What kind of morons do you have working at newspapers in Austin that would base an entire review of an artist's performance on whether or not they had a good seat?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think that artists, at a certain point, can either become defiant and say that the audience is wrong, readers don't get them, and they're going to keep doing it their own way, or they can listen to the criticism - and not necessarily blindly follow the audience's requests and advice.
When you turn professional, you become an entertainer, and like every other entertainer, you don't want to get a bad review.
I guess you'd have to say that sometimes the audience is smarter than the critics.
There are few performers who would have had the audacity to even bring up the fact that they had been poorly reviewed.
You always feel like rock critics are frustrated musicians. I envy musicians their ability to live their art and share it with an audience, in the moment.
As a longtime fan of talk radio, I'm very worried about the low opinion that conservative hosts and callers have of the American artist. Art is portrayed as a scam, a rip-off and snow job pushed by snobbish elites.
Rock and roll stars have it much better than writers when they're on a tour.
Art editors and critics - people like me - have become a courtier class.
Nowadays I'm not even sure if newspapers take into account whether a person is a good writer.
I'm vulnerable to criticism. Any artist is, because you work alone in your studio and, until recently, critics were the only way you'd get any feedback.
No opposing quotes found.