thebuzzardman wrote:B8RcDeMktfxC wrote:thebuzzardman wrote:
I really don't give a sh*t about the article, other than there's an interesting idea towards the end about who might get listened to years from now
I don't see it.
Listened to by whom? And where?
Did the writer go back into musical history and look at who survived surprisingly. Is that comment about Armstrong really supposed to be some kind of proof? Who is listened to now from the 20s and by whom and where?
Is the evolution of musical taste/genres moving faster now or slower now. How can you have any sort of futurecasting (so far out - or is it so far? are we moving faster of slower again) without an explicit theory of the general development of society and tastes.
What was in vogue (for whom and where) in 1719? How did it survive. Isn't "the age of mechanical (resp. electronic) reproduction" a compicating factor as Benjamin thought or not so significant as Adorno maintained.
Jesus christ, it was a speculative piece, mostly for fun.
You must be fun at parties and other social gatherings, like weddings and funerals.
The advanced stats show I'm a positive player on both ends at parties and weddings, with a fall off on D at funerals. I'll probably post them in the summer league thread.
It's a **** piece, it's not fun. But I'm too engaged with music to not think that and .. then there's all the usual garbage of current American journalism on top of the whole thing being terrible from top to bottom .. sooo ... no thanks.
Let me try and save the exchange. There are extremely interesting questions, which are (seemingly) (always) evolving with technology about what music survives to the future (and one can agglomerate groups of people and/or places in addressing that) from the past or the present.
300 years into the past - from now - seems like a long time. We do know quite a lot about what was going on about the stuff akin to classy musicals (cf. Hamilton) in England, France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Bohemia, Spain and probably Portugal. Maybe some other places in eastern Europe. Not much about the US at that point afaik. However, we know frustratingly little about what was really popular music in those places - quite a lot of printed lyrics, but it's hard to understand (generalizing) what those things sounded like.
[Digression: For example, much later - say 1820s, 1830s, there are
lundu and compositions in other styles (published in Portugal) which were developed in Brazil under heavy *but not exclusive* African influence for which we have lyrics, but it is
really hard to understand how the rhythms were supposed to work, even given we have some isolated communities (in Brazil) who might have preserved some of the playing. Similarly, it's very hard to know what was really going on in the USA 200 years ago. Of course, people have put a lot of time and effort into this latter, and it's been fashionable to look to the South and you have pipe and fife and some drumming and some hymns that when you get closer to the start of recorded music you can extrapolate back into, but it is still very hard to give the musical genealogy of Robert Johnson (or whoever), certainly much back before, let's say, 1880.]
At the high class end in 1719 (the guys who got paid the big money, not that the music they wrote was necessarily high class - tho' it was) you have JS Bach, Handel, Purcell and Domenico Scarlatti, amongst others, as the superstars. You tell me if those are "known now".
I'll start to ramble even more if I write more. Obviously Johnny B Goode, decent song as it is in Berry-Hendrix-Sex Pistols versions, can't hold a flickering candle to Rip It Up (and a bunch of other similar tracks).
tl;dr: the theme of the article is a go-er; the article itself just immediately falls flat on its face, squirms about a bit, and never manages to get up or do anything at all useful.
Iel. There're all nuts.
