How much do creativity, innovation and artistry in music matter to you?

Not looking for a fight, really - more seeking to understand why ILM is the way it is, especially in its stance towards overtly commercial music.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp2/features/wallpaper/images/800/chicory_tip.jpg

this much

or ok I'm drunk. somewhat? define terms?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp2/features/wallpaper/images/800/chicory_tip.jpg

― scott seward, Wednesday, October 2, 2013 4:08 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ILM is not "one way", it's a self-differential multiplicity, dawg

a) what do you listen to music for?

b) when you hear music, what makes you think 'ah YES'? a solid, well-delivered hook, a rhythm you weren't expecting, or a combination of novelty and expectedness? clearly there are grey areas, different moods. work through them.

difficult to come back from that first response tbf, this thread had better go some

Immanent ILM invoked so as to heighten controversy, appear a personal address to each individual visiting this thread, bud

"innovation" begs the question of context- innovation against the backdrop of which previous examples, measured by what yardstick, as an expression of whose values?

"artistry" too- it just seems an empty term beneath which other ideologies or value systems are hiding ("years of conservatory training"? "virtuosity"? "shredding"? "tightness"? "lyrical honesty"? "lyrical depth"?)- i.e. it seems like an incoherent placeholder for free range frustration that people like X too much or don't like Y enough- too much for whom? not enough for whom?

if you want concrete evidence of ILM valuing what I think you might mean, try this thread:

Strange scales and temperament, tracks and discussion

i.e. we don't all love HAIM around here, so chill out

I bumped that thread the other day hoping it would get going again and it didn't :(

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ln3mcbZSX01qk1j9vo1_500.jpg

I only like noncreative, bland music

this might explain why I own a Mr. Mister album

scott's pic is worth 10,000 posts itt. basically there's a limit to how 'creative' one can get before i start utterly hating them.

You're right that I need to unpack 'innovation' and 'creativity' from my own perspective - I left them vague as I know they probably mean different things to different people.

Innovation IMO is as simple as 'I've not heard this done much like that before'. There's a sliding scale where 'much' can become 'anything' or 'quite'.

Artistry IMO is the effort to produce the sharpest, purest or most intelligent expression of one's creative design. It is as opposed to Compromise. Ultimately it can only come from the artist themselves, but I think it's often possible to detect when a great deal of effort, precision or imagination has been put into a work

http://fillip.ca/content/what-is-a-participatory-practice

feel like the subtitle for this thread could be "Which era of Genesis do you prefer?"

Innovation IMO is as simple as 'I've not heard this done much like that before

i feel like i heard loads of innovation when i was 2 and then it gradually tapered off as i got older

Creativity and innovation aren't polar opposites to "overtly commercial music", which I *think* you are implying.

My sense is that I value all the characteristics mentioned in the thread title but, equally, I've said on a thread about Creosote/Hopkins that I'd happily condemn them to a life-time of making variations of "Diamond Mine" so there are times when I contradict myself.

What I want from music changes according to life. Bereavements have changed my listening, studying has changed my listening and so on.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NhHzH48sapM/UKY6x2G-6sI/AAAAAAAATUY/qA0DwfJ-6kQ/s1600/Were+Still+Here!.jpg

creativity, innovation and artistry in which area? composition? lyrics? arrangements and production? presentation and ideas?

it seems to me that humans in general (not just in music) respond to a certain sweet spot in novelty, where something is just new enough while still having a connection to something familiar. then the level of popularity is proportional to how well the music hits that sweet spot, combined with how popular the familiar aspects are at the current time. so a creative new spin on a popular old or new style will do better than a creative new spin on an unpopular style obviously, even if both pieces of music could somehow be objectively measured to be equally creative and innovative.

loads of xps

i feel like i heard loads of innovation when i was 2 and then it gradually tapered off as i got older

― You don’t get that at your local UK Garage club (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, October 2, 2013 10:30 PM (37 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well exactly. i was much more forgiving in my tastes when i was young, now i'm a picky cunt :)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/

Creativity and innovation aren't polar opposites to "overtly commercial music", which I *think* you are implying.

I agree and the exceptions are a joy to hear but ultimately commercial music is the friend of Compromise

Shall we have concerts of music? The miserable state of mechanism of the majority of performers is so conspicuous, as to be even at this day a topic of mortification and ridicule. Will it not be practicable hereafter for one man to perform the whole?....It may be doubted whether any musical performer will habitually execute the compositions of others. We yield supinely to the superior merit of our predecessors, because we are accustomed to indulge the inactivity of our own faculties. All formal repetition of other men's ideas seems to be a scheme for imprisoning for so long a time the operations of our own mind.

