The anchor then asked a music expert - not sure if you go to school for that title or if you need a PhD, but he looked serious - whether it was: a) a surprise that musicians are starting to incorporate the recession into their songs and b) whether it was working - that is, was it effective in selling songs? Poor Neil Young even had his latest youtube-style music video played during the segment.
Come on, really? Damn it, cable news, don't do that to music.Isn't music, or great music, by default, not something that takes reality and contorts it to sell records, but in fact, a reflection of reality itself? And when we describe history and time, don't we invariably look to the art and music of the period for some part of an answer? Music defines generations as much as it's defined by them. That's what I thought. If not, what the hell was the 1960's and 70's all about? Even worse, why'd I have to suffer through art history 101?
By this definition, the anchor's question was circular at best, nonsense at worst.
Shouldn't it be more of a surprise if artist's ignored the recession rather than if they incorporated it into their work? Would they even be an artist if they were disconnected from their reality? I would tend to think not.
No comments:
Post a Comment