I think if you asked a historian and an artist you'd get two different answers.
For me, I'd be satisfied with being Marlowe. I've only ever cared about my work having an effect on people. Stadiums cheering your name are nice, but they're a consequence of people giving a damn about your music, not the other way around.
Maybe not completely satisfied. But satisfied enough.
If a tree gets cut down in the forest, and nobody's around to see that you did it, you still left your mark on the woods for years.
And that's easy: The identity is famous. The artist behind it isn't, no matter who she might be.
no subject
For me, I'd be satisfied with being Marlowe.
I've only ever cared about my work having an effect on people.
Stadiums cheering your name are nice, but they're a consequence of people giving a damn about your music, not the other way around.
Maybe not completely satisfied. But satisfied enough.
If a tree gets cut down in the forest, and nobody's around to see that you did it, you still left your mark on the woods for years.
And that's easy: The identity is famous. The artist behind it isn't, no matter who she might be.