Familiar is not always popular
Started watching a historical documentary, this afternoon. The seeds of what would become the familiar music of my life; I hesitate to use the term “popular”, only because musical tastes are far from universal. And there’s the question…
Is what I consider to be good, musically, a result of quality, or familiarity? It’s hard to unring the bell. Would the music of a Pete Seeger have the same resonance if I was hearing him for the first time, rather than with a half-century of exposure?
I understand the difference between an artistic and a utilitarian performance. Or in gross terms, I know what I like. The good musician will stand out, no matter what the genre. Perhaps we replay the great ones because they’re great, and when I watch a documentary of who was who in a brief window of opportunity in Greenwich Village, I’m only hearing the greats. Maybe there was a lot of chaff among the wheat.
Go to any “local” hall, and the musical musicians are noticed. Whether they’ll still provide entertainment in a few decades depends on the “capture” of those performances. I sense I’m turning in circles here.
OK, I accept that we only keep the good tracks. Even the greats have bad days. Something like my dog’s efforts to amuse. I’m going to continue watching my documentary, but my critical ear will be added to the mix. I’m going to tell myself that someone isn’t great simply because I’m witnessing a performance from half a century ago. That’s I’m listening, more than a half a century later (in my own lifetime): wonderful.
