 Elvis Aaron Presley. Affectionately known as “the King” to music fans world wide. Presley first burst onto the scene in the summer of 1953 when he cut a record at the legendary Sun Studios in Memphis Tennessee. Prior to Elvis, there were two very different music industries in the United States. The “white” music industry consisting of mostly crooners and singers who had migrated from the jazz world into popular music and the “black” music industry consisting of blues and rhythm and blues acts mostly dotting the Mississippi river from New Orleans to Memphis to St. Louis up to Chicago. Presley’s initial appeal was the fact that he was able to harness the emotional power of the more expressive R&B and blues musicians and make it palatable to a white audience. When he first appeared, radio listeners did not know if he was white or black. His first album released on RCA records in 1956 attests to his melding of styles covering songs by country and western artists Carl Perkins, Don Robertson and Leon Payne on one hand and Ray Charles, Little Richard and Charlie Singleton from the R&B world on the other.
Because there was not a cultural reference for someone like Elvis, the music establishment really did not know what to do with him. He was invited to play The Grand Ole Oprey in Nashville in the fall of ’54 but really wasn’t a match for the country audience. Presley gained attention by appearing on Louisiana Hayride a few weeks after the Oprey performance and from that gig appeared every Saturday night on their radio broadcast for a year. The Hayride was broadcast to almost 200 stations in 28 states and suddenly, Elvis was a star. The story might have ended there if not for an ambitious promoter named Col. Tom Parker who took over Elvis’ career and exploited his young star in every way imaginable. Back in the mid 1950’s there wasn’t a blueprint for how to create a star so Col. Parker made it up as he went. Record deals, television appearances, movie contracts together with a relentless tour schedule and promotion of every imaginable product kept Elvis busy and exhausted for the next twenty years. No one had ever seen a performer with such wide appeal and his influence was so wide spread by 1957 that the FBI actually regarded him as a threat to the security of the US. As this is not a biography of Elvis, I won’t delve into the man himself, just the music he represented. Rockabilly, Country and Western, Blues, Rhythm and Blues, Gospel: Elvis could do it all and remained wildly popular throughout. He defined the modern music industry and paved the way for countless others. In almost every way imaginable, Elvis epitomized rock and roll; money, fame, women, drugs, and the excess, generations to follow associate with the rock and roll life. Elvis was the pioneer and his influence has been felt since that fateful day in 1953 when he walked into Sun Studios in Memphis paid $3.98 and cut a record ostensibly as a gift for his mother. On this, the 39th anniversary of Elvis’ death, every music fan the world over should take a minute to remember the truck driver who created and defined an industry.
0 Comments
Reprinted with permission from the blog POWERevolution *For the purpose of this writing, I’m defining “cool” as those who don’t conform, who don’t always fit in nor do they try to, and who follow their own path; and “uncool” as those who dress, act, and have the same tastes as the masses and are vulnerable to corporate influences. One night a few weeks ago, a group of twenty-somethings came into the bar where I was working and headed for the jukebox. It’s digital, which means it’s not curated, which means I immediately felt the familiar knot of dread form in my stomach that’s always accompanied by seeing young people approach the jukebox. It usually means my ears are about to be violated by a string of cheesy Top 40 songs for the next hour or so. Sure enough, Taylor Swift’s voice invaded the room, and some members of the group started singing along. Proudly. Feeling no sense of shame for doing something that, fifteen or twenty years ago, would have gotten them laughed out of the bar. And this wasn’t the first time I’ve noticed this recently. While grocery shopping a few days ago, a shopper started singing aloud to Adam Levine’s latest tragedy that radio tells us is a song. Where’s the dignity!? How can these people, people who moved to a neighborhood because of its supposed “cool” factor, not know that singing along to whatever is saturating the airwaves is one of the uncoolest things they could do?