Right but a lot of outer-limits music makes its own compromise with not being enjoyable to listen to. xp

Enjoyable for some!

ARGH I guess it's all tailored for some taste - just that some are tailored for more obviously widespread tastes. ban me

"compromise" is meaningless and irrelevant to the discussion.

when I was younger I was more easily awed by interesting and novel sounds but as I get older all I care about are good songs.

Punk should never have happened.
James Brown should never have happened.

The Beatles found the perfect formula and future musicans should stick to that one. No need for "innovation".

What's a good song? A watertight narrative that flows from verse to chorus with sturdy logic? A piece that makes you want to cry with its evocation of emotional heft?

both?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp2/features/wallpaper/images/800/chicory_tip.jpg

emerson, lake, palmer & barrett

what this always, always, always boils down to is:

you use a set of words to identify qualities that must belong to music that you love, then you deny that those qualities are present in music that you don't love, although somebody else might want to say that they are. argue a bit about an objective definition of the words you're using positively, use a different set of words to indicate qualities that you personally dislike and argue that those words are objectively oh i can't do this

just realised that my DN is probably the name of the band in that photo

fuck

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mnzms07leow/T0QUnLstSII/AAAAAAAAByg/vFisVH4BkUs/s1600/Ozymandias%2B3.jpg

NV otm

crut impersonating Geir for some reason

First two not at all last one i'll take a large dash off

What's a good song? A watertight narrative that flows from verse to chorus with sturdy logic? A piece that makes you want to cry with its evocation of emotional heft?

I'm using "song" loosely there as an alternative to "composition." But for me it means a catchy memorable melody first and foremost. interesting harmony is a bonus and I like a structure that keeps moving, stays interesting, and has some contrast in it. you should be able to sing and play it on piano and still recognize that it's great, and get it stuck in your head. so in order, I respond to composition, arrangement/production/sonics, performance, then lyrics. but any of those factors can rise to a level where it trumps the others and I can sometimes enjoy listening to amazing drumming on a mediocre song. that's somewhat rare though.

with jazz or other improvised music, I like it best when it's centered around an interesting composition at its core, and when it's not as in a lot of free improvisation, I listen to it for those moments when everything comes together as though it were an amazing composition, or when the performance rises to that level I was talking about where it trumps everything else.

man oh man is this exactly the sort of question that would get you slice and diced in my old philosophy of musical aesthetics class - 1/2 grad bound philo peeps, 1/2 comp/classical music grad students.

no offense intended to you dude, but yeah the problem here is that you are forming an unanswerable question by basically taking three ill/undefined things (prob one) and then asking about their importance (bigger problem 2) to a global audience (prob 3) as applied to their individual interpretations (explosive problem nuclear tactical 4)

OK, thanks :)

So, melody, relatability, repeatability - the pleasure of something which seeks to engage its audience copiously and directly

xxp

yeah but JJJ, you know the drill. I start this thread to GET sliced, and I'm wiser at the end. Have the last seven years taught you nothing of my style? :D

Nobody really cares enough to slice about this stuff anymore tbh man

i think the music that most interests me could not be described as creative, innovative or having 'artistry' -- primarily folk idioms, songs w/out authorship... the music i like that i imagine would best fit your criteria are more complex/innovative forms that are heavily influenced from popular/communal sounds. the best music is def communal/participatory music making / singing which suggests to me that all the things itt title are corruptions of true platonic essence of music. fin.

the pleasure of something which seeks to engage its audience copiously and directly

I don't really know what this means, or what the opposite of it would be. and to me relatability seems mostly relevant to lyrics. not sure how it applies to music. repeatability? not really sure what you're getting at there either. are you talking about composition vs. improvisation?

basically this was prompted by haim vs. tunabunny right?

i listened to a little haim this afternoon but it didn't connect w/ me. i've never listened to tunabunny but the name instantly puts me off. is it a reference to the well-known phenomenon where fisherman hunting for tuna often catch bunnies in their net and those same bunnies make their way into our canned tuna supply?

The fuck kinda nonsense is that where do these ppl think tuna do be, burrowing for fuckin carrots? Clowns.

The opposite would be something that slyly sneaks up, requires a lot of effort to stick with. Something ambient, confrontational or unpredictable. Relatability concerns melody - your primary criterion - and the ease with which one can allow that melody to permeate one's regular thoughts, return to it in idle moments. Repeatability = can play it many times in fairly rapid succession and not grow bored. It's from the listener's perspective, not the composer's.

Mordy is thinking of Tunadolphin a little known synthpop duo.

I mean, my favourite band is Cardiacs and they engage their audience VERY directly with enormous pop hooks and copious melodies and rhythms. Perhaps the sheer copiousness, in fact, the sheer exuberance and restless energy to entertain and thrill is the single most important factor in why I consider their music brilliant art. Perhaps we're all seeking the same fix :)

i'm primarily looking for music that makes good vibrations in my body

xxpost It's not, but it's such a clean example of "social consensus re quality of X genre" being wrong that it provides a good litmus test for any argument for pseudo-objectivity.

You could use "eighties sucks" but it's too amorphous what that refers to. And "late 90s modern rock sucks" doesn't work yet because that hasn't been critically rehabilitated yet.

Nickelback wasn't THAT bad

It begins.

inglipsummoned.gif

where is some dude

So you're saying I've flipflopped too far the other way now? This is Dialectic - ultimately I'll find my level. Right?

― check yr poptimism (imago), Friday, October 4, 2013 4:09 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well threads like this are still happening after all these years so i doubt it

― lex pretend, Friday, October 4, 2013 4:13 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

they'll probably be happening forever

― Evil Juice Box Man (LocalGarda), Friday, October 4, 2013 4:24 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

when it's not involving imago no one seems to care. when it's not involving lex on the other side no one seems to care. is this a uk class thing? no one touches this shit when the u.s. blowhard axis trots it out on the reg.

who is the u.s. blowhard axis?

can't imagine...

but are there only 3 of them as the term "axis" suggests?

name names or it didn't happen

http://www.ducksters.com/history/world_war_ii/axis_hitler_mussolini.jpg

you can always just caption the photo l-r

That's only two people

two out of three ain't bad

wk, hurting 2

xpost again, that seems like a fair call, but upthread you were talking about a consensus as to what choices are not "particularly tasteful" leading to something like "objective truth".

Where do you draw the line on this? Why wouldn't it be correct of the "disco sucks" movement?

― Tim F, Friday, October 4, 2013 12:18 PM (2 hours ago)

I was envisioning a situation where the artists themselves recognize an error, possibly an error of judgment.

Feeling a little protective of vocabulary on this issue. If I say, "All choices are compromises," I feel like what that's doing is impeding my ability to think critically about artistic realization - a subject which I think is absolutely fundamental to critical discourse.

oh yeah, timellison

I was envisioning a situation where the artists themselves recognize an error, possibly an error of judgment.

Feeling a little protective of vocabulary on this issue. If I say, "All choices are compromises," I feel like what that's doing is impeding my ability to think critically about artistic realization - a subject which I think is absolutely fundamental to critical discourse.

― timellison, Friday, October 4, 2013 10:21 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I would probably be okay with the usage in the limited sense of an artist saying "I did (or failed to do) this specific thing here that detracted from the end result of this recording." But this is a much more limited usage than is being proposed in this thread.

Even where artists later in life disown or criticise their own past works as being compromised, I often think they're wrong - from my perspective. An artist might say "I listened to the producer and allowed the arrangements to be more like X whereas if I could do this again I would make it more like Y", or "I was trying to make something that sounded like X but I have my own sound and I should have tried to stay true to that."

If we should privilege a notion of "artistic realisation" and assume that the artist has a monopoly on the question of whether they've achieved it (I'm not sure if you do either of these things - just playing out some of the implications), then they are by definition right.

I prefer an outcomes focused approach which looks at the result, asks whether it is successful as a result, and then traces back how that success came about. It may be because the artist stuck to her guns and refused to "compromise" her vision; it may be that she reluctantly (or enthusiastically, but from the vantage of her future self mistakenly) compromised her vision in a way that ultimately made the work better.

You said above that these things can be assessed on a case-by-case basis - as evidenced by the above I would agree with that. But I don't think there's anything remotely objective about it. The artist's opinion is an important one but not a decisive one.

I'd argue it would be decisive in most cases, especially if it's a case of a third party mangling the intent of the music, like when republicans use leftish music as theme songs for campaign stumping.

