Musical Innovation - How important?

[~IiI]

I have a severe fear of fours, I guess you could say.

I feel a lot of bands lately try to hide laziness or creative lethargy by calling themselves "retro". Others would prefer that certain genres of music never evolve, and continue into eternity using the same old tired formulas, techniques, and musical structures.

A lot of you are musicians, and the rest of you are musical enthusiasts of the highest calibur, so I ask:

How important is innovation and originality in new music to you?

I feel new music without fresh creativity is only detrimental to it's ancestors and peers.

[7red7]

Well I'll put it like this...For me personally, it takes a lot for a modern band to impress me as I've done most of electronic music soul searching during the 80's...That being said, I think originality isn't so much important (seeing as like the past), but it can't hurt either...I mean, if you were to be in a band and come out trying to sound exactly like DM, I'd just say..."Next"...A lot of the emulators of the past do a great job...But a lot of the new bands I like Provision, Iris, Faith Assembly, Echoing Green, Brand New Idol, Mesh, etc...They use a lot of older elements in their music, but bring something new to the table as well...You can tell they put a lot of thought and compassion into their music...And before anyone asks, I'm not going to go into what exactly they do thats old, and what is modern...For sake of a proper argument, that would get old really quick...

Sorry JMO :D

[~pop]

It is important, but it's damn audiences. . . if you go too far, you are on their bad list and they will never listen to you again....
I have four different electronic projects and one post modern rock project. I have to divide the songs into different projects so people won't get wrong impression of me. I listen to lots of different music and I try to borrow from different style. Recently, I have been listening lots of HOUSE music, because I want to borrow some House element to few songs.
It's tough to be different.
It is very hard to be innovative and be likeable.
If you spend 80hrs on one song, you want someone to give you a listen. Also, if they start liking one song you did, it's hard to
get away from that formula that people liked. Retro is difficult term that people get mixed up. Some retro doesn't sound retro.
Ladytron doesn't sound retro to me. It sounds like Indie band with keyboards, but they are well known retro band. Retro comes around every 20 years. In year 2020, trans will be retro.
Retro exists for people who werent there at that era. When I was a teenager in 80s, I listen to 70s Bowie and other current stuff during that time. I was in love with 70s Bowie, because I wasn't there and I was very fascinated by him. My girl friend at that time
used to tease me that I was in love with him and wanted to marry him.... At that time, it might be true....
Anyway, I had few beers and losing track of time....
I will edit this later and put more nifty info.

[7red7]

You know what though, you brought up a very good point...A lot of people I know tend to really attach themselves to something that they weren't around to enjoy when it happened...So true for the 80's...And theres nothing wrong with it, theres nothing wrong with liking to stick with computers, or keyboards, or be retro, or whatever...As long as you keep electronic (hell music in general) alive, thats all that matters :)

[~Eyuva]

There's a point at which a style establishes itself & becomes traditional. Like traditional DM style synthpop. Or what have you.

Same with dance & trance with the 4/4 kick, monster synth riffs, acid sounds, samples, etc.

[Synthpopalooza]

Innovation ... is it really a conscious effort to try to be different?

My musical philosophy is, just be yourself, put the elements in your stuff that you like ... but above all be yourself. If yourself means that you sound like DM, or Erasure, or hell even someone like George Jones (heh heh) ... as long as you are producing stuff that you feel is of good quality.

I think it helps tho if you have something in your music that is not readily found elsewhere. A example of this is the Travelogue project by Jon Sonnenberg, in which he plays on the sound stylings of the early Human League. This is a sound not seen alot in the modern scene so it tends to make one stand out.

If you like the music you make, chances are your fans will too.

[Avil]

But as someone said, you can´t experiment too much with your music, then the people that use to listen to you thinks you have gone too far, think that the music you make is strange.
But still, as someone else said, if you make pure 80´s music (to take an example), then you will be one among many other. You wont have anything own.

I guess the hard think in this is to find the balance.
A balance between what you once tried to be, and what you want to be. Perfect balance.

[~IiI]

I think there is a hidden pitfall in making "retro" music; especially music specifically designed to encompass a circa vintage sound in these modern times... That is "How relevant is this sound today", in relation to how good it would of been if it was made during the timeframe it envisions?

Often imitation is mistaken for innovation.

[~NullDevice]

I suppose it depends how you define "innovation."

Little pop music really "innovates" musically. There's no bold use of microtunings, or 61/4 meters or such. The musical innoviation occurs long before the results trickle down into more popular music.

Some pop music innovates *sonically* - new sounds, new use of noise or effect.

A lot of music innovates in terms of its format - some stuff that might not be "new" to music overall might be new to the radio or to the genre...

So the question could kinda go in any direction.

[~Bornslippy]

kudos on everyone's 60 cents..

