Jump to content

Truly innovative music


gwilendiel
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Unfortuantely basically nothing in this thread is "Innovative." The only one that maybe comes close is ol' Merzbow up there. His stuff is pretty much parody, though. He's serious about it enough I suppose, so you could probably make some kind of argument in favor of his stuff being innovative.

Everything else in this thread is retreads. Especially that "innovative rap producer" on page 2, who (oh my word) makes music that sounds like diva house from the 90s with beefier compression.

Not saying that its bad, however. These are all excellent examples of fine music, but they tread no new sonic ground (except, perhaps, for Merzbow's straight up noise stuff, but even then he's just cutting out elements rather than innovating new ones).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pretentious thread is now pretentious

Oh really. What's pretentious?

Lots of things are pretentious. Aerosmith is pretentious.

Just because importance is placed on something, that doesn't mean it's showing off for the sake of showing off.

Death metal uses heavy distortion and double kick drums, and some times screaming or growling. Is that not pretentious? Is that not saying to death metal fans "look at me! I'm Death Metal! I ostentatiously have screaming vocals and this brutal guitar riff! SEE? DEATH METAL!"

That's pretentious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortuantely basically nothing in this thread is "Innovative." The only one that maybe comes close is ol' Merzbow up there. His stuff is pretty much parody, though. He's serious about it enough I suppose, so you could probably make some kind of argument in favor of his stuff being innovative.

Everything else in this thread is retreads. Especially that "innovative rap producer" on page 2, who (oh my word) makes music that sounds like diva house from the 90s with beefier compression.

Not saying that its bad, however. These are all excellent examples of fine music, but they tread no new sonic ground (except, perhaps, for Merzbow's straight up noise stuff, but even then he's just cutting out elements rather than innovating new ones).

They were things that were at one point innovated, and they are good examples. Why don't people get this fact? Even if it isn't radical now, it was at the time it was pioneered! And even if it is copied, it was still at one time envisioned!

The discovery of electricity was a radical innovation. Are you going to say it isn't innovative because it wasn't done yesterday? Or because its modern implementation is not done by the original inventor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Double post to put things in perspective.

This is true innovation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x4v9K657V4

And so is this:

I did not pick these two because they are 'fancy' nor am I trying to look smart. I'm being honest. Let's try not to get lost in a contest of what people think is cool or not.

I simply want to explore, not argue with people about what is really innovative.

Any exceptional musical discovery is fine! I don't care who it is, or if it's the original or a modern example, or if its chaotic or has a tempo. I was just giving general examples.

I know we can't agree on everything, and I know I did argue a bit over a couple things, but that isn't where I wanted to go at all. So please, a little leeway with eachothers opinions ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HOW COULD I FORGET ARCADE FIRE?!?! Damnit, they're like the hipster icon, so foolish of me.

Also, just because you're unfamiliar with J Dilla's work doesn't mean he's not innovative.

Yeah. It's a funny thing. If you aren't familiar with it, it's not innovative. If we'ere too familiar with it, it's still not innovative.

That's why I posted Mozart's Violin Concerto no.5 just now.

People who like Mozart accept this, it's nothing 'new'. However, at the same time, it features syncopation throughout most of the piece, and many velocity and tempo changes. But the irony is, people who don't appreciate this say it sounds 'strange', especially when somebody else does it. Why is this I wonder? I'm willing to bet that if this piece had never been done before, and a music student did something similar today, it could be criticized depending on the view! "You didn't follow the tempo enough" or "this part is too quiet" "There isn't a beat to it"

See what I'm getting at now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's basically impossible to be truly innovative in music, at least in the sense of doing something that nobody has done before. I would argue that if we're going to talk about innovation, we should discuss artists or composers who skillfully craft unusual music that is outside of any given pop or academic trends, but that is also enjoyable and appreciable by the general public. I once went to an electronic music concert at Peabody (where our own DrumUltimA had a piece performed) and while a lot of the music was certainly nothing I had ever heard before, it was also painful to listen to and excrutiatingly boring.

On the other hand, the other day tefnek showed me this;

And I would call that innovative. It sounds like Pendulum and older Prodigy mixed with Beastie Boys - drum n' bass rap. I just haven't heard anything like it, and I think it's extremely well-done. While I'm sure other people have mixed DNB and rap, I give credit to the people who have done it well for the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so what's more innovative.

the winstons for creating amen brother

or

the first dj/musician/composer/computer dork to same their little break?

