>The SAME hippy-dippy music purists who go around chanting
>that music has to be free because it's a natural, spiritual
>right like oxygen or H2O.... They are usually the FIRST ones
>to denigrate modern commercial artists like Rihanna and
>Beyonce who "monetize" their images as "brands" because...
>y'know, "it's supposed to be all about the MUSIC, maaan!"

of course

it makes sense that anyone who doesn't view music in a $ sense would then be critical of those who only seem to make music for $

duh

>So let's get this straight:
>
>If a musician tries to get paid from sales of their record,
>then they're a greedy asshole and they need to grow up and get
>a job.

no, if they try, fail, and then whine and bitch and gnash teeth and blame everyone but themselves...THEN THEY NEED TO GROW UP AND GET A JOB

>BUT
>
>If they try to cash in on their popularity as recording
>artists by letting their image be used to sell hair dye and
>soft drinks, then they are fakes... they're phony, soulless
>corporate shills and sellouts.

of course...in your first example musicians are being "criticized" by these phantom theoretical fans for their money motive and in the 2nd example they are being criticized for the same thing

it's really pretty basic, anyone who might feel like that has a general issue w/ the money motive in music


>*smh* Modern fans are so childish and selfish and they truly
>sicken me.

lmao

as if "older" fans wouldn't be exactly the same way if they had been able to easily obtain free copies of albums in the 60's/70's/80's/90's

you keep blaming the "fans" for the way things are when it's not entirely the "fans" fault, the "fans" are one component of a larger picture that also involves technology, artists, labels, law, morals etc.

and ironically, all this anger and vitriol towards "fans" kinda exposes the type of contempt that a lot of fans truly feel that "artists" have for them