This video made me have a very powerful insight into music genres. Every time I saw someone in the media saying that Rock is dead, I thought that this is a big nonsense and that Rock will never die. But to be honest, until watching this video, I had never stopped to do a deep analysis of what could classify Rock as Rock. and it is exactly doing this that guarantees the life of Rock, to keep a genre alive, we need to produce works in this style. And if we don't know what defines each genre, how could we do that? Currently, I think that the art world has been hijacked by the individualistic thinking of wanting to own everything. Artists want ownership over musical genres, styles, artistic traits, ideas... that's scary. It just makes us use stupid laws to stop other artists from expressing themselves, being inspired and continuing the evolution of art in history. What I think now is that we really should copy and reproduce the genres that came before, while it seems that the prevailing mentality is that everyone has to try in every way to innovate and create something new. The problem is that nowadays, there are so many things, that in order to innovate, we almost always have to create weird and meaningless things at a level that is no longer a pleasant experience. it's really hard to find a balance between innovation and quality. And I question, what's the point of always trying to create something new, when there are so many things that have already been created that weren't even that appreciated?

Thank you so much! Your kind comments are massively appreciated :) More videos on the way, so I hope you like them just as much!

@@danilotavaresofficial thanks again for your comment. I really love it when people watch my video and engage with it on this level. I think I agree entirely with what you're saying here, and certainly agree that there is far too much of artists trying to claim ownership over everything. I think this is very destructive, and gets in the way of creating good music. I also think it's just based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what art is in the first place. Take someone like Shakespeare - obviously a big name in the world of literature (understatement of the year, huh?) but hardly an 'orginal' story to his name. He based his plays almost entirely on pre-existing stories. Would we be as keen, today, as an author or filmmaker basing their entire career on a similar mode of writing? I suspect not. Or Tolkien (probably my favourite artist ever in any medium): his writing was in many ways *deeply* conservative, and borrowed (with alterations) a lot from history, mythology and religion. In many ways, he was a few hundred years behind the times (and plenty of his contemporaries thouoght so). And yet, he might just be the most influential author of the 20th century. I think innovation comes from taking ideas from one place, and applying them in another. That 'place' you take ideas can be anything: it could be mixing styles from different places (e.g. west african music + european music = blues and jazz), from different genres (rock + jazz and classical = progressive rock), or quite simply from different times (how many rock bands have looked back a generation or more for influence and inspiration? Led Zep, the Beatles, Yes). Anyway, I think that's a big enough wall of text for now. Thanks again for you comments!

True!

"However, can we still call it rock when it's entirely performed by musicians totally different from the ones on the original recording?" - Regarding the question you asked, I usually think that once an artist creates something, that creation no longer belongs to the artist. It becomes something that exists in existence. (It sounds strange, but I think it's the best way to describe it.) The existence of something is guaranteed by collective perception and objective evidence of traces of that thing altering the tangible reality we live in. So, in my humble opinion, even if none of the members performing that music or musical genre are the original creators, the genre still continues to exist. Therefore, I believe we could still call it Rock.

@@danilotavaresofficial Although I wouldn't be able to put it so eloquently, I think I want to agree with and in fact I do. It's the old adage "Rock never dies" and countless variations on that theme.