How are art and culture doing these days?

[Heartbreaker_Esq]

At some point they started recording rock music like electronic dance music, with quantizing and auto-tune, and it just killed the genre.

The people who would be channelling their desire to defeat boredom are lost in their phones.... All of culture is available at the touch of a button so the excitement of discovery is lost.
Screens are sucking out the passions of a generation (he said whilst typing on his phone )

I hate to be so...me all the time, but is there any evidence for the wild claims being made here, or is it all just based on gut intuition? The first post above makes two huge claims: 1) Rock music as a genre is dead; and 2) What killed it was common modern recording techniques like quantizing and auto-tune. As to #1, it's certainly true that rock's place as the dominant form of music in society has been seriously diminished, and other genres and styles have taken up that position instead. Whether that means the genre is dead is a matter of opinion, I suppose. Personally, since I listen to new rock music made by young and vital rock bands every day, I would say rock is alive and well.

As to what is the reason for rock's diminished cultural cachet, I'm not aware of any hard science on the topic. But when it comes to complex issues like culture-wide shifts in art, aesthetics, commerce, distribution, etc., the answer is unlikely to be any one thing. Especially not something as small as a couple of plugins.

The second post assumes without evidence that the availability of art and culture somehow takes away the "excitement of discovery". Where's the support for that? As a rule, people tend to be inspired by experiencing art and culture. There are so many famous examples of musicians and other artists travelling to India, Africa, and other places around the world, experiencing culture, and opening up and expanding their own art as a result. The ability to access this kind of inspiring culture without being a millionaire who can travel abroad strikes me as a good thing for art and creativity.

Finally, the notion that a particular cohort of young people (the exact age/generation is not identified here) is "lost in their phones" in such a way as to prevent them from doing anything useful or interesting is an attractive idea to a lot of people, but it's not always based on much. If heavy use of smartphones correlated with decreased artistic output, we would be seeing a steady downward trend in the production and release of music, as smartphone use has increased dramatically over the last 15-20 years. Instead, we are seeing the opposite. Young people are cranking out music faster than ever, thanks to the accessibility of tools that allow people without the money for professional studios to record and release their own music.

TL; DR - My opinions as usual are: 1) The kids are alright; and 2) It's good to be careful when making sweeping pronouncements about enormous cultural forces, as our own viewpoints on these things are necessarily limited, especially as we get older and less plugged in to the youth culture we seek to comment on.

 

[BristolKeeno]

True
There's obviously a ton of creativity out there, and I'm too old to see it.
I should have cranked up the irony knob in my post even higher, and added a few "in my day, it were all 808's and offsets, you won't see creativity like that again. And it were all green fields etc etc"

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I hate to be so...me all the time,

Yup! I write songs to be someone else for a while.

but is there any evidence for the wild claims being made here, or is it all just based on gut intuition? The first post above makes two huge claims: 1) Rock music as a genre is dead;

It's not dead. I just don't hear much of it on the radio anymore. For a couple of years before I retired, I worked in a big box store, and the most unbearable crap was piped in all day. It made eight hours feel like twenty.

and 2) What killed it was common modern recording techniques like quantizing and auto-tune.

I've gotta say, quantizing, auto-tuning, cut-and-pasting, beat tracks, and extreme compression aren't my idea of rock. It's contemporary pop. And that's what I hear on the radio.

As to #1, it's certainly true that rock's place as the dominant form of music in society has been seriously diminished, and other genres and styles have taken up that position instead. Whether that means the genre is dead is a matter of opinion, I suppose.

Exactly. Aftermath's opinion.

Personally, since I listen to new rock music made by young and vital rock bands every day, I would say rock is alive and well.

Thank you for not saying everyday!

As to what is the reason for rock's diminished cultural cachet, I'm not aware of any hard science on the topic.

Rick Beato and Phil at Wings of Pegasus post lots of hard data analysis. Not on the industry's economics (there's plenty written about that, too), but about the music products on the market now.

But when it comes to complex issues like culture-wide shifts in art, aesthetics, commerce, distribution, etc., the answer is unlikely to be any one thing.

Nope.

Especially not something as small as a couple of plugins.

It's not the existence of plugins. It's their commercial dominance.

The second post assumes without evidence that the availability of art and culture somehow takes away the "excitement of discovery". Where's the support for that?

