And when they started those bands what did they play? Did they want to sound like Velvet underground, or make money for nothin' and chicks for free like the Beatles? Would Bach and Beethoven have changed music if they hadn't become the rage with European patrons(money), so they became the cool kids? Should we play what we have been for free grog at the tavern or play what the rich people want to hear hoping for better gigs?
Of course I admit I'm rather soured on the music business, so lets take paintings. Everybody say the Mona Lisa is the cat's pajamas. But is it that good, or just better than most from it's era, so became the standard among the patrons(there's that word again), when most of the people in the world never heard of it. In fact most of the people of the world hadn't seen a painting outside of maybe the church, or a cave, at that time. There isn't much from the period to compare it to now.
My point is all these accolades come from critics or promoters who steer the hoi polloi. Now back when people bought record albums you had thousands of releases every year to choose from. But damn few people heard any of them if the didn't get airplay, which was dictated by critics and coughpayolacough promoters. The old, I don't know much about art..., is certainly true, but unfortunately what we're exposed to in order to make that choice, is more orchestrated than we care to admit. Sure, with the internet there's more opportunity to find stuff, but ain't nobody got time for that.
