Following on from my half-crazed rant about music yesterday, here is a - slightly saner - observation.
The other night at dinner with my parents, I decided put some music on. I chose Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon as a suitable aural accompaniment. And it suddenly occurred to me that when that album came out it was quite radical, definitely something for the yoof, and not something for their parents.
I asked my dad about it (not worth asking mum as if you ask what her favourite album is she will vacillate at length between the three Lord of the Rings soundtracks, and eventually wander off to watch the special seventy-six hour special extended director's cut. Music is not her thing). Did he ever think that when he had kids of his own they would sit down to dinner with him and play him Pink Floyd? What did he think that music would be like now?
Aside from telling a delightfully racist anecdote about my grandfather's hatred of the wailing woman in The Great Gig in the Sky (who he mistakenly assumed was black, with hilarious and appalling results), he said that music these days just isn't radical. He wasn't being dismissive, it's just that there it's hard to imagine what else could be done that would be totally new, and still something you would want to listen to.
I suppose the same is true of visual arts as well - in order to get a reaction you have to push further and further towards 'shocking' just because there isn't much that is new. I know that's not a new observation, and I'm not in any way being snotty about it. I just find it interesting.
I wonder if the answer isn't to refine art forms, to move backwards rather than forwards, to focus on honing techniques. I know I've got pretty suburban tastes, but I'm a big fan of things like carefully wrought line drawings and intricate guitar playing because they demonstrate a dedication to an art form that needs a lifetime to perfect.
Anyway, that's enough navel gazing for tonight. My usual unhinged ranting will resume tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment