From eric hill Sent Tue, Aug 24th 1999, 20:21
From eric hill Sent Tue, Aug 24th 1999, 20:21
>i'm sure someone could provide you with a myriad of examples of highly >creative musicians who abandoned because of the lack of attention, i have no problem with people giving up a creative outlet once they can't find a reason to participate in it. there is no value in being patronized by someone who is creative for only as long as they don't experience a "lack of attention." >you presume that attention _necessarily_ hinders creativity, i presumed no such thing. i asked if a larger population improves the creative output of a scene. >have you noticed that the wire isn't grooves or e.x.p. (or motion)? i guess that's why they have different names. >but fortunately, media coverage isn't evil when done responsibly (this >happens less & less often, which makes people utter statements like >yours, thinking this is the 'normal state of affairs', whereas it's only >happening because we're letting it happen, & because high-publication >magazine editors are usually ethic-less, jaded idiots with dollar bills >in their ears to cover the noise they're supposed to review.) i mentioned neither media coverage, evil, nor "normal states of affairs," and so i'm having trouble determining from which of my two sentences you're inferring this. is it just a side effect of the obvious (but so-far unspoken) benefits of wider familiarity that we put up with the "ethicless (?), jaded idiots"? what are these benefits and how do they change things for the better? >i just don't buy into the 'creativity must be starving' idea. that makes two of us. why ever would you bring it up? eric