I was in a band once and I had a speaker cabinet where the speakers weren't very good. I think it had a bit of a ratty sound and the amplifier I had would have sounded better with newer or better or more compatible speakers. I think about recordings we made when I had that speaker cabinet and I feel like there's really no reason why someone would say that they like that sound and actually prefer it to the alternatives I have in mind that I think would have sounded better.

So I think that's an instance where I feel like something is, as I was saying yesterday, approaching objective truth. And, of course, the object in question is that speaker cabinet.

So I would say that if that's an object I can identify, then there's no reason why I can similarly identify "objects" in sound. Compositional objects or sonic objects. It seems to me that these objects, or elements, are just as real and I'm not sure that there can't be just as much seeming consensus about them.

why I *can't*

Why is it objective? "Consensus" just means "this is what taste happens to be right now." Sure we can find some examples where disagreement is almost non-existent if we look hard enough, but (a) it's not obvious that will always be the case and (b) the examples we can locate (like yours above) are so limited in scope that they can't really tell us about anything broader.

The moment you broaden out from "use of actually impaired equipment the impairment of which seems highly unlikely to be fetishised" you're starting to move into quite contested questions of taste.

Only fifteen years ago I think you would have been able to say "the notion that gated drums sound bad approaches objective truth". But there's nothing like that same consensus today.

Objective in the sense of people recognizing an object and agreeing to a fairly wide extent about what it happens to be.

The moment you broaden out from "use of actually impaired equipment the impairment of which seems highly unlikely to be fetishised" you're starting to move into quite contested questions of taste.

But maybe not always quite so contested and acknowledging the varying scale. I like to think of critical dialogue as something that inclines toward truth. It seems to me that that is the goal!

I agree that critical dialogue inclines towards truth. However, I think the idea that consensus leads to truth in matters of musical taste is highly suspect.

We have to accept the fact that while we aim for truth in critical discussions about music there is no final arbiter we can appeal to for verification.

Rather than "gated drums sound bad" you can say that a particular production choice was more likely to have been influenced by certain fleeting trends rather than prioritizing what would have been flattering to the music in the absence of such trends.

I mean they could sound good and still be a bad strategy overall

I'd argue it [the artist's sense of realization] would be decisive in most cases, especially if it's a case of a third party mangling the intent of the music, like when republicans use leftish music as theme songs for campaign stumping.

― Philip Nunez, Friday, October 4, 2013 7:14 PM (Yesterday)

with tim f on this. the artist's sense of the work's worth and relation to "what it could/should have been" is only meaningful as historical data and perhaps as part of the human-interest backstory that colors our impression of the presented work. in certain cases - as with, say, the stooges' raw power - i think it's sensible to talk in terms of "compromise". the album we know is only what could be salvaged from a clearly botched recording job, was thus profoundly compromised by circumstance. but that's merely a fact. it doesn't tell us anything at all about the album's worth in our own little subjective universes.

to be honest, i don't fully agree that "critical dialogue inclines toward truth." historical and reportorial dialogues certainly incline toward truth, and critics should be both historians and reporters. but criticism also concerns itself with subjective evaluation, with questions of philosophy, taste and artistic worth. where such considerations are concerned, criticism has almost nothing to do with truth. the relevant quality, as relates to criticism's ultimate evaluations, is honesty.

if we're talking about whether or not the artist is pleased with the final work, then yes, we can speak of "compromise" in somewhat objective terms. otoh, if we're talking about whether or not the work is any good, then narrative details of that sort become secondary considerations.

I like sounds

i don't like music. music is just organized noise, and noise is poison to the mind.

you don't have to deny Reagan his subjective universe where Springsteen's music is in tribute to Reagan's values when rejecting his authority in favor of Springsteen's over the material.

Philip I ignored that post because the analogy means nothing to this thread.

The current Breaking Bad thread on ILE provides a good example of why the Springsteen example is a misnomer. There are some critics (and others) who are taking a counter-intuitive take on what the plot of the final episode is ~supposed~ to mean. Showrunner Vincent Gilligan isn't the decisive authority on whether the final episode of the show was the best way the show could have wrapped up, or is a good episode. But he's a pretty decisive authority on the version of the plot he intended.

Similarly, Springsteen is a decisive authority on whether the anthemism of the chorus of "Born In The USA" was intended by its writer to be ironic (the context of the balance of the lyrics certainly helps). But he's not a decisive authority on whether this "works", or whether the song is as perfect an expression of his artistry as was possible or etc.

