Quote:
|
The notion of Dark Ages has long been debunked. That there was a period of 'darkness' after the glorious Classical antiquity is a Renaissance construction. We call that period Middle Ages now and although the term points out to the connection of Renaissance to Classical world, it doesn't imply that the period was creatively stagnant. We now know that Renaissance owes a lot to the Middle Ages almost as much as to Classical Antiquity.
|
I really disagree with this. I stand by my opinion that the Middle Ages were comparatively culturally stagnant in comparison to other historical periods. The Renaissance owes a lot to the Middle Ages, but in my opinion it owes vastly more to the classical era, which was preserved through the monastic efforts of European monks and Arab advancement in the Middle East and Asia Minor. Yes, there were small centers of intellectual and creative output during the Middle Ages, which were largely limited within the confines of a very restrictive church. The main thing, however, was that the general population during the Dark or Middle Ages was extremely uneducated and overworked, thus eliminated from the creative process. Logically, in my opinion, this led to the era being less of a creative and cultural powerhouse than other periods. With that being said, why can't this same rule (albeit with different variables) be applied to musical decades?
Quote:
|
but what comes after that is not creatively stagnant. On the contrary, those periods usually present further development of new ideas, more linear development and most importantly, more focused.
|
My point was that these periods were
comparatively stagnant. The 80s, etc. were comparatively stagnant to the 60s in my opinion. Yes, there was creative expansion in more stagnant decades, but in modern music history little compares to the 60s and early 70s.