josi_

Jim, no, I wrecked the car after the last concert in front of the bathroom mirror. Just to make an impression. Otherwise, there's no way I'd be remembered in the History of Music. Maurizio Seymandi was clear.

But in 1986 were you in front of the TV singing "ui ar de uorld"? If not, you can't understand the History of Music, huh. At least have you read about it in TV Sorrisi&Canzoni?

Do you have the bandana?

You’re crazy to mention the Captain in here. Alternative losers from a social center.

Walter, but do they teach you to think seriously at school or not? I’m bringing back the hypothesis of the toporagno in your head. But who talked about technique? I don’t care about technique. What interests me is musical value (we've written this term a thousand times! I wrote "bravura" for brevity, but it seemed obvious...), which is a combination of various things, certainly difficult to theorize: originality is definitely part of it, and the "scene" or sales success is definitely NOT part of it. Then regarding the purpose of making music (art/money), it seems that both I and ajeje (that pixelid) have clarified the concept: one thing is to write music trying to make it "marketable," another is to write it following your own inspiration and nothing else (and if it succeeds, that’s fine, actually). That’s the concept; if you want to go around it again, do it with the toporagno you have in your head.

The bug was at the beginning, when you supported Walterstarman and his equation "sales success = musical value," something that you have now also written to be untrue :)

"I just want to say that just because someone sells a lot, it doesn't mean they automatically suck!" Yes, but I wrote this stuff eight hundred comments ago! Come on, read or agree on a version with yourselves :) Here it is again (for the third time): "The only objective thing is that there is NO relationship between sales success and musical value. None, neither positive nor negative. One can be talented and sell (Pink Floyd), can be insignificant and sell (Britney Spears), can be talented and not sell (Slint), can be insignificant and not sell (my cousin). If you want, I can explain it to you for the umpteenth time."

But no pixelid, come on, who wrote "those who sell don't make good stuff"?!? Ajeje wrote "those who do it for the money," and I reiterated: "those who write music with that goal in mind." If someone writes music to create art and THEN also finds success, that's better for him and for us.

Pixelid: <<she'll be famous, but she'll never be considered a great tennis player>> Exactly! Let's call things by their name, shall we? Since we want to talk about good musicians here, why does it have to be about "who breaks into showbiz"? Then you say: <<come on, who wouldn't want to sell 1 billion copies a day?>> No one would turn their nose up at that, obviously, but the next question to ask is: "who, in composing their music, does it IN SUCH A WAY AS TO sell 1 billion copies?"

Good job ajeje, you explained it well, maybe this way Walter will understand :D