I think that you are making a wide generalization, and I don't agree.
14 responses Add your response
i agree with you on your reply - op's assertion is a gross generalization, and as such hardly accurate
as for 'chaps' vs 'chops' i suspect this is a english-is-second-language issue... so be nice ... 🤣😀
I wasn't trying to be funny, I was actually curious because I thought that it was a typo the first time, and then thought that it was a term that was not familiar to me, so I googled it and found nothing, hence the question. I'll be nice...
It’s really weird, these very recent threads regarding, “I don’t like something…does that make me…wrong?”
I guess we can’t really tell anymore.
It’s scary how increasingly fearful we’re becoming of individuals.
Individuals have individual ideas.
Seriously, if someone has shrines to Aretha, Adele, Sara Vaughan & Whitney, or if someone else finds them unlistenable…who cares?
Contrary to what others are saying, I think there is something to what you're saying, but I don't think it is something specific to female singers.
Many artists have their greatest creative periods earlier, rather than later in their careers. Whether this is related to no longer having the time required, a loss of the drive to create or just that life becomes much easier, well you would have to ask them. All I do know is that stress and pain are great sources of inspiration and there is a lot less of both, when fame and fortune are achieved.
I agree with what you've described re: stress/pain leading to inspiration.
I just played some REM from the 80s; Green, Fables of the Reconstruction, and Reckoning. I bought Monster, and Out of Time and then I left the building and stopped rushing out to get the next REM record. The edge they had in those earlier records, not just the 3 I mentioned, had gone by Out of Time. That's just my personal view; I know millions of people bought and thoroughly enjoy the later work. It's just not for me.
I suppose it's a similar story with U2: October, Boy, War, and then Unforgettable Fire was the pivotal record. We then had Joshua Tree which was "ok" but again, I stopped after this for the same reasons as with REM.
There are probably dozens of similar examples
I agree about instrumentalists; I used to enjoy guitar solos, drum solos (well, not drum solos that much), and such back in the 70's, but since then, if a solo doesn't serve the song it's in, they don't have to show off their chops to me - not interested. But I know lots of other people still enjoy them.
Perhaps this is a reflection of the times. Thanks to disinformation, "truth" has become increasingly presented/regarded as relative. With facts so often disputed, what and who can be trusted/relied upon becomes increasingly unclear, a scenario that arouses high anxiety. One response is for individuals to seek refuge by subsuming themselves in movements that claim to possess some exclusive validity ("we alone are right and all others are wrong").
Yes, indeed. There are apparently legions of fans of players who are extremely "athletic" -- whose appeal seems to be based almost entirely upon flashy technique. I perceive very little musical content. They are babbling at light speed but, so far as I can discern, actually saying very little. This is very apparent on youtube where the "music-as-sport" paradigm is regrettably prevalent. Fans have an enormous (and enormously unconscious) ego investment regarding who is "the best guitarist" and if you suggest that music is not a competition, it simply doesn’t register with them.