When we laugh at things like republicans drawing for Springsteen, we are laughing at their tone-deafness in not even identifying Springsteen's intentions - which are hardly obscure - rather than their failure to privilege them above every other consideration. If the true meaning of the song was obvious only to Springsteen it wouldn't be half the story it is.

dude, tread lightly, i don't go on the breaking bad thread for a reason. i'm still watching on netflix.

We can laugh at them for being out of touch but we (rightly, I think) object to their hijacking of narrative
Also note norm's objection isn't that gilligan is wrong but that he's lying

tread lightly

think I know what episode you're up to based on those words

Norm's objection is stupid to the point where I actually hope he's trolling out of boredom at this point.

xxpost you still haven't appreciated the logical distinction though - there is a difference between being an authority on intentions and an authority on outcomes.

If you accept music or any kind of art as fundamentally an expressive act then you can't separate intentions from outcomes.
In many cases you can argue that the outcome has drifted so far from the artist's intention by either ineptness, passage of time, or whatever, that the artist no longer has surrendered claim over the material but as a culture we hope to maintain some measure of fidelity and we try to do it in many ways, some more harmful than others, but I generally think it's a good thing.

No longer has/surrendered
I mean

I think you're talking about a very narrow range of outcomes. If I think X is a unsuccessful example of Y it's not persuasive that the artist intended it be a successful version of Y.

I mean I'm not even going to get into 'Death of the Author' because I was never particularly invested in arguing in this thread that the artist has no control over what the art means, merely the more limited claim that they are not the final arbiter of whether and why the result has value.

Well there is an argument to be made that born to run is an unsuccessful version because it lent itself to be interpreted that way.
Maybe Bruce even had a moment where he says to himself "what the hell did I do wrong?"

I think in most cases we'll say The Boss is the boss so we do when possible give the artist final arbiter gavels

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ySroiuyEL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

in certain cases - as with, say, the stooges' raw power - i think it's sensible to talk in terms of "compromise". the album we know is only what could be salvaged from a clearly botched recording job, was thus profoundly compromised by circumstance. but that's merely a fact. it doesn't tell us anything at all about the album's worth in our own little subjective universes.

And some people actually think the original album with it's "botched recording job" is superior to the "uncompromised" remaster

the remaster is an abomination.

another good example of "compromised" recording that is brilliant in its "failure" is The Pop Group's How Much Longer Can We Tolerate Mass Murder?

i never had a problem with the way it sounded though. it is was it is.

when i think of the thousands of recordings made in the 50's and 60's that were made in under three hours (so that nobody had to pay union overtime), it's amazing to me. entire albums. with singers and string sections and instruments and sometimes full orchestras! people were really amazing. i don't know what happened to people, but they really had something going on back then.

have you ever heard this album? quincy was probably like 23 years old when he made it. three days of sessions, and probably less than a full day's work when all is said and done. he conducted some of the most amazing musicians on earth and came up with ahead of their time arrangements. show-stopping stuff. truly another world...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/This_Is_How_I_Feel_About_Jazz.jpeg

people live longer now though. so, there is that.

i think part of it is technology -- there are so many more things one can adjust and change in the recording process -- which just makes for more decisions on the part of the "artist" or engineer

When we laugh at things like republicans drawing for Springsteen, we are laughing at their tone-deafness in not even identifying Springsteen's intentions - which are hardly obscure - rather than their failure to privilege them above every other consideration. If the true meaning of the song was obvious only to Springsteen it wouldn't be half the story it is.

i'm not sure we mock them for failing to recognize springsteen's intentions so much as we mock them for taking one line completely out of context (a particular specialty of politicians of all stripes) and ignoring all the words he's screaming fairly loudly on either side of it. i couldn't tell you what exactly the intentions of that hook are -- it could be sarcastic, ironic, celebratory, defiant and 12 other things at the same time. but i can tell you with great certainty that he's also saying "you end up like a dog that's been beat too much" and "they're still there, he's all gone," among other things that 1980s republicans didn't tend to mention.

when i think of the thousands of recordings made in the 50's and 60's that were made in under three hours (so that nobody had to pay union overtime), it's amazing to me. entire albums. with singers and string sections and instruments and sometimes full orchestras! people were really amazing. i don't know what happened to people

what happened to people is they're now recording film soundtracks the exact same way, with full orchestras and sometimes singers. a few more hours, but not a lot more hours, and they're out the door before the clock strikes overtime.