I sound like an old curmudgeon talking about how things were better back in my day.
Just because something is new does not mean that it should be immediately discounted.
But just because something is new, this does not necessarily represent any real or measurable progress.
Picasso was disregarded as a serious artist because he failed to follow any established rules.
But today, he is considered by many to have been a master.
The most innovative art seems to be graffiti.
While still not considered as being 'real art' by many purists - there is some fine work to be found on many city walls, trains, or empty space.
But the freshness of a child's drawing should not be confused with masterworks.
Sure, this is good considering that it was done by a young child.
But it can't be said to be on the same level of those works which came before.
Back in the day, groups like Public Enemy, Gangstarr, Eric B. and Rakim, etc. broke away from preconceived notions of what was considered to be music at the time.
But these groups played their parts and were then replaced by newer song smiths like Lupe Fiasco.
Today, a bunch of simple sing-song rhymes by rappers like Lil' Wayne, Lil' B. or Lil' (Something...) are passed off as being great works of art.
Sure, these tunes may be catchy and danceable - but how many will be remembered five, ten or twenty years from now? (Okay... 5, 10, or 20 weeks from now?)
Now, I could pretend to like a lot of the newer commercial stuff in an attempt to appear socially relevant,
but why lie?
I'm not hating because these songs are new.
I'm hating because these songs suck!
The new is always better idea leads to infidelity.
ReplyDelete