"If I don't practice one day, I know it; two days, the critics know it; three days, the public knows it." These are the now famous words of Jascha Heifetz (completely unknown otherwise) - but how true do these words ring?
We all have a favourite band, or artist, who's works we follow faithfully; never missing a release because each album impacts upon our life as each album is our own created - or more accurately bought (so yes, happiness can be bought. Guess I just ended an age-old philosophical debate with one sentence... Am I not amazing? Oh go on, yes I am. Admit it...) a personal release from the reality we face each day. A place where we can rock out in solitude to the concert within our imagination; a groupie in the comfort of our own bedroom.
But why do we continue to follow our favourite bands? Sure, they're our favourite band for a reason but, with each album, changes take place. Subtle differences in how the band creates their work. What keeps us hooked to them? Is this musical evolution the creator of improvement or are Heifetz words really true? So then why is it that bands always return to their roots after a few releases, to much critical success. You could attain this success to the 'survival of the fittest' in this musical evolution - but when has atavism been the survival technique of the superior? Atavism is what it is, a throwback to primal behaviour. Not a neo-evolutionary trademark.
While not every album - or band, for that matter - fits this 'evolutionary' pattern, it's safe to say that most do, and that we do follow a fanaticism whenever a new album is released. No matter how short the fanaticism lasts, we do.
The song that brought upon the requirement to debate this (with myself, seeing I have no readers) is currently playing; "Looking For Angels" by Skillet. An amazing Christian band, but with lyrics everyone can relate to and enjoy. It had always been my theory that the more recent an album was, the greater it was, and perhaps that's what caused me to begin on a path that would lead me here. It's because of that ideology that I focused, mainly, on their newest album, Awake. It wouldn't be until this very past Sunday that I would find the wonders of what really is their greatest album; Comatose - an album 3 years older than Awake. My three favourite songs still remain those from Awake but, overall, Comatose has everything I look for in an Alternative/Post-Grunge band. I'm disappointed in not having given the album more appreciation earlier, as I've missed out on many days of being able to lie back and zone-out to it's vibe.
So then is this not the "three days" Heifetz talks about? For the band always knows their greatest and worst works, the critics have no personal bias to the album they have bought, but we do, and that is why we take the longest to realise that the Evolution of the music we love is merely the de-evolution from what we love. The first album we hear from a band usually remains, subconsciously, our most favourite because of the fact that we fell in love with the band because of that sound, so, while the departure from that sound may appeal to us, it never lasts. But, it is because of the de-evolution that our love for our favourite band evolves. It gives us a fresh start in listening to its sound again. To enjoy it, to feel it...
Therefore music's evolution might be atavistic, but it is this atavism that creates the de-evolution of the evolution that is destroying our muse. In other words, we do need the old for the new, but it is the old that needs the new the most. God-bless the late Jascha Heifetz, he wasn't senile after all.
(Though I might be. That made no sense, did it... It's late...)
No comments:
Post a Comment
You probably disagree, have your say. Not that I'll give a **** ;-)