Jump to content

Truly innovative music


gwilendiel
 Share

Recommended Posts

My point entirely! That is the objective measure right there.

What? How is that objective at all? Off the top of my head, Indian music actually has a far more rigid melodic structure than Western music...

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.

I still disagree with this pretty wholeheartedly. For example, nobody in the academic world would dispute Stockhausen's status as extremely innovative (in the normal sense of the word) yet he almost exclusively focused on concepts like chance music and manipulation of sound. Music is not just notes and rhythms, it is also timbres, so by definition anyone who is creating new timbres is being musically innovative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

LAoS, awesome posts.

zircon, the Noisia track is awesome. Production is great. It sounds a lot like "the future."

You know in movies when they are in the future and they're trying to make music that sounds like it's "the future," but it was usually crap like Total Recall and the music sounded like 80's crap - two buttholes rubbing together. That stuff? The only thing I've come across that actually "feels" like "the future" music to me is like Garage/DnB stuff from the UK. Check out this track, especially at 2:55 - http://soundcloud.com/mj-cole/battle-stations-ep-preview-128k

But that's just my opinion.

i no rite?!.lol

I'm really enjoying the posts in this thread 'cause I've needed a little "mental musical challenge" lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

zircon: I still disagree with this pretty wholeheartedly. For example, nobody in the academic world would dispute Stockhausen's status as extremely innovative (in the normal sense of the word) yet he almost exclusively focused on concepts like chance music and manipulation of sound. Music is not just notes and rhythms, it is also timbres, so by definition anyone who is creating new timbres is being musically innovative.

Yeah, me too. I disagree. Even more is the production and sound design. I just can't see how the old guys would have found Squarepusher in any way comparative to their music. They probably would have just listened to it and had their brains melted inside their heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? How is that objective at all? Off the top of my head, Indian music actually has a far more rigid melodic structure than Western music...

All the more reason it's objective! It isn't a false dilemma or a Hobson's choice. The existence of more than one rigid structure supports the idea even more, if in different arenas.

So for a hypothetical example, you have something that is unheard of in Western music, but might even be commonplace in Indian music. The Western and Indian 'circles' may have relativity to each other, but on their own they can be measured objectively. So yeah, an unheard of element in Western music - Take away Indian music, un-invent it - that does not change what exists in the Western standard. Or the opposite, take away Western music, and what was unheard of becomes commonplace because what you have left is the Indian structure.

I still disagree with this pretty wholeheartedly. For example, nobody in the academic world would dispute Stockhausen's status as extremely innovative (in the normal sense of the word) yet he almost exclusively focused on concepts like chance music and manipulation of sound. Music is not just notes and rhythms, it is also timbres, so by definition anyone who is creating new timbres is being musically innovative.

Well yes, yes it can be. Omission is not always disregard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still disagree with this pretty wholeheartedly. For example, nobody in the academic world would dispute Stockhausen's status as extremely innovative (in the normal sense of the word) yet he almost exclusively focused on concepts like chance music and manipulation of sound. Music is not just notes and rhythms, it is also timbres, so by definition anyone who is creating new timbres is being musically innovative.

Yeah, good point.

Actually, when you put it that way I kind of agree with you more than I agree with myself. o_O

I guess my thinking about this whole thing had become pretty uptight. Too many strands to keep in the old duder's head... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know in movies when they are in the future and they're trying to make music that sounds like it's "the future," but it was usually crap like Total Recall...

Definitely. On that note, I think you'd really appreciate this, because it's the complete opposite approach:

If you've never seen that, you're in for a laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too many strands to keep in the old duder's head... :D

It has less to do with standards and more to do with what is.

For example, by universe standards, planets that support life are rare (Earth being the only one we know of). That's just how it is. It's objective because it is what exists in fact. It becomes relative if a second universe exists that contains all planets which support life, but that does not change the first universe. It's also relative if hypothetically Earth were the only planet to exist - it wouldn't be rare because we would have nothing to compare to and therefore no concept - but that is not relative in actuality because it is not fact in this universe. We only know one universe but we do not call it rare just because there's only one that we know of.

I don't know why that is hard to grasp... and I really didn't want things to go this way. I'm really getting off track way too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too many strands to keep in the old duder's head... :D

@gwilendiel

That was actually just a Big Lebowski quote... my lame attempt at being funny in light of the fact that I was kind of a little bit dead wrong.

Though right now it just looks like a huge promotion for the Wild Arms project, which is okay too :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@gwilendiel

That was actually just a Big Lebowski quote... my lame attempt at being funny in light of the fact that I was kind of a little bit dead wrong.

Though right now it just looks like a huge promotion for the Wild Arms project, which is okay too :D

Ahh, thats alright. I have a headache and I get cranky and tend to ramble when I don't feel well anyway.

