Re: Roots Rockers
posted at 2/1/2013 2:22 PM EST
In response to yogafriend's comment:
Matty, I was defining them on mutual ground -- even if it didn't come across that way. That's why I said you're only as good as your competition. In any market ... as long as the benchmarking is consistent.
It's useless, as we recently discussed re: the Spike Lee / Q. Tarantino divide, to compare a case of apples and oranges; while you may *prefer* one to the other, their missions and purposes are very different, so comparing them doesn't really make sense, and is fair to neither of them.
I hear you. But I *was* suggesting that the competition that I mentioned, was across the same playing field. Maybe my "resume" analogy wasn't that good, but I was attempting to show that not only does time and place matter, but you really are only as good as the competition against which you benchmark and are judged. When many people on the forum speak of the wealth of talent in the 60's and 70's, are they benchmarking fairly? I think they / we are. When we speak of the dearth of talent over the aughts to the current day, we are also benchmarking fairly, IMO.
Maybe my bad for having difficulty articulating ... but this may be one of those discussions that needs to be discussed in person, and I'm having a hard time getting my points across, points that I feel have validity. It's not a matter of evaluating, it's a matter of assessing why there is a *perceived* downfall in quality. It may all be perception, but it would take miles and miles of research to figure that out. :P
I hear you, and I empathize, because it can be hard to grasp nuance in such a format.
The talent of the 60s and 70s has had 30-40+ years of these kinds of discussions, which gives it an innate advantage over the talent of today. If we always judged talent fairly in its time, then Van Gogh might have lived longer and sold more than one measly painting. The man was hated in his time but eventually came to be almost unanimously recognized as one of the fathers of modern art.
By the same token, we can assign too much emphasis on the here and now while we're still in the throes of emotional response.
Regardless, there are also 30-40+ years of culture shifts. Back then, there were a handful of tv stations. Now there are hundreds. Today, there are many more media creations occupying our time and distracting us. If this means that the field has been diluted, then I guess that's correct. So many more bands and artists trying to emulate the myriad bands and artists who came before them with more coming every day.
It might be overwhelming...if we didn't try to break it down and see the forest for the trees.