4 ms·
They are not very original in their music and lyrics. That's obviously not a requirement for becoming a professional musician. Or simply not very good. That,
by kleiba 6y ago
They are not very original in their music and lyrics.
That's obviously not a requirement for becoming a professional musician.
Or simply not very good.
That, of course, is a bigger issue. But at the same time, it's really not that the people who make it are orders of magnitude better than the best ones of those who don't. Like in many other areas of life, there's factors other than excellence that play an important role, and a lot of them boil down to luck.
You can't get nowhere without some heavy-weight business insiders supporting you, even if you're that youtube wunderkind that then has a cinderella-like career. So much of a career is due to successful management, networking, and just being in the right place at the right time. Mind you, you gotta be good, and you gotta work, but that alone is not enough.
- 72deluxe 6y agoYeah, none of those punk bands succeeded because they were rubbish on their instruments!! Also, Paul McCartney didn't do very well because he had rubbish lyrics like "In this world in which we live in" - how many times can you say "in" ? or "someone's knocking at the door; do me a favour, go to it, open it and let them in" - stating the obvious...
- spiderfarmer 6y agoThe Beatles where very good in making catchy melodies though.
- kleiba 6y agoExactly. "Good" is a very context-dependent term.
- HackedBunny 6y ago"In this world in which we're living"...
- 72deluxe 6y agoOh I misheard/misremembered!! Thanks!
- bsder 6y agoTo be fair, John Lennon was a far better lyricist--mostly because Bob Dylan told Lennon that his lyrics sucked. Lennon took that really hard and really worked on it.