In all fairness, it’s not entirely their fault. They really just don’t know any better. Their lack of knowledge of anything other than that which is spoon fed them is the byproduct of a global media oligopoly. To quote Robert McChesney in his book “Rich Media, Poor Democracy, "it happened to the oil and automotive industries earlier in the 20th century, now it is happening to the entertainment industry.” Media has been completely overtaken by major corporations and unless people choose to think for themselves, they’re going to believe that what’s put in front of them is the only thing that exists. And the talent show hosting, product endorsing “musicians;” along with the latest string of tame bands major labels tell us are “rock,” are unfortunately the spokespeople for getting us to think the music we’re having shoved down our throats is all there is, and that it is somehow relevant. Shows like “American Idol” and “The Voice” trick viewers into thinking that having a pitch perfect voice is the only skill necessary to be a musician. Content, a message, is not a priority. Imagine if Neil Young needed Simon Cowell’s approval in order to get the label backing necessary to become a known musician. And can you picture Kurt Cobain nervously standing in front of Adam Levine to find out what he thought of his cover of “Man Who Sold the World?” If relevant rock ‘n’ roll were more accessible, I wouldn’t care what goes on in the talent show circuit. But corporate media has made intelligent music scarce, and what does exist is nearly impossible for the masses to hear.
Every recent decade up to the 90′s had a music revolution that inspired a counterculture. One that challenged the status quo. Political and psychedelic rock during the 60′s encouraged young people to leave the safety of their parents’ homes, fight in the streets for civil rights, and protest war…while taking acid and smoking lots of dope. The 70′s challenged youth to question the establishment with punk rock, which was still alive and well in the 80′s; and along with it, bands like Devo sang about the devolution of the human race. The 90′s had grunge, which was an outlet for the pain and frustration that accompanies feelings of isolation and disenfranchisement. It discouraged consumption and showed that opulence was uncool. Along with the music bands were playing, was a lifestyle that inspired it. Punk bands like Crass lived on a commune to prove humans can govern themselves. Nirvana rehearsed ten hours a day before recording “Nevermind” because their house was so freezing they tried to stay away from it as much as possible. My point being, popular musicians prior to the 21st century were actual artists, on a path of self discovery. They either never had comforts, or they gave them up to pursue their passions and find themselves, not allowing themselves to be told who they should be. The best art is usually born out of struggle, whether personal or sympathetic. And most of today’s popular musicians’ lifestyles are anything but difficult. Their music is not based on life experiences, hard knocks, or political and social themes. It is self-absorbed, mindless drivel that would make John Lennon blush with shame for the human race. Today’s popular “artists” are a constant stream of sell outs who can’t be content with the mansion that their music affords them. They need a fragrance line, a fashion line, a job hosting a talent show, and commercial endorsements so that they can buy even more stuff they don’t need. And too many of today’s millennials buy into it. They believe that if they keep their noses to the ground, stay out of trouble, never challenge the system, and work to maintain the same sort of lifestyle as their role models, they’re doing the right thing. Oblivious to the fact that they’ve been turned into total nerds.
So what happened after the 90′s? Did musicians just stop caring? Has there been nothing going on in the world that needs to be changed, so therefore no music asking for it? Or could it possibly be the passing of The Telecommunications Act of 1996 that kept inspiring, rule-breaking, boundary-testing music from reaching our ears? Again, from “Rich Media, Poor Democracy,“ "The core premise of the act was to eliminate restrictions on firms moving into other communication areas - for example, phone companies moving into cable television and vice versa, or long distance phone companies moving into local service and vice versa - and then to eliminate as many regulations as possible on these firms’ behavior…And the one media sector most thoroughly overturned by the Telecommunications Act has been radio broadcasting. The Act relaxed ownership restrictions so that a single firm can own up to eight stations in a single market. In the twenty months following enactment of the new law, there has been the equivalent of an Oklahoma land rush as small chains have been acquired by middle-sized chains, and middle-sized chains have been gobbled up by the few massive giants who have come to dominate the national industry. Since 1996, some one-half of the nation’s eleven thousand radio stations changed hands, and there were over one thousand radio firm mergers." So the 90′s was the decade when radio stations got taken over by corporate giants (with corporate, not cultural, interests in mind), and, not coincidentally, when radio went to shit. Joy Elmer Morgan, founder of Future Teachers of America, predicted that "as a result of radio broadcasting, there will probably develop during the twentieth century either chaos or a world-order of civilization. Whether it shall be one or the other will depend largely upon whether broadcasting be used as a tool of education or an instrument of selfish greed. So far, our American radio interests have thrown their major influence on the side of greed….there has never been in the entire history of the United States an example of mismanagement and lack of vision so colossal and far-reaching in its consequences of our turning the radio channels almost exclusively into commercial hands…whoever controls the radio will in the end control the development of the human race.” Scary. Especially when noting that Morgan died in 1986, and in 1983, 50 corporations controlled the majority of news media. Now six corporations control it. One of them is Walt Disney, which would explain why Adam Levine is touted as a “rockstar.”
