-
The Future Ain't What It Used To Be.
-
You could say that we are in a kind of limbo state...but a very huge population of the young generation would disagree with you based upon defending ..not only the threatening accusation of their position and the new music they love, but more importantly that they see something better or more unique about their music than ours. Realistically, a dinosaur can be mostly an aspect in our music such as a Hammond B3 having a sound for many people that transports their mindset to the 60's. But in most cases the composition is way ahead of it's time and can be defined as timeless. There is the existence of an attitude within young musicians today who oppose that.
It's based on the belief that succeeding as original can be accomplished by dismissing music from other generations, innovators, and that the notion to add someone else's reflection to your own vocabulary is not sacred nor worthy. This is an on going theory obviously decided on a simple logic to make a bad choice . What's the easiest way to be original? Block all other music sources out. Even though..sadly..a lot of that passe music of the 60's and 70's is futuristic. They have an attitude that one part of the equation is correct and the other parts incorrect. Maybe that is why music suffers. I do not agree with the statement that..."Music used to be great because of the times we were living in" You can't put a seal on the destiny of music like that. Music is the arts. Music is free. Nothing can hold music back from being creative except ..perhaps a kind of programming of a new generation of musicians that oppose the progression , mentally and physically, to reach that point in being honestly creative. Being influenced by another artist..and only to a few degrees..is not dishonest creativity. Music doesn't have barriers..people do with half ass theories. Kids are not particularly interested in who lived a hundred years ago and wrote great music...generally speaking...and not unlike how my generation was disinterested in the music our parents listened to...but that is not the reason why they are diminished from the reality which tells us...overtime of hundreds of years..that all great music was borrowed or perhaps added to someone's vocabulary prior to they're creating something in a new genre that was unique and innovative.
So clearly the rebellion against a music teacher to speak of practices or methods of recommendation are thought to be a threat to their machine....that competes with a insanely purpose which is replicating a new eccentric tool for originality that doesn't acknowledge the other parts of the equation ....a bad choice and a foolish ideology . It's very egocentric and it's natural function is to beat the hell out of everyone else so that your music is thee best music. But sadly..the position is moronic. As a choice to do something better...it does not offer much consent for morality. Turning your back on innovators equals throwing your grandmother to the rapist. It's futile..it's ignorant stupidity. Rick Wakeman and Keith Emerson did not sound alike...Why? Because they didn't borrow reflections from the same composers. When you are a composer..it is best to consider pursuing Classical composers that are not consistently emulated by a large population of others.....if you do not ..you compromise your music and the longevity of composers over centuries to borrow from. There are thousands of young musicians in the U.S. who are skilled and are opposed to borrowing from anyone. In point...the natural science...the natural progression of methods and practices for original sounding music to evolve is being replaced with some bogus idiot theory that isn't working...obviously to a number of folks. And music speaks to us in many ways...and aside from preferences...many of us know when music is being played badly or approached badly. That's why a number of people are under the impression that music is not good anymore. Because they are hearing the result of a bogus theory that does not work.
-
Member
While I fully agree that history will look upon a particular span of years which has already occurred (the exact dates of which can and will be debated) as the golden age of rock music, I think it does bear mentioning that probably anybody is prone to observing any bygone time in which they have fond memories, as a better or richer time than now. I mean, in the late '40s and early '50s you had some people bemoaning the "death" of jazz, simply because the styles of the '20s and '30s had burned out and they didn't get bebop. Almost everybody eventually becomes old and out of touch.
-
Member
From 10,000 feet, the era 1940-2010 can be seen as an anomaly, where record companies controlled the music ("music industry") instead of musicians. Previous to that, and probably afterward, there was no "industry," just musicians making music.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks