Post #507061 by Mr. Ho on Tue, Jan 26, 2010 9:03 AM

I most certainly am judging it; casting my own opinion :wink:

The interesting question to me is about that whole authenticity/non-authenticity intent. It would be interesting to know from the horse's mouth what the real vibe was behind all of this (no pun intended!) I don't buy the fact that those of us creating this music are more intellectual about music today; our walls have been lowered with the web, the ability to travel, etc but I would imagine that the level of western musical training that most of those players had was beyond what most record-producing musicians are doing today. e.g. One probably had formal training and came out of a school, you could read, arrange, maybe improvise, and knew enough to re-arrange or transcribe orchestral or dance hits of the day etc. and understood harmony (whether jazz, asian cliche, etc). There were no synths or garageband to help out in the process or other shortcuts. No sampling. This is why its curious to me that with this assumed training, the execution of some of the music is just so weird/bad in some cases (and great in others)...it really makes me wonder if there was a race to just churn out stuff and press records with interesting juxtapositions and combos.

I hear you on the "innocence" thing; but there is a difference between a beautiful "faux" execution of something and a baby throwing paint at the canvas over and over where it's called "art" every 1 in 100 tries since the splash was "just right" and looked artistic or had some type of audience value. I don't think it was quite this random.

Enough musings from me!

Mr. Ho