In 1948, jazz critic Sidney Finkelstein summed up commercialism in music superbly when he said it ultimately leads “to what is really destructive in culture: the taking over of an art by business.” It seems that with the advent of the internet, and the seeming freedom and ease it could provide to get relevant music out there, corporations have gotten even more aggressive to keep people’s thoughts on consumption, rather than cultural and social change. And millennials are the ones most vulnerable because they have no personal connection to a time when music actually mattered. When it was the most accessible medium for getting a message to the world. Now corporations have used the medium artists once used to spread a message of social change, to send the message that they need more and more useless shit instead. Don’t believe the Top 40 hype that pushes singing puppets on us and tries to make us believe that their silly antics and extravagant lifestyles are anything but pathetic. Supporting your local musicians by going out to hear live music is a great way to combat the control media has over us. Checking out music blogs is another way to find out about artists who aren’t corporately endorsed. If you can’t find anything on those, ask around to find out who people’s favorite bands are. Just make sure those you ask are over the age of 30. ;) Sources: “Rich Media, Poor Democracy,” by Robert McChesney http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-media-the-6-monolithic-corporations-that-control-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read About POWERevolution Power: (n) The measure of an entity’s ability to control their environment. Revolution: (n) 1. Activity or movement designed to affect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation. 2. A fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something. Evolution: (n) 1. Growth. 2. A process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance. Knowledge is power. By educating ourselves on how our everyday actions affect the world, we can start governing ourselves rather than trusting the government to do so. Through signing petitions, protesting, making smarter purchasing decisions, getting involved in our communities and just informing ourselves and those around us on what the mass media won’t tell us, we can start a POWERevolution. A revolution that will hopefully lead to our evolution as a human race into one that protects our planet and our youth rather than allowing them to be exploited for profit. One that sees the value of integrity, wisdom and compassion and the transciency of wealth and celebrity. A race that doesn’t wait for the government to solve all the world’s problems (because it won’t), but solves them ourselves instead. So let’s get to starting the revolution… follow the blog to find out how you can be a part of the POWERevolution. Folklorists say the belief that good or bad things come in threes is an ancient superstition that remains a strong modern belief. Perhaps it comes from the Latin phrase, "omne trium perfectum" (every set of three is complete). Regardless of the origins of the phenomenon, all to often when a celebrity or icon goes to his just rewards, we, (the little people out there) keep a little sharper eye on the news to see just who might follow. It's morbid, I know, but we are a voyeuristic culture. Unfortunately, last month, the rock and roll world was hit with one of these triads that you didn't have to look too hard to see. On January 10, we awoke to the news that music icon David Bowie had passed on just three days after his 69th birthday and three days after the release of his album "Blackstar". Bowie's death was unexpected and a shock to the industry and his legions of fans. No sooner had that news sunk in, we learned just eight days later that Glenn Frey, founding member of The Eagles died at the age of 67 in New York City of complications from rheumatoid arthritis, acute ulcerative colitis, and pneumonia. Again, a death we were not expecting that shocked the music world. Then to complete the triumvirate, on January 28th we learned that Paul Kantner of The Jefferson Airplane had passed away from multiple organ failure and septic shock after he suffered a heart attack just days earlier. It's been two weeks since Kantner's demise and I hope the music industry can rest a little easy for a while. Keith Richards needs the rest.
 I've never been one to formulate New Year's Resolutions, much less adhere to them. I was recently going through my website however and realized that I have not published a blog post since April of 2015. So, with that in mind, my resolution (if you can call it that) is to produce more blog posts this year. I am not sure if anyone reads them or for that matter cares one bit about what I have to say about the music business or anything, for that matter, but I have a blog and damnit I am going to use it this year. Some of the posts may be very short and sweet and some may be more substantial but the point is to get them out there.