I read the comment to mean that people who spend a lot of time on their smartphones are more bored and less exposed to non-digital enterainment. I was heavily persuaded by Johann Hari's Stolen Focus.

He's a reporter who started by wondering why he couldn't finish reading anything anymore (or get enough sleep) and interviewed a lot of people with empircal evidence of what BristolKeeno was talking about.

As a rule, people tend to be inspired by experiencing art and culture. There are so many famous examples of musicians and other artists travelling to India, Africa, and other places around the world, experiencing culture, and opening up and expanding their own art as a result. The ability to access this kind of inspiring culture without being a millionaire who can travel abroad strikes me as a good thing for art and creativity.

Finally, the notion that a particular cohort of young people (the exact age/generation is not identified here) is "lost in their phones" in such a way as to prevent them from doing anything useful or interesting is an attractive idea to a lot of people, but it's not always based on much.

Careful. I wouldn't limit that to young people. Plenty of old people are internet and smartphone junkies, too.

If heavy use of smartphones correlated with decreased artistic output, we would be seeing a steady downward trend in the production and release of music, as smartphone use has increased dramatically over the last 15-20 years. Instead, we are seeing the opposite.

Yup. There's a lot of it out there.

Young people are cranking out music faster than ever, thanks to the accessibility of tools that allow people without the money for professional studios to record and release their own music.

Beato points out (plenty of posts here at TDPRI do, too) that these days plenty of self-identified musicians (I'm not one) get their chord changes from a midi, their beats from plugins, and their lyrics from AI.

So you're right and you're wrong, depending on how you define "cranking out music." I certainly agree that they're cranking out something.

TL; DR - My opinions as usual are: 1) The kids are alright;

Absolutely. As alright as the rest of us, anyhow.

and 2) It's good to be careful when making sweeping pronouncements about enormous cultural forces, as our own viewpoints on these things are necessarily limited,

Amen. That's why I read a lot.

especially as we get older and less plugged in to the youth culture we seek to comment on.

Yup again. Beware of people who say, "When I was your age," and beware of people who say "Okay, boomer."

 

[telemnemonics]

Yup! I write songs to be someone else for a while.

It's not dead. I just don't hear much of it on the radio anymore. For a couple of years before I retired, I worked in a big box store, and the most unbearable crap was piped in all day. It made eight hours feel like twenty.

I've gotta say, quantizing, auto-tuning, cut-and-pasting, beat tracks, and extreme compression aren't my idea of rock. It's contemporary pop. And that's what I hear on the radio.

Exactly. Aftermath's opinion.

Thank you for not saying everyday!

Rick Beato and Phil at Wings of Pegasus post lots of hard data analysis. Not on the industry's economics (there's plenty written about that, too), but about the music products on the market now.

Nope.

It's not the existence of plugins. It's their commercial dominance.

I read the comment to mean that people who spend a lot of time on their smartphones are more bored and less exposed to non-digital enterainment. I was heavily persuaded by Johann Hari's Stolen Focus.

He's a reporter who started by wondering why he couldn't finish reading anything anymore (or get enough sleep) and interviewed a lot of people with empircal evidence of what BristolKeeno was talking about.

Careful. I wouldn't limit that to young people. Plenty of old people are internet and smartphone junkies, too.

Yup. There's a lot of it out there.

Beato points out (plenty of posts here at TDPRI do, too) that these days plenty of self-identified musicians (I'm not one) get their chord changes from a midi, their beats from plugins, and their lyrics from AI.

So you're right and you're wrong, depending on how you define "cranking out music." I certainly agree that they're cranking out something.

Absolutely. As alright as the rest of us, anyhow.

Amen. That's why I read a lot.

Yup again. Beware of people who say, "When I was your age," and beware of people who say "Okay, boomer."

Interesting question about smartphone dependent stimulation access among humans we wonder if they need to get out more.

I have some hours a day of screen time but olmost none is intake of data.

Most is taking and sharing pics, texting between friends and groups of friends, sharing pics and ideas via text email and forum.

I feel like I recall worse addictive use where humans who knew each other lined up face to screen without physically outputting anything.
Sometimes they faced their screen to communicate the few feet to their nearby companions. Like fantasy football stuff etc.
May relate to locale, IDK.

