posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 07:08 AM
Good question. I think that music has to evolve, taking in and borrowing elements of previous musical trends, and combining them with genuine
innovation and creativity to make the 'next thing'. I don't think it would work any other way, for many reasons, but briefly sumised by the
- Musicians who are making music are also listening to music, gew up listening to music, and are probably ardent fans of other musicians. It's
innevitable that some of this becomes ingrained in their minds, and the influence shows to varying extents in their music.
- Music has to be aurally 'pallatable' to its audience. Something that is completely original and ground-breaking in every respect might herald an
artistic breakthrough, but our appreciation and perception of music is - on a psycological level - partly due to recognisable patterns and sounds.
Therefore something that is completely avant-garde will not garner an afinity or appreciation amongst many people.
- The experimental nature of musical creativity is one of trial and error; it advances in small parts. The bits that work are carried forward, and
what doesn't work is cast asside, much like organic evolution. This is a natural process, and I don't think it's feasible for music as a whole to
take a quantum leap forward. You can make small leaps when significant innovation is made (such as newly invented instruments etc), but I don't think
a completely revolutionary advancement is likely, especially cwhen combined with the other factors like pallatability.