RE: OT: why musicians can't eat -- and why radio is so bad

["Liebig, Steuart A." <Steuart.Liebig@maritz.com>]

but still the choices are weighted toward being derrivative as opposed to
evocative and or innovative  

 

** here's a thought: folk music (basically an oral tradition) is handed down over generations. it has very little to do with innovation, and i'm not sure that the ideas of derivitive and innovation have much to do with anything in this sort of context.extrapolating from this, one wonders about the (general) human need/desire for slow, glacial and safe change for music (and other cultural manifestations).

 

 

 

and its an art in and of itself navigating thru
the BS which has nothing to do with music..but those who are better  prepared
for that or have others around them who can do that for them have a definite
advantage IMHO. 
 

** i've wondered about this. it strikes me that mozart and beethoven may have been good at the smooze thing  - - or that michael jackson really is as important as he seems to think he is.


Also more and more people are not even listening that much or looking for
new or different perspectives just as many have mentioned earlier...that
means that what already is happening in terms of the business of music/model
and the hows and what types of products are introduced stays a familiar fixed
business with pretty much the same type of envirnment we see now being the
texture of what you are gonna see and hear in the future...and that is no
surprise.  

 

** while i basically agree with this, it seems like younger people are actually being more adventurous than many of their parents had been. hard to tell. the (beaten-down and imprisioned) optimist in me tells me that the 60s were a time of real adventure - - and that we could be ready for another one at some point soon as well. dunno. 

 

stig