Quote:
Originally Posted by paleshadow
Having said that, I don't think a full or even partial album of new Stevie material would necessarily have charted either, but that's left to be seen I suppose.
|
I just don’t understand why these people need to worry about charts all the time. I know they all have lifestyles that have to be sustained, but you would think that all those repackages of Rumours and all those multimillion-dollar tours allow them to sustain their lavish lifestyles AND produce new music just to find that spark of life in them. They don’t have to be relevant to the times — they have to be relevant to
life. But they’re all so fixated on charts and marketing and maximal yields. It’s that crazed drive for selling every product they make that is beginning to sound like the true legacy of Fleetwood Mac. To think that the first and greatest member of the band — the person who started it all — very soon concluded that the marketing and the music were going to be a very uneasy alliance, and that he was more interested in the latter, really says something (especially since they labeled him nuts at the time). Maybe he was right in 1969–70. If everything you do is calculated to reap big profits even
after you have made a killing, you really won’t have much to contribute to the artistic or emotional well-being of a society. If you pull in millions from five or six albums and still can’t live the way you want and create what you want from that point on, you’re doing something wrong ...
... unless you’re in fact a corporation, not an artist.