On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 16:36:01 +0400
Louigi Verona wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:26 PM, David Santamauro
Bach wasn't exactly striving for fame, but he was surely trying to
impress in order to secure a position that would allow him to provide
for a family doing what he loved to do.
The mentality changed through the course of the 18th century moving
away from simply court-appointed "secure positions" to self-supporting
composers accepting commissions and, yes, in order to get more
commissions, these composers strove for fame -- there is much
literature on the subject and although I've been schooled many years in
music history, theory and composition, there are many others who can
explain this change better than I. But it is this change that was
> But today a lot of people cannot imagine this kind of a
True, but isn't what I mentioned above still something that
artists strive for? ("trying to impress in order to secure a position
that would allow him to provide for a family doing what he loved to
do"). Granted, this is a simplistic view, but a starving artist will
die of starvation. An artist that makes enough money will continue to
create -- a fact of life traceable to the ideas of Darwin, I'm afraid.
> Today society and mindsets of people are very different. To
So maybe the commercial company wants fortune, but the academics surely
want fame ... which, of course, translates to money as the more famous
a university is, the more students want to attend, the more government
grants for research it will receive, usw.
Again, if the amateur scene is providing enough to allow the artist to
continue creating, I see nothing wrong with it.
Linux-audio-user mailing list