I see videos playing for face to screen often out in public but see not attraction there. And friends never do that.
It’s THOSE OTHER PEOPLE!

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . I feel like I recall worse addictive use where humans who knew each other lined up face to screen without physically outputting anything. . . .

Glued to the tube!

I used to canvass door-to-door, and a few times I asked people to turn off their TVs so we could talk. Nothing is more distracting. I can't carry on a conversation in a bar or restaurant if I'm facing a TV, even if the sound is off.

They're attention magnets. I'll bet they're where Gene Roddenberry got the idea of tractor beams.

 

[telemnemonics]

Glued to the tube!

I used to canvass door-to-door, and a few times I asked people to turn off their TVs so we could talk. Nothing is more distracting. I can't carry on a conversation in a bar or restaurant if I'm facing a TV, even if the sound is off.

They're attention magnets. I'll bet they're where Gene Roddenberry got the idea of tractor beams.

I quit TV around the time coke and disco took over.
The coke was less offensive than TV at the time but that’s another story.
When I moved to NYC with my GF in 1989 we got a loft a little more expensive than we could afford so I built two loft bedrooms and we got a roommate, several times as they each moved on.

The roommate ads all said “No TV” and many responded saying they had a TV. We said we will not have a TV and got lots of vehement arguments!
People took offense at us not wanting their TV, even up in their loft where the evil blue glow could creep out and the TV voice would drivel through our home.

We finally got one after 9/11, feeling like we should know what was happening. Big mistake but also got cable internet and email then.
Same deal though, very hard to look away if it is in eyeshot.
Again though, doomscrolling ain’t me but I do need to stay aware of the worlds machinations.

 

[telemnemonics]

True
There's obviously a ton of creativity out there, and I'm too old to see it.
I should have cranked up the irony knob in my post even higher, and added a few "in my day, it were all 808's and offsets, you won't see creativity like that again. And it were all green fields etc etc"

I really prefer my humans turn of the century and love music from 1990-2010.
Had my fill of 60s and 70s pop rock stuff but still turn to that old time era for Jazz.
Funny conversation with a few zoomers last night about how hard they have to work to get vapes post vape ban, and how badly romance or sex works out for them.
At least they can drive to Georgia for their vapes!
Seriously addicted kids, like cant sleep through the night without an hit addicted.
Also not fully certain but it seems the post AIDS generations do screw randomly but may struggle with lasting intimacy.
Small sample in Asheville where the humans are extra freaky.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I quit TV around the time coke and disco took over.
The coke was less offensive than TV at the time but that’s another story.
When I moved to NYC with my GF in 1989 we got a loft a little more expensive than we could afford so I built two loft bedrooms and we got a roommate, several times as they each moved on.

The roommate ads all said “No TV” and many responded saying they had a TV. We said we will not have a TV and got lots of vehement arguments!
People took offense at us not wanting their TV, even up in their loft where the evil blue glow could creep out and the TV voice would drivel through our home.

We finally got one after 9/11, feeling like we should know what was happening. Big mistake but also got cable internet and email then.
Same deal though, very hard to look away if it is in eyeshot.
Again though, doomscrolling ain’t me but I do need to stay aware of the worlds machinations.

Yeah, when I got married, my wife came with a TV. Our compromise: DVDs only. No cable, broadcast TV, satellite, or streaming.

It mainly means we don't have commercials barging in on whatever we're watching. We can both live with it.

 

[telemnemonics]

True
There's obviously a ton of creativity out there, and I'm too old to see it.
I should have cranked up the irony knob in my post even higher, and added a few "in my day, it were all 808's and offsets, you won't see creativity like that again. And it were all green fields etc etc"

Irony (and metaphor) as a communication tool upsets some people here, even if they get it.
I just find myself misunderstood more often and how OK I am with that varies.
Art and culture are by nature best misunderstood by some, or there needs to be more spices added.
The health of Art, Culture, the release and intention of AI and the corporate takeover of everything today?
Those not so much.

Been on the offset forum?
No rules there, they even swear at each other and freely say mean things and all the bad words.
I got tired of it and forgot my password…

 

[BristolKeeno]

I joined the offset and found it a bit quiet and I can't be bothered to have 2 forums going so haven't really delved deep. I do think the moderation on here is a bit too harsh... (I had a message removed even though I swapped letters for *'s) But generally the chat here is cool and helpful

 

[telemnemonics]

I hate to be so...me all the time, but is there any evidence for the wild claims being made here, or is it all just based on gut intuition? The first post above makes two huge claims: 1) Rock music as a genre is dead; and 2) What killed it was common modern recording techniques like quantizing and auto-tune. As to #1, it's certainly true that rock's place as the dominant form of music in society has been seriously diminished, and other genres and styles have taken up that position instead. Whether that means the genre is dead is a matter of opinion, I suppose. Personally, since I listen to new rock music made by young and vital rock bands every day, I would say rock is alive and well.

As to what is the reason for rock's diminished cultural cachet, I'm not aware of any hard science on the topic. But when it comes to complex issues like culture-wide shifts in art, aesthetics, commerce, distribution, etc., the answer is unlikely to be any one thing. Especially not something as small as a couple of plugins.

The second post assumes without evidence that the availability of art and culture somehow takes away the "excitement of discovery". Where's the support for that? As a rule, people tend to be inspired by experiencing art and culture. There are so many famous examples of musicians and other artists travelling to India, Africa, and other places around the world, experiencing culture, and opening up and expanding their own art as a result. The ability to access this kind of inspiring culture without being a millionaire who can travel abroad strikes me as a good thing for art and creativity.

Finally, the notion that a particular cohort of young people (the exact age/generation is not identified here) is "lost in their phones" in such a way as to prevent them from doing anything useful or interesting is an attractive idea to a lot of people, but it's not always based on much. If heavy use of smartphones correlated with decreased artistic output, we would be seeing a steady downward trend in the production and release of music, as smartphone use has increased dramatically over the last 15-20 years. Instead, we are seeing the opposite. Young people are cranking out music faster than ever, thanks to the accessibility of tools that allow people without the money for professional studios to record and release their own music.

TL; DR - My opinions as usual are: 1) The kids are alright; and 2) It's good to be careful when making sweeping pronouncements about enormous cultural forces, as our own viewpoints on these things are necessarily limited, especially as we get older and less plugged in to the youth culture we seek to comment on.

If I can keep track:

Commenting on what cut the nuts off rock?
To me it was the gradual replacement of deeper issue rock including emotional raw guitar solos; shifting to “look how awesome I am” artistic motifs and “look how awesome I am” shred guitar.

Commenting on your suggestion that the sheer mass of music released proves that smartphone addiction has not diminished creative output; well we may all be able to agree that the increased quantity was not commensurate to an increase of quality?
So we have more artistic output but not more creative and possibly more derivative/ trite drivel?

Yes yes yes trite drivel has always been around.
But as more and more music was released in the 21st C, has a lower percentage been highest quality art?
Sorry, hard to phrase a measure of quality.
Creative?
Expressive?
Deeply meaningful?
Societally challenging?
Any or all will do?

 

[telemnemonics]

How does “art and culture” relate to citizen duties?
Staying informed on the issues?
Cultivating spirited debate and dialogue with those you disagree with?
Treating others with respect even if they displease us?
Applying gratitude by not hoarding and hating?
Cultural decency is an art form.
Follow a template or be creative.
Join a cause or just let people in in traffic.
Talk to a homeless Vet.
Culture needs to be decent, and when culture becomes more indecent, art steps in and smacks culture up side the head.

 

[Heartbreaker_Esq]

Commenting on your suggestion that the sheer mass of music released proves that smartphone addiction has not diminished creative output; well we may all be able to agree that the increased quantity was not commensurate to an increase of quality?
So we have more artistic output but not more creative and possibly more derivative/ trite drivel?

Actually, I don't know that we are able to agree on that. I certainly don't have the knowledge (or hubris) needed to make grand sweeping statements about the quality of the entirety of recorded music. Even if you narrowed the category to just "non-metal rock music released on spotify in 2024" I've probably only heard 0.000000000000001 percent of the music released. With that little info, I don't feel like I can confidently make claims about everything being made.

Yes yes yes trite drivel has always been around.
But as more and more music was released in the 21st C, has a lower percentage been highest quality art?
Sorry, hard to phrase a measure of quality.
Creative?
Expressive?
Deeply meaningful?
Societally challenging?
Any or all will do?

It's an interesting question, but again, hard to even get a grip on the data set. Even assuming you could design some kind of statistically solid sample set, how can you even begin to measure musical quality? We don't usually do stuff like that because the "quality" of music is so clearly subjective. Even if we could listen to everything, and even agree on what specific trends we can identify in music over time, we still won't have a consensus on the question of quality, because one of us may like those trends while the other does not.

And I think that subjectivity is a good thing, by the way. We all like what we like, and I reject ideas of objective quality both good (i.e. snobs deciding what is "Good" or "Important" music) and bad (people being ashamed of their taste of having "guilty pleasure" music). But when you take that subjective viewpoint, and add to it the fact that we are only hearing a miniscule fraction of the music being made, it doesn't make sense to make big claims about all of music. In my opinion, of course.

 

[telemnemonics]

Actually, I don't know that we are able to agree on that. I certainly don't have the knowledge (or hubris) needed to make grand sweeping statements about the quality of the entirety of recorded music. Even if you narrowed the category to just "non-metal rock music released on spotify in 2024" I've probably only heard 0.000000000000001 percent of the music released. With that little info, I don't feel like I can confidently make claims about everything being made.

It's an interesting question, but again, hard to even get a grip on the data set. Even assuming you could design some kind of statistically solid sample set, how can you even begin to measure musical quality? We don't usually do stuff like that because the "quality" of music is so clearly subjective. Even if we could listen to everything, and even agree on what specific trends we can identify in music over time, we still won't have a consensus on the question of quality, because one of us may like those trends while the other does not.

And I think that subjectivity is a good thing, by the way. We all like what we like, and I reject ideas of objective quality both good (i.e. snobs deciding what is "Good" or "Important" music) and bad (people being ashamed of their taste of having "guilty pleasure" music). But when you take that subjective viewpoint, and add to it the fact that we are only hearing a miniscule fraction of the music being made, it doesn't make sense to make big claims about all of music. In my opinion, of course.

True that few individuals take in all the new music.

I lean on musicians I know and musicians on forums being like tendrils reaching all corners of humanity and sampling music then posting what they think is some great new stuff.

Or some list the names of great new artists.

To me I think almost none I check out is “truly great new music”.
Plenty is adequate or even great, but great I expect to be wowed by.
We get older and are less easily wowed, while the argument is between music got better or music did not get better.

Advances in music are also funneled in music schools to some degree, and having lived near them and known students, I’m not seeing a rise in creativity along with the rise in quantity.
Music students I know are into old music more than the latest.
Seems odd, no?
Does that tell us anything?
Of course it depends on the college and the city.
Berklee in Boston was very new pop shred centric for guitar.
Not sure about now.

My local independent Asheville radio station has stuff like fringe classical composers atonal stuff and local bands of all ilks.
And all sorts of music from the last century.
In Maine I had an alt rock station where I heard new music like Billie Eilish when TDPRIers had not heard of her, then it got bought and went pop.

I’m waiting to hear new ground being broken.
There are darling new artists here like Samantha Fish who is cool, but sadly we all old and not much fans of groundbreaking new music. I mean we struggle to accept so much new music thats already 20 years old.

At the same time though, seems along with social media image focus making people try hard to look perfect, newer recording tech has small operations making music more perfect than big old tape studio productions of the past.

That is not a measure of quality any more than hospital operating rooms are a measure of cleaning your house.
In fact we may be missing raw expressive emotional content and had not really needed digital perfection or shreddy precision.

Innovation though, music that is both musical and surprising?
Not seeing it.
In the 1960s so much music was startling to hear for the first time.
And I don’t even care for music that old now.
But where is the streams startling new music today?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . Even assuming you could design some kind of statistically solid sample set, how can you even begin to measure musical quality?

If by quality you mean good versus bad, that's just opinion, which we all enjoy bandying about. If you mean characteristics, that gets measured all the time.

We don't usually do stuff like that because the "quality" of music is so clearly subjective. Even if we could listen to everything, and even agree on what specific trends we can identify in music over time, we still won't have a consensus on the question of quality, because one of us may like those trends while the other does not. . . .

Nope. Luckily, we don't need a consensus. We're just shooting the Shinola here!

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . I’m waiting to hear new ground being broken. . . .

'Zackly.

In Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America, Kurt Andersen gives a detailed account of why and how, since around 1980, our culture has stagnated.

