Innovation

this is a very tricky question, I guess at the moment the grime stuff sounds to me, like the most innovative music around, in the sense that it has that wow factor and is difficult to compare satisfactorily with any music which has been made already.

I think modes of production are fairly important.

x-post

First and foremost, music has to sound pleasant and entertaining for the listener.

This, of course, doesn't mean it may not be innovative as well. The Beatles were extremely innovative almost all the time, but they rarely lost their ability to sound nice and pleasant and highly melodic & harmonic.

Not to be a dick, but this view was called into question rigorously -- both theoretically and through specific pieces -- like half a century ago.

When people talk about content in pop music they tend to focus on its lyrics, yes? This was pointed out by Simon Reynolds aaaaages ago, probably by others before him too, and lots of people have struggled to redress that. But isn't it also the case that when people talk about innovation in pop they tend to focus everywhere but the lyrics?

Seriously though it's an interesting area, I think similar to musical innovation there's a MASSIVE prejudice about real lyrical innovation and a massive weight of expectation for lyrics to be some form of poetry or something, the old if it's amusing it can't be worthwhile chestnut. Or if it's direct and easy to understand it can't be worthwhile.

The only song I can think of which is regularly canonised for having 'innovative lyrics' is "The Message" (and that's very disputable) - and Bob Dylan is in a sort of general sense.

I basically don't think he's had anything new to say since very early on (which is a big reason why he records so rarely), but people seem to be so in love with him that they don't care or seem to notice.

of course, I also think Bob Dylan's output of the last 25 years is worthless and embarrassing, so I'm not really in the majority on much around here (which is why I almost never post).

― jon abbey, Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:05 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

anyway, my first comment was two years ago, and was a simple answer to "Classic or Dud?". I'll stick by that and let whoever wants to think that I'm a brainless fool for said position.

― jon abbey, Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:07 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Well, Jon, I respect this opinion (not that you care for my respect).

Although some people don't mind if someone sticks with a thing and doesn't say anything new.

― bamcquern, Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:25 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

"Although some people don't mind if someone sticks with a thing and doesn't say anything new."

sure, this is a position I see expressed more and more by jazz fans/critics/musicians these days, innovation isn't important. it has a lot to do with why I'm no longer a jazz fan, as innovation in music generally is pretty important to me (not that it's always possible, but at least try).

― jon abbey, Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:37 PM (59 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

innovation in music generally is pretty important to me (not that it's always possible, but at least try)

How do you define innovation in 2009? Who is innovating, and what are they doing that is innovative? Are there new chords being discovered/invented? New scales? New meters? New instruments? Or are we just talking about advances in recording technology and/or incremental adjustments in technique applied to existing instruments?

― unperson, Sunday, June 28, 2009 5:01 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Phil, that would be a pretty long and involved discussion, but you basically know my answer anyway and I'm pretty sure you don't agree.

― jon abbey, Sunday, June 28, 2009 5:04 PM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I'd actually be interested in hearing the answer though.

(And you don't see any innovation in 70s Ornette?)

― Sundar, Sunday, June 28, 2009 5:07 PM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i was tempted to ask that

i don't know; at the RFH there was a sense of "look! i can ornette over any kind of music i want!"

― thomp, Sunday, June 28, 2009 5:16 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

"And you don't see any innovation in 70s Ornette?"

no, he just added electricity to the same ideas.

"I'd actually be interested in hearing the answer though."

OK, I'll take a shot, although it's stretching the original topic at best. for anyone who doesn't know, I run Erstwhile Records, and have for the last ten years specialized in electroacoustic improvisation. so while obviously that's my bias, previously to that I was just a fan (of many different areas of music), and the only reason I work with the musicians that I do is that I believe in their music, not because they were friends of mine or they live in my city. so with that in mind, Phil's questions:

"How do you define innovation in 2009? Who is innovating, and what are they doing that is innovative?"

actions speak louder than words, so I'll enter into evidence the 60 or so CDs I've released in the last decade, the best 30-40 of which I think qualify as genuinely new music. if you need a few specific names, Keith Rowe, Toshimaru Nakamura, Sachiko M, Burkhard Stangl, Ami Yoshida, Jason Lescalleet and a slew of others to various extents.

"Are there new chords being discovered/invented? New scales? New meters? New instruments?"

chords, scales and meters are all meaningless in this music (at least to the limited extent of my understanding of those terms). new instruments in some cases, yeah.

"Or are we just talking about advances in recording technology and/or incremental adjustments in technique applied to existing instruments?"

no, I'm (pretty much solely) talking about the end result, which at its best combines the energy of free improv with an extremely wide palette of sounds, whether they be electronics, extended techniques on conventional instruments, or whatever mixture.

it's really hard to talk in generalities like this for me, but there's a brief shot since Sundar asked.

― jon abbey, Sunday, June 28, 2009 5:20 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark

Innovation for innovation's own sake is useless.
― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Tuesday, December 16, 2003 7:01 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think this is completely OTM. Innovation needs to be in service to something in order to be effective; it has to explore emotional ground or answer a question in order for it to translate to a wider audience than the innovator. You see a lot of this in contemporary choral music, particularly in overly-fussy mixed meter pieces where the composer would have been better off just eschewing bar lines altogether and writing out their lines chant-style, since that's the end effect of what they are trying to do anyway.

(This opinion is completely being informed by some of the irritating pieces I'm currently rehearsing for a concert. 20th century composers can be such a scourge.)

