On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:53:19 -0800 skip heller wrote:
Contemporary rock music is so often like microwave food -- looks like food, it's got steam coming off it, but it's somehow less nutritional than the real stuff.
But let's be frank: don't you think that a lot of so-called "experimental" music is turning into circles? I sometimes get the feeling that some genres of music are still called "experimental" or "demanding" simply because they are played in front of sparse audiences (even after more than thirty years having been around)? What's best or worst? A young rock player trying to resurrect The Velvet or the Beatles or a young improviser that plays in late 60's non-idiomatic improv style without adding anything significantly new? Is there really a big difference? Aren't they just both exhibiting the same kind of morbid fascination for the founding fathers (Beatles/Stones on one side, Taylor/Bailey/Brotzmann/etc on the other)? At least the rocker might have more chances with girls :-). Yes, a lot of rock/popular music is lacking in originality and appear to be on auto-pilot, but this symptom seems to apply equally well to a lot of what is supposed to be innovative music. Patrice.