such an unfathomable amount of revenue. Having established very early on what
appears today as a purer, more honest relationship with their receiver, backed up by a
monumental financial success, The Beatles were allowed to grow and change without
having to fight for visibility or exposure but rather, on the contrary, taking their distance
vis-à-vis the public, and it is when they ceased direct contact with their audience, that is
when they stopped touring, that they produced their most artistic works. They existed in
function of an ideal recipient rather than the public, without caring neither about fame
nor sales, and, just as real artists do, they developed and they changed. Change is no
longer welcome in the music industry, which cares only about the public and despises
the recipient, as shown by English singer and songwriter George Michael’s legal
misadventures with Sony that cost him three years of his career36 and established once
and for all the All Mighty Power of the executive branch of the music industry over its
creative part.
Conceiving the public as a space allows us to distinguish it from the notion of
recipient and to better perceive its implications and limits in terms of communication –
grammar itself comes to our rescue, for we do commonly say “in public,” or “in the
public eye.” As a space, the public is no longer an informed or discerning receiver but
rather an environment the music industry needs in order to gross capital gain; logically,
the artist becomes a simple commodity and is increasingly easily substitutable –
chances are that Lady Gaga’ or Miley Cyrus’ respective fames will not last as long as
Madonna’s did, in spite of all their efforts to obtain visibility by all means necessary. The
public as a space is constantly rearranged by the music industry in order to create new
and more exciting needs, and so, naturally, the thought-provoking qualities and
originality of any work of art immediately raise suspicions; if noth [