[not_so_new]

And only a few months ago people were "shocked!" at Janet Jackson's breast.

Okay lets examine that for a second. Think in the mind set of 50’s America for a minute. A woman singing very sexually explicit material (much more explicit than the veiled sex of 50’s rock-n-roll) on a nationally broadcast TV show. Oh and did I mention she was black (gasp!!) and that she was singing to a white man (double gasp!!) and that she was not only singing but she was making very explicit body jesters and the camera was showing it?? She was.. she was.. touching herself (loudest gasp!!). Roll forward to 2004 and none of this is a real big deal, sure some people would have complained but for the most part it is excepted (as a matter of fact I really enjoyed the show). The issue is the bare breast and that was not as big an issue to most as the news would have you believe.. We are still stupid but we are much more accepting and much less shocked than we were in the 50’s, there is no question about it.

If you don't see any underground or new music you're just not looking. You might not like it but it's there.

Dude what are you missing in my thought process?? I know I am not getting the point across very well but come on. I never said the underground was not there or that I was missing it. What I am saying is the underground is much less hidden. In the 40’s if you wanted to hear blues and you lived in India you would probably have to travel to Chicago or Mississippi (except for the pesky war and all) and that was if you had even HEARD of the blues. Now if I live in India I can turn on my computer and hear .. anything.. I am not complaining about this, it is a good thing my point is the underground then was new and fresh, it was the place for new ideas to fester and develop. It would simmer for long periods of time before anyone outside of the movement got hold of it. Now new things are incorporated much faster. Again I do not think this is bad but it has accelerated the process to the point where nothing is really "underground" any more.

Think of how many people thought Radiohead's Kid A and Amnesiac were just "oh so crazy!"

Hummm… none that I know of and I know a bunch of people (including me) who love the music. Was Kid A a society changing album or did it put the music world on it’s ear?? No not in my eyes and really even for how great the music was it was not THAT big a deal. Lots of reviews gushed all over it but it was not like it was really suprising in terms of production or ideas. Compare that to Sgt. Pepper, now that was a wake up call for the music world. Nirvana’s Nevermind was about as close to a music industry shake up as we have seen in the last 30 years or so and that was an example of the underground bubbling to the surface. Nirvana was not the only pop punk band of the day and maybe not even the best but it was surprising and refreshing at the time. Please not one more heavy rock ballad from Winger and BAM like a shot in the arm Nirvana was there….

That's simply absurd. How about sampling and the artform of hip-hop? There's a type of music that is completely constructed around this type of "copying" that you're talking about. And yet you wouldn't say that hip-hop sounds exactly like the old funk or jazz albums that the artists sample. Through "copying" we can create something new. And all of the people on your list of historical innovators were simply copying what came before them and adding their own creativity to it. Look at how Charlie Parker copied the chord progressions of Gershwin tunes to create his own tunes.

Dude you gotta learn how to relax a bit. Maybe read what I posted before you jump and say it is “absurd” huh?? You are making exactly my point. No current hip-hop does not sound like the jazz they are sampling from, but what about the next generation of hip-hop?? Are they going to sample from this generation?? When are we going to say “that has been done before” and more importanly the idea of sampling itself IS NO LONGER NEW. And on top of that some sampling is cool and interesting (think Prince) but Ice Ice Baby was not so “innovative and interesting” as you would think. Yes Parker copied Gershwin just as Gershwin copied Jelly Roll and yes there is a pattern here. Again the point here is with the advent of instant access to media from around the world our collective social conscious is becoming less diverse and because of the new media revolution you can kiss all the old standards of social growth good by. We are living in an age that has never been mirrored before in history. Yes have we had stupid leaders before sure and have we had plagues and strife sure you bet but these things are perceived much differently than they ever have. Things are more different then they ever have been before..

Just the fact that you say you would not like it proves that there will always be lines that certain audiences won't allow themselves to cross and therefore always something new and shocking.

Call me crazy but an album of static is not my cup of tea. I am very very open about music and I am all about living on the edge musically but an album of static is about the one thing that I can see as just art for “shock value” and would be meaningless in my book. I picked this out of the blue because I think it is about the one thing the largest majority of people would dislike (knowing full well some would eat it up). I do not think many people would think it was interesting except elitists but again you miss my point, it would not be too surprising or new if someone released a CD of static.

That's an inherently unanswerable question. Can you think of any great inventions that haven't been invented yet? In 1900 could you have anticipated Elvis? It all depends on your definition of "new." If you get right down to it there is truly nothing new under the sun as all human knowledge builds upon previous knowledge and achievements. But in the limited sense that we culturally define "new" (i.e. Elvis, Beatles, Punk, Disco) there will always be some new development somewhere.

Obviously correct in 1901 no one would have though of Elvis that is why I said if we could think of the new thing we would make millions (millions I tell you). No in 1901 I would not have imagined Elvis BUT in 1901 Elvis would have been NEW big time new. Because we are now so accepting and used to change anything that NEW is just not a big deal.

Check out Future Shock ,by Alvin Toffler

“In the mid-1950s the United States started on the path to a completely new kind of economy – one based on knowledge rather than muscle power. This is part of a gigantic wave of technological, social and cultural change. Ten thousand years ago the agricultural revolution launched a slow wave of change. The industrial revolution, starting roughly 350 years ago, triggered a second – faster – wave of change. What we’re living through now is history’s third great wave of change – one that is arriving at hyper-speed and is global in extent.”

This is true of all aspects of “human” including art. As we grow more used to the idea of change we are less and less surprised by it and we are even dulled by it’s inevitability.