chris77 wrote:
My Integrity reference was more aimed at the Voelvry okes compared to their contemporaries at that time. They had their beliefs and stuck to them, even when they were harassed and arrested by the establishment - and made some great music along the way.
Yes. But now, thankfully, we live in a time where that sort of persecution is not visited upon musicians. So it's unfair to judge any contemporary musician against that benchmark because they will never be tested in that way.
Not too clued up about Die Antwoord's business dealings but if they didn't sell out kudos to them. And if they didn't sell out because they were above compromising their "Art"* for profit and not becasuse they figured they could make more on their own terms, even more so.
Well I exclude that, because whilst they might have made more money in the long term making the choices they did, they took greater financial risk as well. They couldn't KNOW that they were onto a sure thing (if they are), but had to bet that they were.
*"Art" is bracketed because I just cannot for the life of me get my head around what they are doing being called that.
Well, I sort of incline your way. But I figure that it's best to be liberal with the definition of "art" because once we start laying down rules and standards we might find that we have to exclude some of our own favourites, and we run into the problems of different standards across the ages. My mother used to turn off the TV when Jimi Hendrix came on - he was pretty extreme for the establishment in 60s England. Besides, allowing what die Antwoord do to be termed "art" doesn't diminish the stuff I really enjoy nor my enjoyment. So whatever...
