cptgaio

But it's Showbiz, Don! Sting is someone who has simply adapted to it. He knows very well that any nonsense that comes out of his mouth will be elevated to the altars, and he plays with that... and he's quite good at it. Then if we start citing one by one all those who have fallen into these matters. I remember Nirvana in '92 (but I might be wrong about the year, help me out) invited by Rolling Stone America for a photo shoot and Cobain wearing a t-shirt that said (and I'm translating from memory): "Mass-Market Music Magazines Suck." If he really thought that, he should have stayed at home, yet he went through with the photo shoot anyway. Why? Because it's part of the game: you know that most of those who read the article will think, "how cool and how 'alternative' Cobain is!" and instead there's no real "alternative" act in this. It's just adapting (forgiveable) to the market's demands: which has imposed an image on you. I'm not bringing up this example to slander Cobain, in fact, I think he was right to take advantage of it, but to show that everyone, at those levels of popularity, adapts to showbiz. Then there are those who can handle it (Sting) because maybe inside they're more businessman than musician and those who can't (unfortunately for Kurt). But the essence doesn’t change.

Well, Azzo, at least there's an improvement: usually you say that I don't understand a damn thing, that's it ;-)

Ps: what is it about Sting's "demeanor" that bothers so much? I can't quite understand it. To be precise: it's not that I'm a supporter of him or the Police. I think they've done a lot of good (and a lot of mediocre) but I'm certainly not a fan.

@Don: no one... honestly, you're among the few "dedicated" fans who accept it, from my experience. You know, though, that I don't agree on the random aspect either (but, exactly, I know you know so I'll leave it at that). @Boredom: you're right, next time I'll be more careful.

Oh my God, please don’t make me rewrite it: what is it that you don’t understand?

:-D Say hi to them for me.

I wrote really poorly above, sorry I'm particularly dysgraphic tonight.

I'll tell you, I was intervening after Supersoul's intervention #11 (which, despite my thoughts often being at odds with his, always provides interesting and timely stimuli) and I wanted, in a way, to jump on the bandwagon and perhaps exaggerate: in the sense that if we want to give the Police a "Negative X" connotation (you know that for me the term "commercialization" doesn't really affect the weight I assign to an artist), Nirvana not only could follow in their footsteps but effectively, due to the media frenzy unleashed by Cobain's death, they reached that connotation (do we want to take a random parameter? Do you think the Police sell more shirts to stoned teenagers than Nirvana do right now?). All of this, of course, remains a partial controversy, meaning it doesn’t concern me (otherwise I wouldn’t listen to Maiden, for example) because for me, exploiting any possible channel to reach as large an audience as possible is absolutely not a sin. What I’ve always maintained is that those among Nirvana fans who think Cobain's band (both during his life and after his tragic demise, and we hope he's doing well now, poor soul) was detached from these mechanisms are very mistaken; they were definitely a part of it. Then there are "artists" involved that I find repulsive (not because they sold out, but because I don't like their music...) and others I appreciate (the same discussion as before, just without the negation): Nirvana falls into the second category. That's all.

Great review and proposal that intrigues me (Cat Power, Bon Iver, Arcade Fire...) let's see if we can catch it. Ps: I took a look at the links you proposed from the "other side" and I must say I'm interested, I'll try to delve deeper. Bye.

Don't worry, on the Red I'm more than accommodating ;-)