PIXELID

Then there are always exceptions, but those are known to confirm the rule.

At a professional level, yes! A professional singer, I don't think they make songs just for themselves; otherwise, why would they release an album? Why do they hold concerts? Wouldn't it be more convenient to sing at home in front of 2 or 3 friends or relatives? It's like a professional football player playing just for pure enjoyment. Of course, there is enjoyment, but primarily they do it for the money.

Right, Jim! But please don't talk like that: "have you ever tried to consider his art from a purely anachronistic perspective, dissociated from the dissolution of being?" If that question were directed at me, I would really struggle and wouldn't know what to say!! I’m sorry, but this is my ignorance.

Once upon a time, bands weren't created in a lab after auditions. Now, unfortunately, almost all bands are formed through casting calls, usually picking four pretty boys, preferably effeminate (it always makes for a great artist), teaching them how to dance, writing songs for them, handing them a microphone, making them move their lips, while the computer sings for them.

Walterstarman's speech is not stupid at all, and I largely agree with it, at least from my perspective. I also agree with Josi when he says that a singer who doesn't sell is not a failure; true, musically they are not a failure, but commercially yes, because being a professional singer is a job—ultimately, the goal is to bring home a nice paycheck, isn't it? Here Walterstarman is right; every singer seeks large audiences. What artist wouldn't dream of becoming famous, a star, rich like Queen or Pink Floyd? Anyway, I believe Walterstarman does not mean that those who sell more are necessarily better, but rather that those who sold a lot (at least until the '80s) must have had some qualities, without taking anything away from the more unknown artists who evidently did not have the opportunity to break through, whether due to bad luck, mismanagement, or a variety of other reasons... Now, sales can no longer be considered a valid measure, since MTV and advertising overly influence people who listen only to the same catchy songs repeatedly played on TV and radio, completely overlooking great works by talented artists who might have emerged in another era thanks to their skills. Nowadays, to achieve success, talent is no longer necessary; what you need is a good accountant.

errata corrige: only in the commercial field

Yes, okay Josi, but in terms of sales, classical music will always be at a disadvantage compared to light music; in that sense, it can't be compared, I'm in the commercial field.

But look, I'm not saying that those who sell more are better, but neither the opposite; I consider good whoever I like, and whether they sell a lot or not, who cares! Anyway, you can't compare classical music with pop music; obviously, Britney Spears will always sell more than any composer, even Mozart if he were alive. And that’s also normal and understandable.

Okay fusillo, but it's true that in Mozart's time everything was completely different, it’s absolutely not comparable.

Errata corrige: So I don't think there is a parameter to judge music.