“Let Go of the Language of the Past” ~ Niall Keegan ~ #1, in the beginning
"The language we use around traditional music isn’t about making new music but about old music. We are judging today’s traditional music on the basis of what we imagine happened in the past, restricting the creative freedom of today’s artists. If the traditional arts are to flourish in the future, we have to start challenging the language of a past agenda." ~ Niall Keegan
One point only from this article, the language we use to describe and discuss our passions here, beginning with and focusing on just the author’s opening statement, which you may or may not agree with, or your own notions may be somewhere in between or indecisive, developing, please share them.
Here’s a little bit more on the given topic ~
"~ the political use of such language ~ are we forever doomed to create music according to the agendas of past generations?"
Restricted and restricting? Doomed?
Inclusive or exclusive of ‘new music’?
As the author uses terms freely without clarity, we can only guess what is meant by ‘new music’, which without the language to define must be all encompassing, or whatever isn’t ‘old’. :-D
Does the language we use, our ways of describing our passions, "act as an agent restricting artistic expression"? Has it in any way? If so, what? ~ how? If you’ve personally felt such restrictions please tell us what your experience is of such limits? Or, are they self-imposed, and if so, why? What reasons? ~ to what end? ~ with what purpose?
Making demands on us eh? ;-) “Let go!” ~ Alright, let fly!