Speaking of filler...

[Arjan Hulsebos]

David Kuznick wrote:

>I've generally found "dated" to be one of the most irksome labels to apply to
>music, right up there with "pretentious" - convenient and generally meaningless
>cliches used most often by rock critics who can't (or in most cases simply
>aren't able to) think of anything to actually say about the music.  Very little
>music *isn't* dated; music (and art in general) tends to be a product of its
>time.  That's part of the point of art.
>
>
Exactly. If you listen closely to a piece of music, and analyze it, you
can date it pretty accurately. Some playing techniques, for instance,
weren't used before a certain year. Or some styles weren't developed
before some point in time. Timeless in this sense would mean "void from
any outside influences and any new technique", more or less doing the
same thing over and over again, year in, year out. I don't think I would
like that very much....

"Dated" music can be very enjoyable. Space Ritual and On Your Feet are
still amongst my favorites, and Bruce Dickinson (or Iron Maiden for that
matter) still sounds as good as he did in the 80ies.

Ah, what the hell. As long as you like it, it's OK.

Gr,

Arjan H