I'm very much assuming he's referring to prog not things like Aerosmith. With that said, I have no idea where he's coming from.
All they were doing in the 70s was transitioning elements of jazz, and classical into the avant-garde, and Indian inspired psychedelic leanings of 60s blues rock. There was no inventing going on, just combining.
With that said, I don't think it matters. The biggest problem right now is the fact it's obvious that Electronic music is the future, but so little effort has been used to develop a comprehensive language for it.
They either:
A) Want to conform it to the Western 12 tone scale which makes no sense at all.
B) Want it to be completely free but refine it to simplistic, and repetitive drum beats.
C) Want to use it to simulate acoustic music entirely as if it isn't there.
D) Use it's noisey aspects to create completely melodyless noise music. (Which I like, but lost it's edge in terms of commonality).
E) Want to use it to eliminate the usage of instruments, and technique entirely. Making music an entirely untrained form. Worse yet, a completely automated form.
If you ask me, digital technology has come way too fast. Acoustic music had centuries to develop, but analog music has only had 3 or 4 decades. Digital music comes in way too fast, and changes the rules entirely.
So, no, not everybody has done everything. Very few are competently finding ways to drop the guitar, and try something new.
__________________
Quote:
|
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
|
Al Pacino = God
|