This post is about a dear friend of mine who passed away yesterday. Warren Kosinski was a man I have known for over 30 years and we have had some good times together. Warren was a little bit my senior but after the age of about 15, what's 10 years or so. Warren was a Viet Nam vet who didn't really like to talk about his time in the service but would if pressed. He was one of the lucky ones who came back from that conflict in one piece and relatively sane. Warren was a house painter by trade and could make walls come alive with color like no one else I know. He had a tremendous work ethic and was very proud of the work he accomplished. Like many painters, Warren had a drinking problem but I suspect breathing paint fumes for years on end pickled his senses way more than his drinking. Warren was diagnosed with liver cancer in 2009 and stopped drinking for good. He fought through his illness and was making progress until about six months ago. His condition worsened and he finally succumbed to his illness yesterday afternoon. Warren and I shared a love of music and one story I can remember highlights his insight. Back in the early 1980's I had tickets to see Joan Armatrading at The Fox Theater in Atlanta. I invited Warren along. He was not all that familiar with Joan at the time and we listened to her music on the way to the show. He commented at some point during the trip that she reminded him of Van Morrison. OK, I never got the connection but alright. During the show that night, about half way through, Joan launched into a cover version of Moondance that blew me away. I don't believe that I have ever heard Joan cover anyone else's music before or since. Just one of those things that make you go hmmmmm. Warren was a great supporter of the show and of the festival we produced last year and even though he was not in great health, he traveled the two plus hours to be here and had a great time at the festival even though it was hot and the heat strained him. Warren is not the kind of guy who will have brilliant obituaries written about him but I wanted to take this opportunity to honor his memory and to remember him fondly. So long Warren, rest in peace! Mad Music Presents First Ever Thoroughbred Music Festival |
 |  |
I grew up with commercial radio. In the sixties and seventies and eighties, that's how we got introduced to new music and was the foundation of my generation's musical education. So it was natural when I conceived this show that I would pitch it to commercial stations. I felt that that was where I belonged. Not so much, I soon learned. Commercial stations today are largely run by multi-billion dollar corporations and have a strict eye toward the bottom line. Ad dollars are scarce and getting harder to come by and stations are largely unwilling to take a chance on anything untried and untrue. Now I could turn this into a bitter diatribe on the state of commercial radio and more generally the state of today's music business but I am resisting that temptation. Why? Because there is another outlet to be heard in the radio universe.
Of course, I am talking about the streaming world of internet radio. I must say I resisted this avenue as long as I could because I was holding on to the outmoded belief that commercial radio was the place to be. Recently, I was talking to someone I respect in the radio business and he told me that in actual fact, the ad dollars flowing into internet radio rival and in most cases surpass those flowing into commercial terrestrial radio in this day and age. I found that fact to be very interesting; not because I am doing this for money; (quite the contrary) but for the fact that advertisers (i.e. money) realize that listeners are flocking to streaming stations and that's where today's audience is.
So, instead of being dependent on The Mad Music Asylum being on a station in your market, soon the show will be anywhere you are. I am excited to bring this show to you and the projected launch date for The Mad Music Asylum station is June 1, 2014. I hope you will like the show and listen to it regularly. If you follow us on social media at all, (Facebook, Google+, Pinterest, Twitter, Myspace, or Wordpress) the details of the launch will be announced in the weeks to come so watch out for that. If you don't follow us I have to ask, "why not?". Just kidding! But in all seriousness, this is a labor of love and I hope you will enjoy the show.
Peace.
Of course, I am talking about the streaming world of internet radio. I must say I resisted this avenue as long as I could because I was holding on to the outmoded belief that commercial radio was the place to be. Recently, I was talking to someone I respect in the radio business and he told me that in actual fact, the ad dollars flowing into internet radio rival and in most cases surpass those flowing into commercial terrestrial radio in this day and age. I found that fact to be very interesting; not because I am doing this for money; (quite the contrary) but for the fact that advertisers (i.e. money) realize that listeners are flocking to streaming stations and that's where today's audience is.
So, instead of being dependent on The Mad Music Asylum being on a station in your market, soon the show will be anywhere you are. I am excited to bring this show to you and the projected launch date for The Mad Music Asylum station is June 1, 2014. I hope you will like the show and listen to it regularly. If you follow us on social media at all, (Facebook, Google+, Pinterest, Twitter, Myspace, or Wordpress) the details of the launch will be announced in the weeks to come so watch out for that. If you don't follow us I have to ask, "why not?". Just kidding! But in all seriousness, this is a labor of love and I hope you will enjoy the show.
Peace.
