Very little music lasts very long without being part of some lineage or another. Even the serialists maintained traditional instruments (for the most part) when they departed from tonality. And that entire era will most likely end up as a footnote a hundred years hence because it strayed too far from what the listener could agreeably appreciate or even comprehend.
For the most part I agree, but I think, if 'art' is made at all, it becomes so because the photographer experiences an emotional resonance and connection with the subject whatever it is, and in whatever style it is photographed. It becomes something even more significant when the viewer senses that emotional energy. I am highly dubious about whether or not 'meaning' has much to do with it, hence the uniqueness of musical, or visual work on its own terms.
I perhaps conflated "meaning" and "emotional response". I think the two concepts are inextricably connected as far as the creation of art is concerned - without an emotional response to a subject, it lacks sufficient meaning for me to want to capture that meaning on film, and if it means nothing to me, I don't respond emotionally, so I don't want to capture it on film. The overriding paradox here is the clash of rational and emotional responses that have to co-exist to create a work of art. The emotional tells us WHAT to photograph, and the rational tells us HOW to photograph it. Without the emotional, there is no subject, and without the rational, there is no depiction of the subject. But we must invoke the rational to create the representation of the emotional, so that we can communicate the emotional to others.