Saputello

Yes, let's say it's a general statement, but that in 0.001 percent of cases it has been contradicted throughout history. Van Gogh, for instance, seemed like an artist closed in on himself, but then his work gained a communicative value of primary importance. However, those are isolated cases :)

It is equally true that there are those who consider everything they do to be gold, while in reality it is worthless; I have no doubt about that.

Indeed, it's quite a mess, isn't it? : ) Of course, an artist's work is directed outward, and it's also true that there are many external influences that penetrate those who have to compose something. However, often following the tastes of listeners is a negative thing; the listener and the audience in general cannot steer artistic activity, as this would harm creativity and personality. In the end, it's obvious that one seeks external feedback, but at the same time is not willing to compromise or accept advice. It doesn't seem contradictory to me; art doesn’t necessarily go hand in hand with the tastes of listeners (especially at this time). I'm not saying that the humble artist shouldn't exist; the point I'm making is more subtle. I mean that there is no humble artist in relation to their own work. This doesn’t mean that one isn’t humble, but it simply means they have a bond that is too strong with their work to see its flaws and limitations (if there are any).

@ ThirdEye: "However, I believe that for an artist and/or musician, external opinions are ultimately important, not just their own and not necessarily identical to ours: this allows for greater growth and especially more interaction with people who might know a little more." -----> Your argument is honest, but I have to tell you that if someone is an artist, they generally don’t give a damn about external opinions 99 percent of the time (and thank goodness for that). Basically, an artist needs to express themselves, so I don’t see what the advice of others could be useful for, especially if they are advice from users on Debaser. One might say "I like it," "I don’t like it," "it's genius," "it turns me on," "what shit." Obviously, for them this will be a 5, it would be strange otherwise; maybe in a few months, though, their judgment will be reassessed because with a clear mind, they will see all its flaws. I fundamentally distrust humble artists regarding their own work. They don’t exist, if they are true artists.

Sure!

Obviously yes. Otherwise, the Doors would have disbanded after their first concert with only the venue's staff as their audience.

"but I repeat, if someone like me has found a label it means my shit isn't that shit" -----> Given that punisher's comment seems too negative from the outset even to me, I don't really understand this thing, also because nowadays saying "record label" is like saying Communist; it doesn’t mean anything anymore, there are record labels like mushrooms, I could even create one myself with iside and it would already be an INDIE label. And then, having clarified this, shit also comes out under record labels, so I would say that having a record label is not necessarily synonymous with good music.

Who is the cover of the album by? (beautiful)

A journey into a parallel world created by these two musical giants. One of the most beautiful albums of the '80s, and I even prefer it to Remain in Light. I could listen to The Regiment every day.

I haven't listened to this, for example electric doesn't appeal to me with its hard rock twist, pure and tough compared to the past. But I didn't know that Oliver Stone even called Ian Astbury to play the role of Morrison. By now, you're the official reviewer of the Cult :-)