Like I said, it isn't a contest. And sorry, but I didn't understand the second sentence.

But to put plainly what I've been trying to say, this is about innovative music or elements, not innovative artists.

Like jazz or funk variants are very radically innovated, genre wise. So are certain forms of dub. They do things that were previously not understood, especially in early years. They are not simply emergent, like a lot of the rock variants out there. We understand them now, but that's now. Who invented it first is irrelevant to the fact that it exists and is exceptional in some way.

The reason I'm wondering this, is I've been thinking about what constitutes music in itself. There is a specific science to music, and likely certain biological reasons it appeals to us. For example, if you take a simple sine wave, and run it at a wavelength of 132 and a frequency of 261.63 Hz, you should get a C4 note. Any time and every time. But since it's a plain wave, it probably won't sound good - so you need to create harmonics, almost like a distortion to the wave. Like violins use a sawtooth wave that is extremely complex due to the string vibration and body shape... if I remember correctly, the wave is similar to a trumpet but with more harmonics. This also makes them a pain in the rear to synth from scratch using FM synthesis.

But anyway... I digress. I'm not sure where all that came from. My head is kind of flooded at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only real contribution is Super Furry Animals - No Sympathy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3AMU6jtu9E

The best I could find was about 2/3rds of the song. The first third is just a slow country-esque song with broken English about how he's not showing the subject any more sympathy. It's slow and meandering. This is the only song that readily comes to mind where the genre actually switches halfway.

EDIT: One more actually... and this one isn't the music as much as the video. A nice little post halloween spook.

2 things; 1, I heard it was done without any CG. 2, it's not Chris Cunningham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an example of Steve Reich's phasing technique:

He got the idea completely by accident when playing samples at slightly different speeds on tape recorders, then decided to apply this to playing music. Of course, he was not the first. When studying African drumming he found out that they had basically used the same principle for thousands of years. But in contemporary music history it was something really fundamentally different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And sorry, but I didn't understand the second sentence.

I R TALK GUD ON INTRAWEB!!1

edited original post.

another edit:

But to put plainly what I've been trying to say, this is about innovative music or elements,

then for me I'd say Glitch music. before 2005, the idea that you could use clipping, skipping, blips, static, etc. as part of the music, or create an entire song with only just that stuff was unheard of to me (as I was really into mainstream electronic music).

also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymphomatriarch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's basically impossible to be truly innovative in music, at least in the sense of doing something that nobody has done before. I would argue that if we're going to talk about innovation, we should discuss artists or composers who skillfully craft unusual music that is outside of any given pop or academic trends, but that is also enjoyable and appreciable by the general public. I once went to an electronic music concert at Peabody (where our own DrumUltimA had a piece performed) and while a lot of the music was certainly nothing I had ever heard before, it was also painful to listen to and excrutiatingly boring.

On the other hand, the other day tefnek showed me this;

And I would call that innovative. It sounds like Pendulum and older Prodigy mixed with Beastie Boys - drum n' bass rap. I just haven't heard anything like it, and I think it's extremely well-done. While I'm sure other people have mixed DNB and rap, I give credit to the people who have done it well for the first time.

There's a first time for anything, because the earth hasn't been here forever. But for practical purposes and to avoid further arguments, I'll agree with you.

And what you posted reminds me somehow of dub. Like Mistabishi - except perhaps a bit more strictly organized. At any rate I like it. Here's some other interesting things

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7VoHENRx8k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfhWMMAyuD0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were things that were at one point innovated, and they are good examples. Why don't people get this fact? Even if it isn't radical now, it was at the time it was pioneered! And even if it is copied, it was still at one time envisioned!

No offense, man, but you're not making any sense.

I haven't seen anything 'truly' innovative in my entire lifetime. The last big wave of innovation was in the 90s, in my opinion, but it even then, it was simply taking things that were already available to much greater lengths, such as the meshing of existing genres and styles into electronica (especially since electronica itself has existed since the 70s, maybe even before then). It really depends on what your standards are for innovation in the end, though; I consider Aphex Twin innovative for his time, but if you really want to split hairs, you could make a legitimate case for saying there hasn't been any true innovation in music since Debussy, Stravinski, and maybe Shoenberg. The problem is you're trying to apply a more objective kind of term when we're mostly talking about different forms of pop music, and the only thing that's really changed in pop music is the way it's created (for electronica in particular). And even then we're just talking about innovation in the context of Western music, which only begins to make sense because Western music began arbitrarily adopting rigid forms of music and tonality for no reason.