An example I've given here before: Today I wore a bowling shirt, blue jeans, and flip-flops — a costume that's unremarkable today and would have been just as unremarkable in 1960, sixty-five years ago.

But imagine in 1960 wearing a costume from 1895, sixty-five years before that. Unlikely! And what about my other clothes — button-downs, cowboy snap-buttons, sneakers, oxfords, tweed, a leather jacket, a denim jacket, tee-shirts . . . .

None would raise a brow back in 1960. Sure, there have been shifts — skeletons all over the working class, tats all over the middle class, rainbow hair dye all over everyone — but the shifts now happen at a molasses-glacier pace. Just so with music. The Beatles are more popular than Harry Styles.

Andersen makes the case: It's not by chance.

 

[P Thought]

I cannot actually imagine complaining about my players lack of commitment, I always saw it as my job to motivate and work with my players to the degree they could develop why what we were doing was important

One of the best and most useful discussions that came with me out of teachers' school was around whether it's the students' job to be engaged, or the teacher's job to engage them

It's the teacher's job, IMO. I always tried to go "full contact" in trying to engage my students

 

[badinfinities]

Innovation though, music that is both musical and surprising?
Not seeing it.
In the 1960s so much music was startling to hear for the first time.
And I don’t even care for music that old now.
But where is the streams startling new music today?

I've seen a few people argue that genre mashing is the new stream - combining genres in the attempt to break the impasse. A common example is Sleep Token. Progressive metal that draws upon a myriad of genres. Problem is, that is simply a gesture at the heart of what we've called progressive since the late 60s.

Sometimes I think what ultimately matters is the perspective of those who are 15 to 25. They create art and culture regardless of what those who are older and more experienced think.

I saw this with the explosion of variable strains of emo in the late 90s and early 2000s before it became commodified mall punk. This genre had profound meaning and depth for cusp Gen X and millenials, and if you spend time with it, it simply genre mashes - post-hardcore, jangle pop, power pop, math rock, progressive tendencies, metal, etc.

 

[loudboy]

An example I've given here before: Today I wore a bowling shirt, blue jeans, and flip-flops — a costume that's unremarkable today and would have been just as unremarkable in 1960, sixty-five years ago.

But imagine in 1960 wearing a costume from 1895, sixty-five years before that. Unlikely! And what about my other clothes — button-downs, cowboy snap-buttons, sneakers, oxfords, tweed, a leather jacket, a denim jacket, tee-shirts . . .

The Beatles and a lot of other classic rock heritage acts are still getting as much airplay as they did in the '60s. Almost everyone of all ages is familiar with this music.

The same can't be said for music of the '20s-'30s when I was coming up in the early '70s. It had vanished by then, and is still gone, with the exception of guys like Rod Stewart plumbing the Great American Songbook, and the strange reverence for Tony Bennett that appeared 20 years ago.

 

[telemnemonics]

I've seen a few people argue that genre mashing is the new stream - combining genres in the attempt to break the impasse. A common example is Sleep Token. Progressive metal that draws upon a myriad of genres. Problem is, that is simply a gesture at the heart of what we've called progressive since the late 60s.

Sometimes I think what ultimately matters is the perspective of those who are 15 to 25. They create art and culture regardless of what those who are older and more experienced think.

I saw this with the explosion of variable strains of emo in the late 90s and early 2000s before it became commodified mall punk. This genre had profound meaning and depth for cusp Gen X and millenials, and if you spend time with it, it simply genre mashes - post-hardcore, jangle pop, power pop, math rock, progressive tendencies, metal, etc.

I enjoy genre mixing music but none has surprised me.
Tom Morello surprised me maybe 27 years ago.
Billie Eilish surprised me maybe 10 years ago.
Cant recall any noteworthy musical surprises since.
But at least some mixed genre stuff is less retro reenactment than so much music has to be if all we get is new songs in the same old styles.
I mean I love the sound of a chord progression on an acoustic guitar, or electric power chords, and all the typical pop fixins, but it is a strain to call it new music for the times.

Sadly I like shreddy guitar less and less.
Which is also already old time reenactment stuff- that kids can do on YouTube.
This is actually a funny commentary on what makes a great musician.
Children nailing classic greats work note for note on YouTube, kids too young to drink and drive or hold a job.