Print

Print


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Roger Kulp" <[log in to unmask]>
> This thread has caused me to wonder just what is considered "historical" 
> recordings anyway? One usually only hears this term attached to jazz or 
> classical,but I would argue that anything that is at least "a generation" 
> old,could be considered "historical",so that would mean The Mummies,or 
> Nirvana,are now considered as "historic" as Wilem Mengelberg,or King 
> Oliver.
>
This could be true?! However, rock music has evolved very little...if at all 
(?!)...in the past
forty-odd years?! Up until the mid-sixties, popular music did display 
evolution; "jazz"
(both actual and "so-called") replaced the early often-vocal music of 
pre-1915 "pop"
and then "Swing" took over c.1936. Popular music passed through its 
"doldrums'
after WWII interrupted popular culture, and then "rock'n'roll" entertained 
younger
folks from the early/mid fifties until around 1965, when its "evolved form" 
("rock
music" began to take over! In the early sixties, "disco" (and other 
dance-oriented
forms) attracted a substantial young audience, using a "funk" rhythm best
exemplified by James Brown; that same genre still exists in the guise of 
"Urban
Dance!"

So, yes, there does exist a new generation of artists; however, they seem to
endlessly repeat the same handful of musical cliches...at least to my 
ears...?!

I'm waiting for some new musical variant to emerge...one as different from
70's rock as rock was to "swing" or "big band" music...?!

And it AIN'T happenin' yet...?!

Steven C. Barr