I see what you're saying but I think you misunderstood my point (or I didn't make it very well).
I meant it's better now because there is more choice. I'm not saying the new stuff is better than the old stuff, I'm saying the new stuff + the old stuff is better than either just the old stuff or just the new stuff. More sounds and feels.
In another 50-60 years I might (if I live til I'm 87) hate the new new stuff but, THAT new stuff plus the currrent stuff now plus the old stuff HAS to be better than being stuck with what we've got.
It seems some of the great new breed drummers of today are taking a bit of a hammering here for being pioneers and pushing our art but, isn't that exactly what Buddy and his pals were doing way back then?
We need the 'play for the song guys' as much as we need the 'new breed' guys.
No-one is any less of a drummer or musician for going their own way and like I said before, variety is the spice of life. More often IS better. No-one wants to get bored and the fact trends/genres come and go shows that people do.
it'll all come back around but, people need new stuff to keep the old stuff interesting and vice versa.
That's my take. I love loads of styles.
Hey Chunky,
Thanks for explaining your perspective. I am disagreeing with you about the idea that more choice is
necessarily better. The point I was trying to make is that sometimes more choice can be a bad thing. I think 8mile expressed this idea perfectly earlier in the thread:
"But the limitations of those times were reflected in the music itself, and I would argue that in some cases the limitations themselves played a crucial role in making that music sound so cool when we listen to it today. Drummers in 1945 didn't have access to all the music we do now, where you can listen, watch and learn from anyone ever.
Think about how different it was when you lived on the east coast and some cat on the west coast had something happening in a little club somewhere. You heard the talk, but short of driving across the country, you might never get to hear what he was doing and check it out for yourself.
Things have become more homogenized now because we all have the opportunity to learn proper technique and see transcriptions of drummers so we can figure out what they're doing. You can go online and find licks broken down and demonstrated in slow motion. Drummers didn't have YouTube 50 years ago, and I suspect it allowed more idiosyncrasies to develop in their styles. They had less opportunity to learn technique, but in exchange, they had less to imitate. They didn't get to hear as much music as we're exposed to now, so they were forced to "invent" more.
I equate this with "different," not necessarily better or worse. "
In other words, sometimes the lack of choice or variety can be a contributing factor in really excellent music. That is one reason why I don't think that "new stuff + old stuff" is better".
I also disagree with the idea of new stuff and old stuff existing simultaneously. We have recordings of what really old stuff sounds like, and we have musicians who spend most of their lives studying this old stuff, but nobody today plays exactly like musicians did 70 years ago (unless they are really old). There is always something lost in translation. That is why there will only ever be one Thelonious Monk, Charlie Parker, or Papa Jo Jones.
I do think that music is cumulative in the sense that we are all influenced by these great masters, but I don't think it is as simple as old + new. The reason for this is that people are limited by time. We can't do everything that someone else did and live in the present at the same time. We can learn from the past and try to apply it to our current musical situations (in fact that is all we can do!), but we can't somehow absorb the entirety of what made a master musician unique. Does that make sense?
Also, I am not picking up on this perceived "hammering" of newer drummers that you are mentioning? What are you referring to?