Thursday, March 8, 2007


it's becoming clear, as we near
2010 (which is irrelevant, except that the one half is twice the other)

that most music being made is some kind of fusion. alright. it's the next generation of audio evolution. but. we are still stuck in the naming and owning epoch. you know, that one where science rose up as the beast of all access (they conveniently forgot to point out that all scientific theory is, uh. theory. We're just lucky that some of that theory works. for now. though if the petrol price keeps rising and carbon emissions keep migrating for aMOREica, they'll need new ones fast or we'll fast be done in and poorly so). erm. so my point is that we're still compelled to name things, and genres are spared no mercy.

i'm guilty of it too. and i'm sorry, i'm on my knees, and upto my gills in alt-Pop-Metal-Rock fusion . and it just won't do anymore.

the idea that there are traditional schools of sound might be true in some senses, but in a passage of time, it is so very relative. once we had Pop, Rock, Jazz, and Classical. life was simple. or so they say. i was small. i can't remember. then Indy-Pop, Pop-Rock, and Rock-Jazz fusions came along. music morphed. Now everyone is mixing their metaphors with their music, and the proliferation is almost impossible to classify.

good! so let's stop pointing at and pointing to, and start clapping. what's in a name?

a successful Pop-Country singer-songwriter, (izzie aussie or yanki? and does it matter?>), Keith Urban, said something quite clever. He said, at the end of the day, it all boils down to whether or not you like it.

remember that.

No comments:

Post a Comment