i just wanted to put something on the table concerning one of the themes we touched on during the last few classes, that of the musician being an outcast of society. i really don't understand this delegation. i am one of those people who, when i hear someone play an instrument or sing, am entranced. even if it's not done very well, i am interested. when i hear a virtuoso, im enthralled. how could anyone shun people who can produce such beautiful music? why? and why is it that american culture seems to do just the opposite - people have a tendency to elevate the entertainer to the upper eschelons of society. hence our obsession with brittany spears' "coming of age" and brad pitt's love life and the next movie julia roberts is making. why has our society taken such a different path? and have we gone too far along that path? dont we idolize entertainers a little too much these days? the disconnect between societies just puzzles me, and i wonder how it has come to be...and how it has lasted for so long. any thoughts?
Posted by palazzolocm at March 3, 2005 01:54 PMI have thought about this idea as well, but more from the point of the artist. If you are an outcast in society, will you become more creative? The modern day United States does seem to have a different paradigm towards entertainers and musicians.. a love/hate relationship. I think thats more what its about than totally outcast. Gangsta rap in the early 90s... very famous, but very controversial. Rock in the 50s and 60s... very popular, but you wouldn't want one of your daughters to marry Jimi Hendrix...
Posted by: Pete at March 3, 2005 03:19 PMI think the ultra-famous musician/artist/entertainer is not the some situation as the outcast which our class discusses. If you look at the non-famous people who are in the fields of the arts, no they are not outcasts in society but they have taken a different path. When people hear that I am a music major, their first question is of course "What do you want to do with that?" and the truth is that I do not know. If I wanted to persue a career as a professional harpist, I suppose I may have a better chance of being successful than the average musician because of the low supply and high demand of harpists, but if I wanted to become a singer (either pop or broadway or classical) I would hardly receive encouragement from home. I would be told that singers are a dime a dozen and I will have to struggle to make ends-meat and I will never make it in the field. I feel like that is the same degree as the musician outcast of the past in that their family is not quite sure what to do with them and does not want to get stuck supporting the starving artist just as the parents are reaching a point when they're financial burdon of the child should be ending. If the artist reaches great fame, that's wonderful and suddenly he's a productive member of society, but in how many cases does that really happen?
Posted by: Brooke at March 3, 2005 06:19 PM