This article was probably right, but it's so focused on the good ole days that it's sad. Times change. Art changes. Diplo and TSwift are as legit as SRV and Dylan. Rock on.
When my son said he wanted to learn to play that song solo, I told him it would be nearly impossible. But he learned it and plays it just like John does. I have been playing for > 30 years and there is no way I could do that! :)
Or Mike Dawes, same deal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYksCAhjthk
Most of the people Candyrat Records sign, really.
Tommy Emmanuel is another one, and one of the best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPkQn5nDTZs
First, if they are, then that's part of the focus of the article. That guitar and guitar rock is waning -- and surely Diplo and TSwift are not bringing it back.
Second, no Diplo and TSwift are not as legit as SRV and Dylan. Not because they are different genres, but because they are inferior artistically (regardless of genre).
They might be equally entertaining or whatever, in a "it's a free country and I can listen to whatever I like", but artistically they're not even close (and SRV is not in the same league for cultural impact as Dylan anyway).
It's not about the past. There are contemporary electronic, edm, r&b, hip hop etc artists that are on par with SRV and Dylan on creative merits, but TSwift and Diplo are not them -- like the Monkeys weren't as good as The Beatles, and Frankie Avalon was no Elvis.
Dylan himself probably never thought he'd be as important a musician as his heroes - Elvis, Little Richard, etc. but now they are all in the same conversation.
music is fun. the expected almost never happens.
It feels great. It's called culture, and being aware of it, not a blind consumer of what tastes good (McDonalds tastes good too).
>there are no absolutes in music (as an art form)
No, but human culture has, and always had, a way to prfioritize what's important and what's not besides mere consumption or influence (crap has also influenced a lot of imitators).
>Dylan himself probably never thought he'd be as important a musician as his heroes - Elvis, Little Richard, etc. but now they are all in the same conversation.
That's irrelevant though, because it's not the artist that determines their own worth but their work, its quality, and its cultural impact.
>music is fun. the expected almost never happens.
Except with TSwift, Diplo and co songs. Where it almost always happens.
oh please, elitism isn't culture it's a perspective. you have a perspective about the things you like which is no more or less valid than anyone else's. no matter how enlightened you think you are when it comes to music I promise there is an entire subculture that finds your tastes closer to "blind consumption" than "true music fan". 100% relative.
>No, but human culture has, and always had, a way to prfioritize what's important and what's not besides mere consumption or influence (crap has also influenced a lot of imitators).
please, please describe for me this mechanism by which "human culture" has prioritized important art. I would love to hear what unassailable framework you think draws a line between "important" and "crap".
Because populism doesn't say much. One can find tens of millions supporting any kind of trash in all areas of public life (wanna talk about politics for example?).
Informed opinions matter more than uninformed ones, and we're beyond the point that the merit of Taylor Swift vs Dylan (or sugary constructed commercial pop for quick consumption and singing songwriting that defined a generation and then some and made it to the Nobel) is seriously argued.
This a hundred times. If you look at YouTube views, Diplo is orders of magnitude ahead. Do you think YouTube is going anywhere?
So, if anything, the read is indicating the other way.