But yeah. I wasn't trying to label things in a 'this is how it is in the whole world way'. That wouldn't even be objective because it isn't true in reality, but people seem to be taking it that way.... I'm not looking at things in a stiff regard, nor am I being pretentious. That is in fact what I am trying to beyond in this thread. I want to do away with opinions for a moment (as much as is practical anyway) and truly explore what drives people to do what they have done, and the effects it has had on reality - whether it be rediscovering a thousand year old technique, or something that was only considered 'new' on the western half of the planet or whatever... generalizations which are too broad or opinionated ultimatums were not my intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the double post, but this just occurred to me.

We can break this down even further and try and get rid of some of this confusion.

There is a science to music, as I alluded to earlier. Nearly everyone who isn't tone deaf can agree when something is in tune, or in harmony. With a few exceptions due to harmonics of particular instruments, notes fall into harmony with each other for purely mechanical reasons. This is why it is easily recognized and duplicated. That is part of the objective science of music. The thing about it, and the thing that comes down to preference, is what harmony do you use, or when is it good to be dissonant?

The same concept applies to nearly every other component of anything which you could choose to call music. Meter is pattern, (or lack thereof at times). It is a mechanical application, a clock for example is analogous to a fixed meter. It is so fixed in fact, that we keep time of day with it - you can't get much more mechanical than that.

So everything has a science behind it, because at some point it stops being an idea and becomes a physical manifestation with real world effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mind you, innovation can be innovation for the time as well. I'd just like to point that out. Mozart was innovative, and he is long dead.

Get my drift? :)

Edit: and furthermore, innovation is what it is, I'm more interested in styles that truly bucked the system at some point. Things that make people say 'that isn't music!' I'm just looking for the elements, they could be modern emulation, or in a work that is not by the original pioneer of that element. So long as it was at some point something that made some people go 'WTF, you aren't supposed to do that!'

I suppose old rock from the 50's and many other things technically would count, but I'm looking for exceptional and notable elements. Like using electric guitar for the first time is innovative, but it isn't far fetched either.

So, this thread blew up into seven pages and I don't really want to read all of them...

But I assumed you meant innovative music for *now*. Like I said, there hasn't been any real innovation in music since the mid 90s, and that's pretty much only due to electrical sounds that were being fiddled with from the 80s. At this point, it's all just mixing and matching styles, not defining anything new, so you'll be hard pressed to find something innovative going on within the last ten years.

If you want innovation in music *theory* (like you eluded to in the initial post), look up John Cage and any of the rest of those pretentious jerkoffs who try to pass their noise as music, and this was all happening in the 50s and 60s. As for things that mose people would consider *music* in a science form, you're better off looking into Miles Davis and the like from the earlier half of the century who developed modern modal harmony.

But again, I'm going to stick with my statement that (unless there is something going on that I'm unaware of underground), you're not going to find anything really innovative in music in the last decade. Nothing that is *currently* innovative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cassiodorus (6th century AD) defined music as "the knowledge of proper measurement."

I think there is truth to that.

Logically it must have truth to it, because music must be measured in some way in order to be created in the first place, not to mention the conscious of the artist will always measure in some form, even if they don't realize it.

As an absurd example, let's make an imaginary song. We will only use one long unbroken sample of white noise. It would be unintelligible to most if not all human ears, it cannot be measured or distinguished from other white noise, probably not even by the creator. However, if you consider timbre, as zircon brought up, you now have a way to distinguish and measure the song as a structure that has some form of character to it, it no longer is the same white noise as any other generic white noise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, this thread blew up into seven pages and I don't really want to read all of them...

But I assumed you meant innovative music for *now*. Like I said, there hasn't been any real innovation in music since the mid 90s, and that's pretty much only due to electrical sounds that were being fiddled with from the 80s. At this point, it's all just mixing and matching styles, not defining anything new, so you'll be hard pressed to find something innovative going on within the last ten years.

If you want innovation in music *theory* (like you eluded to in the initial post), look up John Cage and any of the rest of those pretentious jerkoffs who try to pass their noise as music, and this was all happening in the 50s and 60s. As for things that mose people would consider *music* in a science form, you're better off looking into Miles Davis and the like from the earlier half of the century who developed modern modal harmony.

But again, I'm going to stick with my statement that (unless there is something going on that I'm unaware of underground), you're not going to find anything really innovative in music in the last decade. Nothing that is *currently* innovative.

Sadly, I think I have to partly agree... but I also must partly disagree. I don't know where this attitude about 'pretentious' things comes from either. And you tacking 'jerkoff' onto it smells of closed mindedness, but then again, you missed the thread, along with all the examples and clarifications. But you don't want to read it, so go on not reading it - it makes no difference either way if you proceed away from here with incomplete information thinking you know something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Western music began arbitrarily adopting rigid forms of music and tonality for no reason.

Read to this, and now I must post again.

