Fame: Classic or Death?

is the allure of becoming famous the neccessary motivation behind all art?

does fame infantilize, insulate and paralyze artists?

Could things work any differently? Is it just human nature for people to lionize and canonize exceptional artists?

& by recognizing their exceptional characteristics do we rob them of their ordinary ones, rendering them less capable of speaking universal truths?

All I know is that I'm going to live forever, and light up the sky with my name.

Friend ML, who's known and managed oodles of bands, says that just about everybody musically inclined wants to be famous. I'd temper that by saying that they'd all want to be famous somehow, to have some sort of connection with somebody -- not necessarily world-stomping fame, but still. And who can blame them? I don't want to become the world's most famous writer or anything, but I don't mind being known for something. :-)

'does fame good for art?' = 'is fame good for art?'. sheesh.

now if I had a personal assistant, my ILx posts wouldn't have as many typos - but would they still have that down-to-earth charm you love to hate?

fritz, think of it as the interrogative form of "fame does good for art"

A good example of this is jazz fusion. Fusion explains itself as a mix between jazz and rock, but it seems more like a compromise. Who is going to be appreciated more by the public? An avant-garde sax player or one that sticks to pop? The point is, fame does not good for art. Making records 'for the people' = for the bank. As soon as you have the money motive, you have no art. When a record is called 'arty' by a critic, typically that means that it is difficult, 'difficult' means there's too much thinking involved, 'too much thinking' means that you are no longer listening for dumb pleasure.

reader, can you spot the logical missteps in tyler's post?

(clue: there is possibly one between EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE)

I failed to mention that smooth jazz is the next step in fusion's evolution. Is anybody going to call smooth jazz art?

the media groans under the weight of famous "smooth jazz" musicians

What is 'smooth jazz'?

Wait, no, don't tell me. I don't care.

Sorry, tyler i only listen to music for dumb pleasure. Actually i do everything for dumb pleasure

Smooth Jazz is to real Jazz what Trance is to Techno.

Smooth Jazz is to real Jazz what Kenny G is to Miles Davis.

but the accessibilty of the genre that an artist chooses to work in isn't neccessarily the point - obscure artists can end up coddled and acclaimed and put on pedestals too.