Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuingchange
I feel like the statements that EVH and Michael Jackson were truly innovative ARE facts. You certainly don't see other people credited with being the King of Pop or the original shredding metal guitarist. I know these guys are very basic examples. Sure, it took having all their contemporaries to feed off of to make their innovations possible and popular, but at the end of the day, there is one person crowned as the true innovator. I'm just wondering why these large innovations are not happening now. Why does rock still use largely the same approaches and techniques as it did hears ago? Why doesn't someone break down and say, I'm going to be truly innovative and original. I'm going to spawn a new generation of music. Its just harder to do now because the well seems to be running dry IMO.
|
What we're saying is that popularity rarely has any correlation to level of influence, and that there is absolutely no reason to crown one person as the true innovator, since different artists all contribute in different ways and you're giving people like EVH far too much credit. Urban gave you an example of someone who's innovations were just as important that you discounted simply cause you weren't familiar with his name.
What I'm trying to understand is why you think worldwide name recognition is necessarily conducive to influence and innnovation?