[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but the point is, all I hear is badly recycled ideas. and worse, this seems to be acceptable for some reason.
Are they bad because they're recycled? Or are they bad, independent of their relationship to history?
There was a thread on one of these lists (this one, maybe?) about 6 months ago about whether or not there was an inherent "quality-boost" applied to things just because they were new.
I mentioned that I thought this was crap, and gave some examples from 17th and 18th Century music to explain why.
Basically, my argument was that there are TWO unrelated things that determine whether or not art will stand the test of time. One is real quality. The other is real originality. There's PLENTY of stuff out there that's lasted because it was new - NOT because it was good.
Personally, I could care less about originality. I'm only interested in quality. Give me a 4 chord pop song. As long as it's GOOD, I'm satisfied.
Frankly, it's dead easy to make something "new", as long as you're not concerned about making it good. Contemporary concert music (a world I know pretty well) is full of composers who write 3-page program notes about why their work is ground-breaking and important. Very little of that work is worth hearing.
My $.02, -- Dennis DeSantis www.dennisdesantis.com
