pull down to refresh

Whenever I go music hunting, it's depressing to find that the majority of artists in any time period produce music that sounds like most other artists producing music in the same time period. It makes me wonder if musicians are more vulnerable to following trends than other kinds of artists. Of all popular art forms, music has the most visible artists, so relative to other arts I bet it selects for people that are fundamentally followers (monkey see, monkey do) rather than leaders.
Listen to the less famous artists of those times and you'll notice the difference.
reply
TBH that's a bad take, Eeyore
how do you music hunt?
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 14h
that's so piglet of you to say
how do you music hunt?
I'm usually looking for something particular but otherwise vague. Like bands that use a pipe organ which leads me to find a ton of bands that didn't "make it" yet all of these bands sound like a clone of the most popular bands during the period.
reply
I wonder if you agree with this:
If a band’s body of work should be qualified as “good”, then it should define/describe the period of time it belongs to, as one of its requirements
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 12h
No I don't think anything "good" requires an art defining or describing a period of time. More often good things transcend the period of time they were created in. To the extent that they do reflect a period of time it's because other, lesser artists followed their lead, over-saturating the art with a particular style for a period of time.
A great artist may define or describe a period of time incidentally, but you can be good without inspiring copycats, even if copycats are generally a sign of something being good.
tldr The cause of being good isn't that it defined/described a time. That's the effect if anything.
reply
yes it is the effect. It is the effect of saying something true
So when we look around to see the art we have, this is something that sticks out about the timeless ones
reply