I pose the title of this blog post as a question because in researching this topic it is hard to know what to believe. I guess it all depends on who you listen to. According to The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) from their website “Since peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing site Napster emerged in 1999, music sales in the U.S. have dropped 53 percent”. [Citation] In another article RIAA states that album shipments in 1973 totaled 388.2 million units. [Citation] Contrast that with The Nielsen Company & Billboard’s 2012 Music Industry Report that states “overall music purchases surpassed 1.65 billion units in 2012” [Citation] and you can understand my confusion. I’m not sure I want the RIAA statisticians working on my books!
In all fairness, a direct comparison is difficult because prior to 1992 the only data that seems to be available is units shipped to retailers and not hard sales data. Since Soundscan began tracking actual sales, the ratio between shipped units and sold units is roughly 70%. In other words, 70% of the units shipped were actually sold so let’s take that into consideration for the 388 million units mentioned above. If the math is accurate and the public’s buying habits have not changed dramatically over the years that 388 million figure is more like 271 million units actually sold.
Putting aside for a moment the actual data, let’s accept the industry’s premise that sales have declined since the advent of peer to peer sharing. I believe the fault is not so much with the buying public as it is with the industry itself. Take Hollywood as an example. If major studios release a bunch of crap, box office receipts suffer and this gives rise to a vital independent film movement. Over the past 20 years or so, movies have become cheaper to make and real story tellers have had the opportunity to make art outside of the constraints of the Hollywood system. The film industry adapted and learned very quickly how to monetize the indie film movement. Why has the music industry been so slow to adapt? My belief is that once accountants and hard core business types infiltrated the music business, their aim was to squeeze every dime from it and as a result the end product suffered. Talk to serious musicians today as I have and the lure of a major label contract is not what it used to be.
Back to actual sales for a moment, I like to make this comparison: In 1971, Carole King released her second album “Tapestry”. By all accounts, it is a great album and within a few years had sold close to 25 million copies. In fact, it is 41 on the list of all time best-selling albums in history. 40 years later in 2011, Adele released her second album “21”. By all accounts, it too is a great album and here two years later has sold about 25 million copies as well. In fact, “21” ranks as number 39 on the all-time sales list. [Citation] It is interesting to note that in the top 50 on the all-time sales list, only 2 were released after 2000 (Norah Jones’ “Don't Know Why” being the other).
My belief is that if the music industry will stop bitching about sales and concentrate on nurturing new, quality artists, sales will follow as Adele has proved. The biggest problem with the music industry in my view is the industry itself.
In all fairness, a direct comparison is difficult because prior to 1992 the only data that seems to be available is units shipped to retailers and not hard sales data. Since Soundscan began tracking actual sales, the ratio between shipped units and sold units is roughly 70%. In other words, 70% of the units shipped were actually sold so let’s take that into consideration for the 388 million units mentioned above. If the math is accurate and the public’s buying habits have not changed dramatically over the years that 388 million figure is more like 271 million units actually sold.
Putting aside for a moment the actual data, let’s accept the industry’s premise that sales have declined since the advent of peer to peer sharing. I believe the fault is not so much with the buying public as it is with the industry itself. Take Hollywood as an example. If major studios release a bunch of crap, box office receipts suffer and this gives rise to a vital independent film movement. Over the past 20 years or so, movies have become cheaper to make and real story tellers have had the opportunity to make art outside of the constraints of the Hollywood system. The film industry adapted and learned very quickly how to monetize the indie film movement. Why has the music industry been so slow to adapt? My belief is that once accountants and hard core business types infiltrated the music business, their aim was to squeeze every dime from it and as a result the end product suffered. Talk to serious musicians today as I have and the lure of a major label contract is not what it used to be.
Back to actual sales for a moment, I like to make this comparison: In 1971, Carole King released her second album “Tapestry”. By all accounts, it is a great album and within a few years had sold close to 25 million copies. In fact, it is 41 on the list of all time best-selling albums in history. 40 years later in 2011, Adele released her second album “21”. By all accounts, it too is a great album and here two years later has sold about 25 million copies as well. In fact, “21” ranks as number 39 on the all-time sales list. [Citation] It is interesting to note that in the top 50 on the all-time sales list, only 2 were released after 2000 (Norah Jones’ “Don't Know Why” being the other).
My belief is that if the music industry will stop bitching about sales and concentrate on nurturing new, quality artists, sales will follow as Adele has proved. The biggest problem with the music industry in my view is the industry itself.
