Has music become stagnant (stopped moving/evolving)?

Surell · 12-10-2012, 12:48 AM

Name recognition and sales of records, though not the same, are synonymous in their implications, I think, pursuingchange. While people may not be familiar with Dizzee Rascal if you went and asked some cats off the street, his influence on the Hip Hop genre can't be denied, and the sales prove that he was not only an influence but was something a million people were looking for (or, perhaps, five hundred thousand people who are very clumsy with their belongings).

Look at Velvet Underground or Captain Beefheart as well. VU were extremely infamous in their day, as well as innovative, taking pop music to boundaries not yet explored. They were taken on by a few well-known critics, but their album sold for shit (10000 in the initial year or something). It's been said, though, that every person who bought one of those albums went out and formed a band. Captain Beefheart is nowhere near a household name, unless you're really into experimental music, fish with hats, or the year 1967. However, he was a true innovator, creating a type of music that i don't even think has been as jarring in context since. I'm not entirely familiar with Free Jazz, I'll admit, but that wasn't his only massive contribution to the popular realm of music.

Hence, familiarity as well as sales aren't the best way to judge innovation, influence, or originality. To this guy, you know.

Also, i'm responding to something brought up way ago so sorry for being late.

Pursuingchange · 12-10-2012, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surell

Name recognition and sales of records, though not the same, are synonymous in their implications, I think, pursuingchange. While people may not be familiar with Dizzee Rascal if you went and asked some cats off the street, his influence on the Hip Hop genre can't be denied, and the sales prove that he was not only an influence but was something a million people were looking for (or, perhaps, five hundred thousand people who are very clumsy with their belongings).

Look at Velvet Underground or Captain Beefheart as well. VU were extremely infamous in their day, as well as innovative, taking pop music to boundaries not yet explored. They were taken on by a few well-known critics, but their album sold for shit (10000 in the initial year or something). It's been said, though, that every person who bought one of those albums went out and formed a band. Captain Beefheart is nowhere near a household name, unless you're really into experimental music, fish with hats, or the year 1967. However, he was a true innovator, creating a type of music that i don't even think has been as jarring in context since. I'm not entirely familiar with Free Jazz, I'll admit, but that wasn't his only massive contribution to the popular realm of music.

Hence, familiarity as well as sales aren't the best way to judge innovation, influence, or originality. To this guy, you know.

Also, i'm responding to something brought up way ago so sorry for being late.

I know who Captain Beefheart is. But I'm not too familiar with his music or contributions. I think the general message I'm trying to get across is that there is no clear direction in music now that is very obvious. When I made that comparison between new rock bands and old rock bands and how the same basic formula has not been built upon in years, I think it was pretty accurate. I hate the fact that when I'm old I won't be able to look back on my heyday and point out any true contributions to music with specific names of artists.