you know, just yesterday i was talking about the importance of the backgrounds of people....

interesting points, Halcyon.

...but in the end "good" & "bad" are still *subjective* things no matter how much you couch them in Linear-Historical context/justification. It sounds to me like you're oversimplifying a little with the assumption that just because somebody does something first, therefore, they must have done it "better" than anyone else might ever do it. ...somebody already beat the drum, sang the song, drew etchings on the cave walls, therefore all the rest of us poseurs who followed can just give up on the idea that we might have anything "original" to say because we'll never be the ones who did it first... Well, perhaps this isn't precisely what you're saying... or meaning to say... .. i guess you can clarify that further if you like.
Though saying something is "good because I like it" may not make for the most compelling argument or whatever kind of "intellectual rigour" you're attempting to attach to artistic expression, it is nevertheless hopefully the most *HONEST* thing any person can say... experienced listener/creator or not....

In general terms:
Music is not physics. Music is not the 100 yard dash. It may indeed feel at times like it's unveiling the secrets of the universe, or helping us win a race. But in the end we shouldn't really need to intellectually justify anything about it... In the end, it's not about the head but the HEART... It's mystery, beauty and ultimate power reach WAY beyond the physics of sound waves and/or historical sequence/precedence... and --> Wheather you genuinely *like* something or not ought to ALWAYS be the bottom line, IMHO...

-- drsquid

Squidquote follows:
Fact is only solidified opinion.

I don't think there is such a thing as a clean break. If you keep tracing back influences, I imagine a clean break would be found when you can not trace any further ie an artist has no influence.


I can't think of any music that has not been influenced by some other artist. As for the question "what distinguished a break?" I think it is simply when an artist uses more of his/her own artistic creativity than influence to create music which is original and is itself influential.

Sorry this is quite simplistic and obvious. Maybe a more satisfactory answer will come to me when I am less tired and hungover.

Some genres are harder than others to pin point breaks. Punk rock for example, was it the stooges, the MC5, the ramones, the sex pistols etc. Does this mean that according to your theory punk rock is a lesser genre?

I would rate Jimi hendrix as a break, Kraftwerk another, the beatles, buddy holly maybe something like micheal jackson.

Yeah good comment drsquid I was thinking the same thing.

yes.. are there really ANY examples of "clean breaks" that you can give us? Whether acknowledged or not, it seems to me there are ALWAYS earlier influences of some sort.

-- drsquid

Squidquote follows:
Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have.

Hey Haakon...
... do you think we were getting a little too spirited in our discussion? I noticed you deleted one post of mine and a few of halcyon's... I really WAS trying to remain civil.... In any event we are both just two guys with strong opinions... Was it really necessary to zap them all? I think we both were making some interesting points worth reading by others... oh well... (such is the price of a moderated discussion forum...)

So, if I offended you or anyone reading then I apologize... That was never my intent.


Likewise, to you, halcyon... If I offended you in any way I apologize. Perhaps we can just, as they say, "agree to disagree..."

---drsquid

Squid Quote of the moment:
To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first, and call whatever you hit the target.

awww now you got me all excited