Andrei writes:
quoted 7 lines Well, I find the whole notion of "progressive" rock,
> Well, I find the whole notion of "progressive" rock,
> or any kind of "progressive" music, a laughable one.
> Yes and all the bands of their ilk didn't do
> anything to help the "progression" of rock music. It
> was a step in the wrong direction, imo. They mostly
> missed the point about what rock music's functions
> are.
The concept of something being "progressive" carries this implication that musicians are all heading towards something better or some kind of perfection, which just seems really silly to me. There is no agreed standard for defining what bad music is, and I'd argue there can't be, so claims to making progress towards something better seem ridiculously pretensious to me.
There are quite a few useful ways to approach evaluating music, but you have to have some kind of tacit agreement on what those are before you can have any kind of meaningful nattering about music.
Feel free to skip any "yes, there is a definition of bad music, it's Britney Spears" or other such facetious responses, people. ;)
Sometimes I think this is entirely self-evident and I'm just preaching to the converted, but then I meet people who are like "Steve Vai really _is_ pretty good" or "Richard Devine is the next step in IDM because his music is so complicated" or whatever.
Michael
-
http://www.ampcast.com/jetjaguar
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org