>Being a historian might sabotage an artist?
>
>It's great to know where your roots are, but it could go too
>far at a certain point. I wonder how many times ?uest has
>thought "that's way too obvious" when they were actually good
>ideas that a non-historian would appreciate.
>
>Or in the midst of trying to replicate a classic sound forget
>about the actual reason for making the song?
>
>I guess it's the whole "effective" thing. Is it better to be
>ignorant of what has been effective music of the past and just
>throw what feels right at the wall?
>
>On the flip side, I'm sure a lot of their best material would
>never have happened without the deep record collection and
>knowledge of engineering techniques.
>
>It seems like a blessing and a curse to me.
>
>
>
>

interesting... kind of reminds me of math rock some guys do. It's genius but it sounds like shit to the average listener.

Not saying The Roots are shit but I knew a few cats who refused to do a hot 4 minute song because it was "boring" to them even though fans thought it was fire.

I used to have tons of arguments about artist who made the messenger more important then the message.