Tonality is tonality for a reason, actually. There is a reason that we adopted it, and it goes pretty rigidly with the overtone series. It was developed over the course of almost a thousand years. Harmonization first happened in octaves, and around the 12th century or so, started happening at the fifth, the next highest note above the fundamental in the overtone series. This meant harmonization worked well because there was already a strong voicing of the fifth in the fundmental note. From there, thirds were added, the major third being the next highest unrepeated note. The overtone series is a science of physics and is the entire basis of Western music. Much more evolution happened out of this, but that would take up days of typing and research, which I don't feel like doing.

My point is that the tonal system was developed for a reason, is absolutely not arbitrary in the least, and has scientific backup behind it.

And although the tonal system was pretty much abandoned around 1900 for the modal system, it's still a system based on very similar concepts.

And as a sidenote, something that I missed in my previous thread. Yes, people were pioneers at the time of pioneering these styles, and every style had to be pioneered at some point, but people are quoting bands that are only rehashing and mixing styles that were already around, not actually pioneering anything.

To me, pioneering is moving forward, and there has been no forward momentum in music for some time. It's all spreading and sideways momentum at this point, and has been for over a decade.

And Gwil, listen to this "composition" bu John Cage, and tell me he's not a pretentious jerkoff. Tell me I'm wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJagb7hL0E

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already addressed all of what you just did. But again, you do not want to read the thread.

I've read it now, and I don't know where the pioneering was addressed. All I meant was that I hadn't read the whole thread and wanted to reply before I forgot what I was going to reply to.

If you want to break down aspects of music, then you could see where there is any forward motion going on.

Melody: Evolves alongside harmony

Harmony: With the exceptions of John Cage and the likes (in the 50s and 60s), not much going on here since the days of Miles DAvis and John Coltrane.

Rhythm: In modern music, Jazz is again the winner, with nothing really *new* here since funk anticipations, or if you want to split hairs, some EDM in the 90s, although that's nothing really groundbreaking, just throwing a different spin on existing rhythm.

Timbre: The only place where there has been innovation anytime recently with synthesized sound, and this stopped being innovative in the 90s, which again was only an extreme of the developments of the 80s.

Dynamics: Return to the Romantic period and that's about the most innovation you'll get here.

Orchestration/Instrumentation: Again, nobody has innovated anything passed John Cage, and most people don't consider kettles being dropped as music.

And was I was commenting on about people posting non-innovative stuff as pioneering... for instance, the Venetian Snares post. That song was around in 2002, I think the video said. That style was pioneered at some point, but that song wasn't an example of a pioneering piece of music. He was doing the same things that people had been doing since the 90s, so whether that style had been innovative at some point or not, I wouldn't consider that song to be innovative.

So, on that note, I'll leave someone that I believe to be innovative, as in having *forward* motion in music, instead of sideways motion, for its time. If you can find an example of forward motion in music in the last ten years, I would like to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re: IBBIAZ

That's the thing. I've said it probably a dozen times now - who did it and when is irrelevant.

And you just posted good example of improvisation and breaking structure for the sake of more artistic form. It's the form! The form! No matter how many people borrow from it, or who made it, or whatever, there is still the form which makes it what it is, unlike some 'contemporary' easy listening music which is as homogeneous and unoffensive as one can get, and is done that way intentionally.

I wonder if we take a random piece and really examine it, how many 'broken rules' would we find? For example, the Printer Jam remix by Barbarix which I posted actually contains elements similar to classical music, yet to many people who don't know how to listen, the timbres and filthy dubbing along with the heavy use of dissonance tends to hide this fact, and they will say it is just noise.

Anyway, on a lighter note... back to Mozart!

331 mvt.1 (part 1)

and (part 2)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'd like people to listen to this

Even though this isn't the feedback forum, and that I don't consider myself in any way 'innovative', I was inspired by innovative things and wanted to try something new to me to break free of things I felt were holding me back.

So I used Milky Tracker and made the above song. I got the idea to 'draw' music by hand, and that is basically what I did; I drew all the samples by hand, and plotted the notes on the tracker piano roll. There are no sliders, no filters, no effects, except the slight reverb on one instrument which is made of actual 'echo' notes placed manually, but it isn't a filter or preset either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I'm gonna bump this thread for a remix that I think is innovative (not in a big huge "THIS WILL CHANGE MUSIC" way, but in its own little way):

http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01267/

I don't feel like having to go back and read through this thread right now, but I can list some artists that I think are innovative in their own ways later. One example I can think of right now is Captain Beefheart, especially his album "Trout Mask Replica". I think innovation is and should be gradual, though. The idea that you have to know the rules to be able to break them is also bullshit to me. I think that results in overly cerebral and awkward music most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you of many many many many examples that fit the bill.

I am a bit of a classical music buff, from Bach to Boulez.

That latter sounds pretty crazy if you're not used to modern music.

But instead, I'll showcase a song by one of the best composers of the 20th century: the guy in my sig. All of his music rocks, hands down:

He doesn't so much as skirt the rules as much as take every single rule there is, looks at them, throws most of them out the window, and then keeps the ones he likes and makes beautiful music from it.

I hope someone listens and enjoys the piece. It's hauntingly amazing.

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...