Displaced Fan wrote:
shedoesntgetit wrote:
i'd agree that he's not really a star. the band is/was relatively famous, but if you asked anyone to name the members of coheed i'd bet most people if they were even able to name anyone itd be claudio sanchez.
Jesus fucking christ. My whole fucking point was that this guy is well known, has money and should be able to get drugs without robbing a fucking Walgreens. Why is this a debate? What is the cutoff then for a "rock star"? What is your definition? Rock star to me simply means that the guy is famous, has a bunch of money, plays in front of thousands and has sold tons of records. Does it matter that he's the bassist of a band versus a lead singer? Jesus.
Well I love debating, as you probably surmised.
I do think that making money in music is exceptionally hard though, this isn't just me playing devil's advocate (or at least not all of it). The only money you make is from touring, and a lot of bands that tour do absolute bare-bones operations.
Where do I cross the line between star and mere professional? That's tough to say. Major stars are obvious (Metallica, Ozzy, Beastie Boys, Radiohead, etc.), but I think I draw a tough line between A-minus list stars and the rest of the crowd. Here are some examples:
Green Day=stars, Rancid=not stars
Neil Young=star, Neko Case= not star
Pearl Jam=stars, Mudhoney=not stars, The Melvins=not stars, Soundgarden=?
Outkast=stars, Talib Kweli=?
These categorizations have nothing to do with my opinions of their music. A lot of bands I love might not even fit my bill for a "star". Are Sonic Youth stars? Arcade Fire? I guess Arcade Fire are stars but does that mean they're bigger than Sonic Youth?
Who knows for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if even some of the bands I mentioned there aren't swimming in money. It's a recession, sometimes selling records isn't gonna keep you from needing to hold up Walgreens to get your oxycotin.