|
Rufas2000 -> RE: Guilty Pleasures? (3/31/2008 4:56:15 PM)
|
quote:
This is probably the same way folks felt that people did not experience Glenn Miller and Tommy Dorsey and all those big bands growing up. The older generation probably thought it was pathetic that the "youth" were well versed in Elvis and the Beatles!
True enough but I do think that we (as a society) aren't producing as many truly innovative music artists as we did in the past. I think that there are a number of reasons for this:
1) How far can the rock genre go?
Is there any room for innovation? As far as other genres Hip Hop has room for innovation but its been co-opted by gangsta rap, Pop by its nature isn't innovative as Pop is intended to have mass appeal and the masses very rarely flock to innovation.
2) Music is no longer an experience.
Music used to be an experience. You would hear an artist on the radio and think wow! You would rush out, buy the album, unwrap it, stick it on the turntable, put the needle down carefully and let the music play while you sat in your favorite spot perusing the killer artwork, reading the liner notes and allowing yourself to be taken to another world. Now music is background noise or a soundtrack to something else you are doing. The masses don't sit down and listen to music anymore, they play music while doing something else. Which is related to #3 ...
3) Competition for Leisure Time
In the 60s and 70s you had three stations on the tube and board games. Now you have hundreds of channels, easy access to movies, another immersive form of media called video games not to mention online connections. There is a lot more competition for leisure time (which most of us have less of now). Therefore people just are not as into music as they used to be. It's not a good or bad thing, just a new thing. Change happens.
4) Gutless Music Executives
Music executives have always been a backward conservative lot, even Berry Gordy of Motown fame balked at allowing Marvin Gaye to release his seminal opus "What's Going On?" because he failed to see the commercial appeal. Now its even worse, especially because record labels are part of big media conglomerates. they are run by corporate masters who only appreciate the bottom line for themselves and by extention their stockholders. They couldn't care less about artistic merit unless the public demands it. And in the realm of music for the aforementioned reasons the public isn't really demanding it (there are exceptions, certainly not all modern music is bad or mediocre but its probably not innovative). The one bright side is that the Internet allows artists a platform and if they catch on one of the "brave" music executives will sign them, knowing the artist already has a fan base.
So bottom line, I think very few rock artists (or artists of any genre) of this generation will be remembered as anything more than a pleasant nostalgic memory. There are no Elvis, Beatles, Stones, Bruce or Queen. I don't blame the artists, after all they gotta eat and not everyone can be Led Zeppelin, The Who or The Ramones. They are producing art they enjoy and so do their fans. But its a shame that our youth are conditioned that anything old is bad or just doesn't measure up. The artists of the 60s and 70s were producing incredible music in a social environment that (comparatively speaking) encouraged creativity and its a shame that our youth are blissfully unaware of it.
BTW: It is a shame that Miller, Dorsey and the big bands were forgotten in favor of Elvis & The Beatles. Ours is not the only generation that foolishly casts off the "old" in favor of the new.
|
|
|
|