Pseudonymous enough? Whatev.

Someone wrote: I guess since I’ve accepted my role as Internet curiousity curator and shed my role of ‘useful member of the G+ community’…

—-

An example I’ve been thought by a teacher of mine is about ‘types’ of musicians: there are 1) musicians, 2) musicians’ musicians, and 3) entertainers. Each have their role.

Musicians play music according to what has been established, but seeks to perfect his/her personal craft. While a musicians’ musician seeks to push the boundaries of what has been established, pushing for and seeking new territories. While entertainers seek to entertain the public, to give joy to their heart, or to move them to action with passion as necessary.

Each have their role, but problems sometimes start when they do not accept their role. For example, it is rare that avant-garde abstract music can be directly enjoyed by the general public; and for entertainers to create something which entertains the public but haven’t been done by some secluded avant-garde artist somewhere; or for the skilled classical musician to try something new, something different, without breaking one of the many cherished rules…

But see, the three types, they have their own audiences. Occasionally there might be some people who can appreciate all three, but IMHO many many more people could only appreciate type. Established musicians appreciate avant-garde musicians, fascinated by the new ground they’re treading, while listeners to classical music find ‘ear-grating’ abstractionisms painful; while listeners seeking to be entertained couldn’t ever be bothered by any of this.

So… what am I getting at? Oh yes, sorry :o) Anyways, do what you feel like doing, mix & match published content, just set your own goal and stick to it. Don’t worry about audience, be more worried about what you want to achieve.

Though if you’re aiming for as big an audience as possible then well, I’d guess you should entertain…