"When artists get together, they talk about money. When entrepreneurs get together they talk about art." —Oscar Wilde
Actor Charlton Heston once said “The trouble with movies as a business, is that they’re an art; of course, the trouble with movies as an art is that they’re a business.” Thus has been the dichotomy of the art world for centuries. Back in the day (way back in the day) artists depended on the patronage of wealthy families or the Church for their livelihood. That was fine to a point but can you imagine what the likes of Michaelangelo and da Vinci could have or would have created without the yoke of the Catholic Church or the Medici family?
There was a time in the music business when art was created with minimal constraints of commerce but as in all artistic endeavors, once left brain thinking people realized music’s commercial potential they began to put pressure on artists to conform to the realities of the marketplace. Don’t get me wrong, there is a balance. All artists desire a larger audience and the way to get the larger audience is to produce works that a larger audience will consume monetarily. Artists can and do follow their muse and be true to themselves without “selling out”. We don’t remember Beethoven as being a gifted piano teacher or a particularly virtuosic performer but that is how he supported himself while he wrote the music for which he is remembered.
The problem in our modern society is the fact that the film industry, the music industry, and most artistic concerns have been overrun with Harvard MBA types who only look at the bottom line of an artistic undertaking. Art cannot be judged by the amount of dollars it brings in. That stifles creativity. Often times, progressive art movements flounder economically before they are finally accepted and revered.
One question I have always struggled with is this: does marketing respond to the public or does it create the market. American Idol is a hugely successful television show and by all accounts, the singers it has produced should have had a tremendous impact on the music business but that impact has fallen woefully short, Carrie Underwood notwithstanding. I am reminded of Thomas Kinkade who was probably the most successful artist (monetarily) in history but reportedly suffered from depression because his art was not viewed as seriously as he had imagined it should have been in serious art circles.
The balance both for artists and businesspeople is a delicate one and once the pendulum swings in one direction or the other, either the art suffers or the ability for people to profit from it does.
We leave you with this quote and welcome your comments.
“When nations grow old, the arts grow cold and commerce settles on every tree.” --William Blake
Actor Charlton Heston once said “The trouble with movies as a business, is that they’re an art; of course, the trouble with movies as an art is that they’re a business.” Thus has been the dichotomy of the art world for centuries. Back in the day (way back in the day) artists depended on the patronage of wealthy families or the Church for their livelihood. That was fine to a point but can you imagine what the likes of Michaelangelo and da Vinci could have or would have created without the yoke of the Catholic Church or the Medici family?
There was a time in the music business when art was created with minimal constraints of commerce but as in all artistic endeavors, once left brain thinking people realized music’s commercial potential they began to put pressure on artists to conform to the realities of the marketplace. Don’t get me wrong, there is a balance. All artists desire a larger audience and the way to get the larger audience is to produce works that a larger audience will consume monetarily. Artists can and do follow their muse and be true to themselves without “selling out”. We don’t remember Beethoven as being a gifted piano teacher or a particularly virtuosic performer but that is how he supported himself while he wrote the music for which he is remembered.
The problem in our modern society is the fact that the film industry, the music industry, and most artistic concerns have been overrun with Harvard MBA types who only look at the bottom line of an artistic undertaking. Art cannot be judged by the amount of dollars it brings in. That stifles creativity. Often times, progressive art movements flounder economically before they are finally accepted and revered.
One question I have always struggled with is this: does marketing respond to the public or does it create the market. American Idol is a hugely successful television show and by all accounts, the singers it has produced should have had a tremendous impact on the music business but that impact has fallen woefully short, Carrie Underwood notwithstanding. I am reminded of Thomas Kinkade who was probably the most successful artist (monetarily) in history but reportedly suffered from depression because his art was not viewed as seriously as he had imagined it should have been in serious art circles.
The balance both for artists and businesspeople is a delicate one and once the pendulum swings in one direction or the other, either the art suffers or the ability for people to profit from it does.
We leave you with this quote and welcome your comments.
“When nations grow old, the arts grow cold and commerce settles on every tree.” --William Blake
Philosophy
Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything
--Plato
Archives
August 2016
February 2016
January 2016
April 2015
September 2014
June 2014
May 2014
July 2013
June 2013
RSS Feed
