think that rebel musicians are fed by air and defecate roses — SC) — "But... well, you know, that song of yours — "We play for free"... And we thought..." — "Um, well, how about paying a train ticket to Kiev and back, at least?" — "Um, we thought you could hitch-hike, you know..." (It was winter. Cold and all that — SC) That concert never happened, of course.
Heard it a lot of times that true rebel musicians shouldn't become commercially successful, otherwise they become "sellouts" and all that. Because — well, because a true rebel shouldn't care about money, full stop. But really. As my husband says, "not to care about the money is much easier when you do have some". And it'd be a bit silly of me to argue.
So, what do you think about the statement "the one who stands against establishment shouldn't be commercially successful" (or "play for money")?
As always, all kinds of opinions welcome (as long as they don't violate any forum rules )
Best wishes,
SC.
If you don't mind, before i ask the question, i'll tell you a story about the guy i once knew.
He was what they call "rebel musician", not big in terms of commercial success but loved by young people who like to hear something that has no chance of being on TV. No big venues, just "flat concerts" and small clubs, but still popular enough to be able to sell his albums.
One day he got a call from Kiev (a bit more than 1000 km from the town where he lived), an invitation, like "we are eager to have you playing a small concert here". He then asked, "How much?" — "Ahem, what? You want money, do i get it right?" — "Well, i do have to eat and all that, you know..." (oh yeah, i've seen that, i mean guys and girls who seem to think that rebel musicians are fed by air and defecate roses — SC) — "But... well, you know, that song of yours — "We play for free"... And we thought..." — "Um, well, how about paying a train ticket to Kiev and back, at least?" — "Um, we thought you could hitch-hike, you know..." (It was winter. Cold and all that — SC) That concert never happened, of course.
Heard it a lot of times that true rebel musicians shouldn't become commercially successful, otherwise they become "sellouts" and all that. Because — well, because a true rebel shouldn't care about money, full stop. But really. As my husband says, "not to care about the money is much easier when you do have some". And it'd be a bit silly of me to argue.
So, what do you think about the statement "the one who stands against establishment shouldn't be commercially successful" (or "play for money")?
As always, all kinds of opinions welcome (as long as they don't violate any forum rules )
Best wishes,
SC.