And even then, who cares? If you like it, just enjoy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then for me I'd say Glitch music. before 2005, the idea that you could use clipping, skipping, blips, static, etc. as part of the music, or create an entire song with only just that stuff was unheard of to me (as I was really into mainstream electronic music).

also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymphomatriarch

Good example, along with circuit bending too which kind of falls in with that I think. Like taking an old toy and ripping it apart and rewiring the electronics to produce the glitching effects you are talking about. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider Aphex Twin innovative for his time, but if you really want to split hairs, you could make a legitimate case for saying there hasn't been any true innovation in music since Debussy, Stravinski, and maybe Shoenberg.

This is way off.. those guys don't have a monopoly on all the advances in sampling, synthesis, processing, programming and "mangling" that have occurred over the last 50 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been setting up audio equipment all day for this event:

http://igor.richmond.edu/3p/

One of the pieces to be performed is for "amplified children and trampoline." Last year there was a dude who hooked up a couple dozen bike tire pumps into different whistles in all these weird, weird combinations, and then he put it all through a bunch of delays and sequenced electronic stuff--all going through an 8 channel concert hall speaker setup.

That's instrumentally innovative I guess, then there's just plain ole contemporary art music--which there's a ton of.

Innovation is relative, and you'll be surprised just how far out it can get. The stuff you've been posting feels like a folk song compared to some of the stuff I've been exposed to lately (read: assigned to listen to).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJaC1tVoSm4

They also performed one of my compositions:

http://www.patrickmusick.com/music.html (Corporate Ladder)

Also, it's a big mistake to lable certain things you find distasteful a random mash-up. Some things are a mash-up, but some things have a ton of thought and experience behind them, and lots of people may find it beautiful. (Eighth Blackbird's most recent concert here at Richmond garned really positive, even spiritual reviews by many attendees. There was one couple there asking the group which CD would be best as a lullaby CD for their toddler.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is way off.. those guys don't have a monopoly on all the advances in sampling, synthesis, processing, programming and "mangling" that have occurred over the last 50 years.

No, but my point is those people actually changed how music is viewed and composed. The technological advances that have been made have allowed new artists to synthesize, process, program and mangle, but what I'm saying is that the only thing that's changed in this picture is the technology used to make music. People like Stravinski and Shoenberg were the first to really experiment with music and change our ideas about what music is. The innovation in the electronic scene has been mostly about the creating and manipulating of new and existing sounds, but that didn't give us free tonality or a new 12-tone scale the way Debussy or Shoenberg did. Even jazz was a return to former styles of improvised music that was prevalent before the standardization of Major and Minor scales, only the intstruments used were different.

So to sum up; I'm not saying sampling and synthesis isn't innovative, it was a revolution in the way music is made. I was just playing devil's advocate when I brought up the larger context of music and pointed out that the electronic scene was primarily about manipulating and creating new kinds of sounds, not as an innovation to music composition or tonality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Innovation is relative, and you'll be surprised just how far out it can get. The stuff you've been posting feels like a folk song compared to some of the stuff I've been exposed to lately (read: assigned to listen to).

Perception is relative. The 'science' of music isn't. Anything involving structured creation is not relative because it exists in an tangible and quantifiable sense. It's how it makes you feel which is the relative part.

Also, it's a big mistake to lable certain things you find distasteful a random mash-up. Some things are a mash-up, but some things have a ton of thought and experience behind them, and lots of people may find it beautiful. (Eighth Blackbird's most recent concert here at Richmond garned really positive, even spiritual reviews by many attendees. There was one couple there asking the group which CD would be best as a lullaby CD for their toddler.)

I didn't label anything, I just said it happens. Many people do mashups simply as a means to an end, such as making money. They honestly could care less what they do, they only do it because in their mind "some fool will listen to this and give me money". Can we always identify who does this exactly? Well, no. But perception and connotation are different from intent. Some people steal but that does not make Bob or whoever you want be a thief.

And thank you for your contribution, by the way. Interesting things there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...