Oh, I'll gladly put the combined output of The Smiths, Morrissey, Joy Division, New Order, The Buzzcocks, and The Fall against the output/results of any other moment in the history of music - and I doubt I'm alone in that conclusion! It's fairly obvious, if you think about it, that no other concert could possibly have inspired so many great bands and songs.
fbenario - I have no doubts at all that you're not alone in this thinking. And that's what really worries me.
The fact that a greater number of people believe in something - especially in this day and age - doesn’t necessarily make it right. Hell - that’s why we’re all here, as I’m sure you’d agree.
As someone who recommends so highly Dave McGowan's "Laurel Canyon" research, have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that the whole of popular music since the ‘40s or ‘50s may have been 'contaminated' (or ‘tainted’ to use HerrDerElf’s favourite phrase) by the very people who brought you 911? If that research – and the general bulk of evidence on this forum - has any credibility, then aren’t we entitled to draw conclusions about the state of popular music generally?
Shouldn’t we should consider the ramifications: the truly horrible notion that our very emotional sustenance, in the form of popular music, has been tampered with over the years? If the perps have taken us for a ride with fundamental pillars of the human story like the Apollo Moon landings, the atomic bomb, the serial killings, etc, then wouldn’t the promotion of some musical artists, indeed some musical forms, to the detriment of others, be a relatively simple thing to bring off?
It seems to me a logical part of their 'plan' - if indeed one exists – would involve manipulation of the people through music/emotion, as well as through visual programming (TV/Hollywood); their goal being to keep the bulk of the population ignorant of the breadth of human possibilites. Now, we can coldly dissect videos and images of 911 here on this forum, but still the spectre of the perps’ total control of our music world (or is it theirs?) still holds us in a trance which nevertheless manages to be ever-present, even here.
I believe ‘they’ have played
the population, at least the music-consuming market, like a consummate organist, pushing in and pulling out the various stops: fluffing up this new star, extinguishing the older one, generally controlling and manipulating the musical scene like there's no tomorrow. I would say, to the extent of purposely sabotaging some art forms, via academic and media tweaking. Why? Well, of course, there's a hell of a lot of money to be made, and if you keep the bar set low, it’s easy to get replacements...good-looking or charismatic people don’t have to sit in a room by themselves for long periods of time to learn their craft. But more than that, they want to get inside our heads, literally humming a tune; the most basic way is through music.
Well, I think they have gone further, by changing the very nature
of music – now always linked with the inevitable matching video and 'meaningful' but, if you're honest, ambiguous lyrics – just as they’ve changed the very nature of ‘art’ into something more akin to a simplistic ‘concept’ or ‘message’, a one-sentence grab, that is evidenced by something like the winner of the 2001(!) Turner Prize (worth ₤20,000!!) – “Work No.227: The lights going on and off”, Martin Creed:
What do you think?