> Slobodan Blazeski skrev:
>
>
>

>> So if the market is buying it I don't see what's the
>> problem. You want to be a star go mainstream. If that includes
>> mumbling while standing on your head with female wrestlers in the
>> background get use to it. Else stop whining, you choosed to play
>> something that's music for you but the masses aren't accepting it.
>> They might be sheeps, but they're sheeps with money and you won't get
>> any of their money playing jazz, classic or whatever the chosen few
>> listen. Aren't people surprised when they found out that Armstrong was
>> actually a  jazz icon. They only heard of him because of what a
>> wondeful world? And I doubt you're better jazzer than Satchmo.

>
> In most art forms, the relationship between quality and
> profit is weak to say the least. Indeed, singing teachers
> for example have even identified a new type of singer,
> "the 'untrained professional singer', who is among the
> highest paid of all performers, but lacks the most rudimentary
> skills of the singing craft"*. Actual skill in the art is
> neither a necessary nor sufficient criterion for success.
> It used to at least be a necessary condition...
>
> But isn't this getting a bit O.T. for these newsgroups?