Posted: Jan 29, 2007 5:35 pm
the same way many different genres are developing today - so sure you can hear certain influences but it's close to impossible to say that anything was born directly from something else
except in the 1920s there werent millions of albums recorded, a bazillion websites, magazines, books..music distribution, spread of information...unless dude from Mississppi delta went down to New Orleans to specifically listen to music regularly and incoporated its ideas into his own art and was back to the farm on Monday AM to work, whihc I doubt....the "development" of music 80/90 years ago cannot be looked at the same as it is today. Being influenced is as much subconscious as it is conscious. The level of the bombardment of information in 2007 versus 1927 is too large to simplify the fact that "blues, jazz, country, ragtime were all developing at the same time, the same way many different genres are developing today " . I call bullshit.
Also why is it "Silly" to know where a song or sound comes from? I would think that a form of entertainment that warrants a college level class would deserve that kind of scrutiny. But then again, music today has been trivialized...it is now something that is listened to while one does something else, it is a ringtone, a impermanent collection of ones and zeros on a website...not many people in the mianstream public sits down and just listens to music for the sake of listening to music...shit, most of the mainstream public doesnt even like music...they like the idea of music and whatever fashion or atomosphere is sometimes promises.