Entertainment For Lively Minds
Philosophical debate alert
Posted by el toro calvo grande on 29 June 2009 - 12:04pm.
It has been said on a number of threads by a number of people over this weekend, referring mainly to "heritage" acts, that they and their music is not "relevent".
Just wondered what relevance has to do with something as nebulous and wide-ranging as the enjoyment of music?
I had never realised that music came with an "enjoy-by" date, after which it ceased to be of any interest.
As ever, I'm sure I've expressed that very badly but I'm sure the Massive will take it on and do a better job (unless they ignore this completely).
- More from el toro calvo grande.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Fair comment. There's more
Fair comment.
There's more music out there than ever before, I'm still discovering loads of interesting stuff all the time, whether it's new bands or, maybe more likely, old stuff that is 'new' to me. As long as that is the case, I'm not too bothered about how much stuff is seen as relevant or not.
"Relevant"
Always seems to really mean "fashionable". Other than that, it is meaningless. Relevant to who?
I recall the late Ray Lowry
had a cartoon with a Radio 3 announcer saying something like "and now here's some really relevant and exciting news about the late Beethoven string quartets". This was a meant to be a criticism I think, but to be honest is a large part of the channel's charm, for me, especially as morning listening.