As somebody who loves music from all times and genres, I also feel that things were more eclectic and interesting back in the late 60's through the 70's, but not because it was better, but rather in the sense that a lot of musicians back then were just better at melding technical prowess with good ideas than they are now. They also had the benefit of being among the first people to do some serious genre-melding (Ex: before the late 60's the idea of fusing rock and classical music wasn't really considered seriously).
Many people don't consider this relevant though, which is why the majority of people listen to music that is popular within their little generational friend circles; a good many of would-be musicians and established acts alike just seem to revel in whatever influences they list on their MySpace page and could care less about thinking outside the box.
Furthermore, I feel people no longer really recognize something that is both technically amazing whilst doing something intriguing musically, evidenced by how some people here on MusicBanter go nuts over every shoegaze-flavor of the month. Relativity is in full force while people who can actually explain why they like what they like get ignored.
It sort of annoys me, but kids around my brother's age today, especially those without a whole lot of experience or imagination, seem to let their emotional ties to The Smiths, My Bloody Valentine and 90's alt. rock blind them to the fact that there's a hell of a lot more out there. They treat these bands and these eras like they are the pinnacle of songwriting and creative expression WHEN THEY FRIGGIN AREN'T.
Still, every circle of music out there today has something going for it, and maybe we'll live to see the day when something completely new rears its ugly head from the underground to change some people's perceptions about the derivative nature of music post-2000.
Last edited by Anteater; 02-20-2010 at 11:00 AM.
|