SOmetimes, when Synthpop bands try become different, it turns me off.. As long as the band has good melody, regardless of what instrument and not trying to sound like anyone else, that's good enough for me as a fan..
Besides a lot of these musicians these days and even in the past like The Beatles did not have any formal music training, so I guess your limited to your musical abilities to be innovative.. I also am glad that ppl have music formulas to choose from.. Who cares about the technical b.s, as long as the music good.. You know what I mean, I'll shut up now..


for example,

When Anything Box released peace, hope and worth, I was like yeahhh atleast this band is sticking to that sound.. Kind a like Erasure(stick to the gun where each album sounds the same, pretty cool ), then AB released Electrodelika and I was mad cause, I said to myself, here we go again another band trying to change, the AB sound that I luv is gone. Dont get me wrong Electrodelika is original and I did grow to luv that record.

[~Bornslippy]

actually Electrodelika is very Beatles formulated, but is it still innovative?

[~spi]

I personally think Elektrodelica innovative. Its amazing to hear the progression of different styles of music throughout the record. The record starts out with some amazing popsongs and culminates with songs like negaverse and heaven60. Then you have Clean and 45 amazing songs that mix up the album. Then to end it off you have a bunch of ballads. I can't count the number of times I have just sat and listened to Summer, Stillness and 9/6/64 in the dark. Especially 9/6/64 that is one instrumental song that is just amazing, so soothing and melodic.

An amazing album from an amazing band.

-steve

[~Eyuva]

Originally posted by IiI
I think there is a hidden pitfall in making "retro" music; especially music specifically designed to encompass a circa vintage sound in these modern times... That is "How relevant is this sound today", in relation to how good it would of been if it was made during the timeframe it envisions?

Often imitation is mistaken for innovation.

So what, if someone wants to make a nostalgic sound from 1983, so be it. Who cares about relevance, and what defines relevance. I suppose that country song about Iraq/Iran and the new patriotic movement in America is relevant to the times, so we should write patriot songs to suit the times, eh. Relevant, yes, but do most artists want to do that. No. I probably wouldn't mind, cause I think it would be neat to have a patriotic synthpop or trancey song. It would be a first of it's kind, something I've never heard before. Truly unique, and yes, it would be relevant to our times.

[~Eyuva]

Originally posted by Bornslippy
actually Electrodelika is very Beatles formulated, but is it still innovative?

Probably more so than you're average techno outfit like Fatboy Slim, Prodigy & the Chemical Brothers, who are about as innovative as watching paint dry.

[~interface2x]

I always liked a quote I read from the band Orbital. They said something to the effect of "Lots of people try and copy our style. We say go ahead. Nobody who's tried to copy us has succeeded and they inevitably come up with something original on accident."

Also - Spi, I assume when discussing Elektrodelica, you are referring to the song DIRT and not Clean, since Clean was on TUIE. :)

Colin

[~IiI]

I think you make a fine point Interface2x.

Please don't take offense Eyuva it's just my opinion that all new music should take steps to be at least a little creative and unique. I think this promotes music from stagnating. But the opposite side of the coin is true, if you view it such as perhaps "oil painting". One has to paint the same pictures over and over again until one masters the artform. I just hate to see artists paint by numbers, when they could be painting left handed.

[~arronc]

Innovation has never happened in the mainstream, because there is another step : Integration.

I definatly agree with NullDevice here : There is plenty of electronic experimental music (wendy Carlos : beauty and the beast to give one example) but until you can get people to it "buy in", theyre is little point into trying to pretend its pop music.

I have hundreds of hours of music which is too experimental to release, and mostly it was done as an purely personal interest anyway.

I dont feel and compulsion or pressure to use tone clusters, microtuning, electroacoustic treatment, or algorithmic compostion teqniques in any of the tracks I would expect anyone else to listen to listen to.

I think people (and myself, usually) want to hear good songs, well recorded, that move them emotionally.

Thts probably the focus of all musicians, and because some people have interests in the above areas, the temptation is to include them.

When Paul Shculze outsells robbie williams, things will different though !

LOL

[~IiI]

Christian Wolff - Burdocks (Tzadik)

Balls out innovation, this is what I'm talking about folks.

Look, I don't expect say synthpop bands to be musical Picassos or anything. I just enjoy it more when they are. IM-freakin'-O.

[~IiI]

Some more good examples of what I'm yakking on (for their time):

Squarepusher - Music Is Rotted One Note
Maryanne Amacher - Sound Characters
Tricky - Maxinquaye (Poppy & Innovative for it's day.)
Notwist - Neon Golden
U-Ziq - Tango n' Vectif
Tweaker - The Attraction to all Things Uncertian
Sebastien Tellier - L'incroyable Verite
Architecture - Collapse

That new album by Encre is rather unique, yet accessible.