Two good questions this morning from Andrew Simonet. The second is one I don’t think we talk about enough: you can’t just have the greatest art from the greatest artists, without the whole cultural ecosystem that produces and nurtures them. The minor artists and the failed experiments all play essential roles too.
A comment about “winnowing” reminds me of another way I’ve heard* this idea put more succinctly: “You can separate the wheat from the chaff, but you can’t grow the wheat without the chaff.” (And in art, we don’t have to decide which is which.)
*Anyone know who said this first? I don’t remember where I heard it.
@mcmullin@contemporarymusic@composers Here we are reminded of Prof. Peter Schickele's assessment of Mozart's environment, in which he refers to "all the lesser but nevertheless competent composers that dotted the musical landscape of the Age of Enlightenment."
@mcmullin@contemporarymusic@composers To be honest with you, I’ve always been interested in the minor artists. One of the joys of crate digging is finding that obscure artist who released something 25 years ago.
@mcmullin@contemporarymusic@composers I was just thinking about this yesterday, when I looked at an AI service that generates pop tunes based on prompts.
It sounds generic enough to be scary. But there are no failed experiments – just misinterpretation of commands. And instead of the bottom-up cultural ecosystem you're describing here, it's a top-down straitjacket nurturing no one.
And yet, human production/stock music is probably dead. And does that mean it will now sound the same forever?
Add comment