>>2815705Except crunkcore is indeed cancerous as all fuck and totally irredeemable. My point is that he's still "good" (whatever that means at this point) and top quality now, but was even more so when he was active and at the peak of his career. By all means you could stick on a Sinatra record right now, and then play a Nick Drake one immediately after and say "Oh, I prefer Drake's singing," and you'd be within your right to do that, but to overlook the context of the time they were both operating in is to miss out something very, very vital to their music that informed it to it's core.
>politics aren't relevant to music and artThis is outright false and a very ignorant thing to say.
I'm aware that there were crooners before Sinatra, I read that Wikipedia article too to make sure that I wasn't totally misinformed. That he didn't personally consider himself one is largely meaningless because, well, he was. We could probably both mention loads of bands and artists that don't agree with their descriptors. But Sinatra still pioneered the style to an unparalleled degree.
You make some good points about recognisability that I hadn't considered. I'm not familiar with Brian Ferneyhough, but if you heard a piece that was similar to one of his, would you not say that it reminded you of him? Every time I hear something dissonant and intense I'm reminded of Xenakis, because his unique nature in that regard has made him recognisable from my point of view. A lot of this probably depends on personal experience and circumstance.
Most people certainly wouldn't have heard of Stockhausen, but what he was doing was indeed groundbreaking, alongside Henry, Schaeffer and the rest of those guys, in a way that I would say is very recognisable among people familiar with that school of music and the way things went from there, simply because of it's groundbreaking nature.
