This seems kind natural isn't it. You grow up, you listen to whatever is popular at the time, then you start branching out. Why you want to slap the ignorance label on people is beyond me. Who decides what is true creativity? Today's music, literature and cinema all obviously have roots in what came before them. That's true of the 70's and 80's as well. That's inevitable. Do you just discount everything new because they're not...old? Your words seem to imply just that. Technological and social climates had a lot to do with their popularity too. Can you imagine how popular those guys you mentioned would be globally if cassettes and CD's weren't invented until...2005? Those guys really came at the right time when music and westernization were exploding across the globe. And let's be honest, you do have people of all ages, sexes and races going to the Beyonce's, Britney's and whatnot's concerts too. I think you're kind overgeneralizing the older generations (or maybe you're overestimating your personal experience and applying them to more people than you should) while making some silly assumptions of kids today. There's no doubting the greatness of those that came before. I just find this crazed obsessive worship of the past to be bordering on...trendy. Ironic isn't. You kind see this attitude in basketball and other sports too. "I TAKE EWING OVER DWIGHT BECAUSE I KNOW MY BBALL HISTORY, DON'T DARE TRY TO DISCREDIT ME"
Its more ignorant to believe that everything in the past was better. Especially music. It just leads me to believe you either don't seek out new music or you actively try to avoid it. If your participation in music consists of just listening to the FM dial on your 30 minute commute to work and back everyday, I can understand you saying that alot of new music is watered down. But to give a blanket statement saying all music from the past is better then all music from the present borders on lunacy. You must certainly not expose yourself to any new music beyond the commercial spectrum. There is so much good music out there today, its crazy. The past 15 years has had some of the greatest resurgence in rock music ever. With your type of mindset, it is sort of like someone refusing to watch a modern day movie just because he thinks Star Wars or ET was the greatest movie ever.
This is my only fear. I fear and work hard to prevent being "that guy". The guy who list's old work as the "best ever" and discounts the present and the future. I keep my eyes and ears open and Keep in mind that everyone eventually copies and are inspired by the artist's I love. They eventually build their own voice. If you consider yourself a lover of music you need to keep up and not be left behind.
because it is a ignorance... a lack of knowledge, education... and, no it's not entirely natural... there are more that only see their era's music in a brilliant light.. due to a lack of perception and/or exposure.. or simple unwillingness to expand their horizons.. how do my words imply anything as simplistic and narrow-minded as "old is good, new is bad"..? you most likely misinterpreted.. which is a common trait, misinterpretation that is, among people who take the subjective-only-and-only-subjective approach to music.. it breeds such misrepresentations and distorted reviews of today's music in comparison to the old.. like radiohead to the Beatles.. the example I provided earlier with the Black-eyed peas... it also breeds misplaced, overzealous praise.. such as seen here about Lady Gaga.. I'm no fan of Madonna, but I've listened to her, I've acknowledged her musical career, though lacking musically, the near-global popularity she's amassed, and managed to sustain throughout her career must be noted.. to already eagerly set Lady Gaga to surpass this if not already.. is really no different than Oasis followers overzealously proclaiming the "best band ever".. which is undeniably absurd.. On the matter of creativity, it's one thing for a musician's style/talent to be influenced by previous work... it's an entirely different altogether for a musician to simply mimic the work... for the entire base of their sound/style to be a mere copy/paste job of others already established... which is what the majority of contemporary artists do now.. that's how differentiate between what's truly creative, and what's simply a rehashing of the old.. for example, if you listen to the Beatles, you can see how Buddy Holly, Elvis, then Bob Dylan influenced them.. but, you when you listen to the music, you don't HEAR Buddy Holly, Elvis, and Bob Dylan.. you hear the Beatles.. When you listen to Michael Jackson and watch him perform... you can see how James Brown, Diana Ross, Nicholas Brothers, breakdancing(popping), and even disco influenced him.. but all you see hear is Michael Jackson.. distinctively.. the achievement of distinction from your influences.. is what sets the creative minds apart from the copycats.. There were no cassettes or CD's in Elvis' prime.. This guy spawned Buddy Holly, Roy Orbison in one trip to Texas... not through any all-encompassing media.. that came later.. Elvis was reaching european youths before MTV, he never toured beyond the states... Most didn't know what the fuss was about until he visited their town.. The Beatles took america by storm through one american tour, and an appearance on the Ed Sullivan show.. Michael Jackson broke the color barrier in music television... he wasn't catered to by the media.. CBS wouldn't have lobbied so hard to get MTV to show a Michael Jackson video if the product were anything less than very worthy of exposure.. According to MJ, everything for him didn't really change to what we know him now to've become until his Billie Jean performance on Motown's 25th anniversary show.. That's the artist drawing coverage by the media through the demand of his performance, not the other way around.. you can't possibly think it's the same... otherwise you might as well throw in Miley Cyrus counting the chaperons in attendance as diverse draw... I apply no such restrictive, diluted awareness, or knowledged such as personal experience... to my observance, critique to, and reception of something as trascendant as the art of music.. all that pertains to it.. and the lacking perceptions of most to it.. I've made no silly assumptions of kids today, I've merely provided examples of silly assumptions made by "kids" today.. Not really.. not as applied here, at least.. The true irony i that is how that very "trendy" impetus to those that simply praise the old for being old, is shared by the same people that dismiss them by applauding a Lady Gaga performance as "unique" for the sake of being "unique".. without any merit in actual distinction.. they're both on the wrong end of the two extremes.. neither being closer to being accurate than the other.. that you do, but again, that has no relevance or truth in my case..
I never claimed everything in the past was better.. just that when compared objectively... the best of the today, to the best of before.. there's no denying the past simply outshines today by an irrefutable margin.. And, actually.. I do seek out new music, I'm very open to it.. I wouldn't be so passionate about/against a subject I knew nothing about it.. Nor over something that I couldn't see and judge without the veil of my own bias.. That's why I dislike indie music at the most... And detest today's mainstream music at the least.. As for indie music.. It seems to imply independence, as is produced, performed, promoted, per label, and a boast of creative freedom... But, all I hear when I listen, and I've listened to a lot already.. And no, not through the FM dial on my daily commute... I listen to it as I listen to all music, with an open mind, willingness to be impressed, or at the very least take the artist's work for what it is.. But, it never fails, that always hear someone's previous work.. And when a fellow musical aquaintance comes to me with his favorites... I'll be right there listening, only to shortly afterwards pinpoint every piece of previous work that I heard in the music, and it never fails to be so similar in comparison, that it's downright a tweak or two away from being identical matches to one another.. I feel that the rock genre of music how now become more of a tribute genre.. than the ever expanding, innovating, creative drive of free expression it once was... Don't get me wrong, there's good music still out there, some of the very same contemporary music I criticize, I've found to have some decent to good music.. But, great? Not at all. Exceptional? Even less. Now, if you want to go ahead and proclaim "good and decent" tribute music as a notable "resurgence" in the Rock genre... I'll have to disagree with you, most vehemently, and question your perspective.. which is possibly simply too eager or desperate to witness something amazing that it'll settle for the next best thing and claim it to be it.. Many these days do seem quick to throw out the "genius" "brilliant" label like so many hello's and goodbye's... As I've illustrated... this does not apply to me..
