Would you say the public and the media are equally balanced or does one outweigh the other, I personally would say the public liking you means much more as they are the ones who buy what you are putting out basically. The media might love it, but if you dont have fans to buy the new cd, whats the point?
So Id agree definitely with the acclaim from the fans and general public
I would say that acclaim by fans and general public is more important than media acclaim. But media acclaim has a huge influence on the general public, how they take an important they view the artist culturally. And how much passion the public have for them. I'm think some artists and bands have more critical acclaim than they should have had, and I feel sometimes that has added to their longjevity. Such as I think some artists and bands never got the acclaim thet should have got, which as cut their longjevity at least as a relevant artist/band. So an artist or a band may have huge success and longjevity, but the media aren't talking about how Bon Jovi's song Livin On a Prayer as classic song, neither are the general public. Criticle acclaim makes a huge difference. Michael Jackson as a person is wrongly derided by the media, but as an artist Michael also has huge criticle acclaim for his music, singing and dancing,as well as longjevity. And that's my point, a lot of artists and bands don't have both. So to have that World Championship and artist and a band need both to ensure their music etc lives on forever, so new generations will discover and love their music like people will always know who Mozart is, and that he was a genius and very important to music even without every buying his music.
That's kind of like acts such as Velvet Underground, Sonic Youth, Shuggie Otis, Steve Earle, or Dwight Yokum. The critcs like them, but nobody else has heard of them, lol.
I'm not suggesting what critics in the music media like, is what gives an artist band longjevity on it's own. Just as huge sales don't ensure an artist or bands music lives on forever, neither does just having critical acclaim. Bob Dylan isn't a huge selling artist, and I don't think he's ever had a top 10 hit (even though other artists have had huge top 5 hits with covers of his song), but he has critcal acclaim, by the media, and also acclaim by other artists and bands (as must of that world championships), which adds to a huge fan base. Once again, Cliff Richard and Bon Jovi have lonjevity and huge success but musically they have no merit.
People who know about music and and a real interest in fine art and graphics etc know who the Velvet Underground are. Maybe the masses don't know who the Velvet Underground are, but their influence on music is huge. A band like the Velvet Underground were totally unknown outside the New York art scene at when they were together in the late 1960's. Most music critics hadn't even heard of them, as they were seen as nothing more than music backup to Andy Warhol's art shows. But with David Bowie producing Lou Reeds album Transformer, that has given both Lou Reed and the Velvet Underground added clout to having their music rediscovered by future generations and live on forever. As does the Andy Warhol connection, and the music of the Velvet Underground is very popular among the artist section of the UK.
