| re: Plus | |
|
Posted by: |
Steven 08:20 pm UTC 04/11/09 |
| In reply to: | re: Plus - Pudding 10:18 am UTC 04/11/09 |
| > he has bills to pay just > like the rest of us and doesn't have an endless pot of > cash That's true and I'm aware of it. Nevertheless I am, generally, not a fan of the "no matter what, as long as it gets Jim's name spread" approach: I feel that whenever Jim tried to -- and indeed, there are many reasons that can force one to do it -- jump on whatever bandwagon was considered popular at the time, it didn't do him much good. The most prominent example would be TdV vs. DotV: TdV was successful because it was good in itself. DotV was bad because it was nothing but a huge attempt to suck up to ... seemingly everyone and everything. You can add good music and good performers (I'm NOT talking of Crawford here!) ... and still the whole thing sucks because it isn't good in itself, and the audience noticed that. If Jim compromises too much and attaches himself/his name to "bad or mediocre things that suck up to potential buyers" people will remember him for and associate him with "bad or mediocre things that suck up to potential buyers". And that will also be the stuff that people, including future clients and sponsors, will expect from him. Which means that when they need someone to do some "bomttsutpb" they hire Jim because that's what his name is associated with; whereas when they need some good, original, surprising stuff they don't hire Jim but someone else whose name is associated with quality. -- Is a scenario like that something desirable? I think not. That's why I feel that "whatever gets Jim's name spread" isn't the best possible approach. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Plus - Pudding 10:18 am UTC 04/11/09 |
| Next: | re: Plus - Pudding 08:32 pm UTC 04/11/09 |
| Thread: | |