I disagree here -- I'm not saying there aren't tons of irritating pieces of "innovative" music that are no fun to listen to, BUT innovation for innovation's sake is pretty much how, say, live improvisation happens (among other things). There are other factors, such as listening and reacting to one's environment -- but the root of it is trying to pull out something you couldn't have predicted, and have it be a new thing, just because new things and exploration are important. I believe a lot of great art happens when people are trying to be innovative just for the sake of doing it. When you tie to some need of "usefulness", you constrict its freedom, its likelihood to really be something that has never, er, "been" before.

but yes, clearly this is going to result in lots of things that don't necessarily work for most listeners (or composers for that matter)

I disagree that live improvisation is innovation for innovation's sake. My take on live improvisation is that is a form of communication analogous to conversation; there's not a script that is being followed but the things you are doing are informed by what is being given to you, all in an attempt to communicate "something" (where that something is entirely dependent upon the intent of the players and could be an incredibly deep emotional experience or showing off how someone has mastered mixolydian mode).

(IOW, I don't see "to create something new" as the sole endpoint of live improvisation; there is a missing/implied "that communicates X" where X is not necessarily defined before the improvisation starts or is understood to be the same thing by all of the people participating)

Agree with DJP on this. Derek Bailey was famous for his improvisational rigor, never playing the same thing twice, constantly collaborating with new people in ad hoc duo and trio situations, etc., but listening blindfolded, you could tell it was Derek Bailey in two seconds. Within the context of his highly individualistic style, which he never altered for anybody, playing something "new" would have meant suddenly sounding like Carlos Santana or Yngwie Malmsteen for 10 seconds, then reverting back to doing his usual Derek Bailey scrape-and-ping thing.

well, it's not the same approach as compositions, re: innovation. But the same lack of constriction IN EXPRESSION is there. There is always a constriction of some kind in music, improvised or composed, I guess I just don't want to necessarily put at the *intent* level. I wouldn't want to start out a piece thinking I had to be "useful" to someone, or start out as an improviser thinking I was required to appeal to someone. The license for innovation at that level, for me, has to be a given -- and then let the cards fall where they may, as far as who does or doesn't find it engaging.

(improv was a bad example on my part anyway, should have just stuck to composition like DJP's post)

I think the sticking point here and where we might be crossing lines/talking past each other is that I don't think there should be a particular restriction always present on the side of music generation, but I do think that the music that sticks with and communicates to people is conveying something more than just pure innovation. The process and the process and people should be as restricted or as unrestricted as their personal muses/ideas want them to be.

music that sticks with and communicates to people is conveying something more than just pure innovation

totally agree here. That's the magic moment when, as a music generator (haha), I'm amazed that something from inside me resonated with someone else, and everyone's happy

I can't see how innovation for innovation's sake is possible, or even conceivable, really. To innovate is to change things in a big way, for the better, once and for all. Surely pursuing something so ephemeral is to neglect the actual music itself and therefore it can never actually succeed by definition? It just seems like to believe in the possibility/necessity of manufacturing innovation and then pursue it is absurd. Hubris might be the word. Weird, weird notion to me. Very Kafka, or Sisyphean, or something. Trying to be innovative by innovating innovations... might as well try to get to The Castle!

However, novelty for novelty's sake -- that is conceivable to me. And abhorrent, conceptually, but perhaps not without merit in the form of actual cultural artifacts... I will always love that undeniably stupid novelty song "Louie Louie", for instance. I can easily imagine purposefully writing a stupid, though novel, song about cats smoking bongs with the intent of it going to #1 for novelty reasons. The purposeful writing of a stupid, though innovative, song about cats smoking bongs which will go to #1 just seems impossible.

I feel certain all I or any artist can really do is try his/her best to add something worthwhile to the library of the world's great works. And sometimes that's what happens and we get innovation. I feel like real innovation can only result from an imprecise and rare magical alchemy of timing and opportunity and sheer talent. And absolutely not from intent.

Sonic and conceptual and improvised experiments (most of which are doomed to fail, as a rule) are certainly legitimate and wonderful, in my opinion. Experimenting for experimentation's sake -- great!!! Yeah, I probably don't want to hear it unless performed by some exceptionally inspired artist, but I will always think it is marvelous that people are out there working through these ideas, relentlessly and merely for the satisfaction of doing good work and accomplishing tangible things (well, that is my personal artistic motive, anyway.) All work stands on (or falls off of) the shoulders of giants and I have a feeling in the future, with its fractured and web-streamed musical landscape, many of our generation's giants will be invisible ones. This could be good or bad, who knows.

Ultimately, I certainly wish innovation for innovation's sake was a real thing and there were people out there doing it. It sure is exciting when innovation happens!!! I wish we had expert Innovators, reliably bringing all of us up to higher levels of artistic insight, but I don't and can't believe in such a class of people. Right now, I think it could make a good sci fi story -- imagine some kind of unknowable alien species hell-bent on being innovative to the point of destroying the universe, or something, because that is the only innovation left!

I think that's interesting -- I guess it depends on how you approach "innovation". The way you describe it, it's closer to a mutation, a random development that happens to stick, and then influence many others. I'm viewing it more from the POV of the creator, as an invitation to not shy away from doing new things, to opening one's own art to a kind of chaos and freedom that doesn't depend on anyone else approving (and no, that doesn't necessarily mean something truly new comes out of the process). Still, to me, that's the best way to do new things -- like a perpetual innovation of oneself -- and is a lot harder to stick to than one might think.

I guess ultimately "innovation" is in the ear of the beholder, and one man's innovation might be another's novelty.

I think an artist like Colin Stetson is useful to look at in this context; I find him to be a pretty singular performer in that I don't know anyone else who does what he does with reed instruments or makes music the way that he does, layering circular breathing, vocalizations and percussion without looping into well-formed virtuoso pieces that I'm not sure anyone but him could perform... but now that he is doing what he is doing, others can study his technique and how he doing what he is doing and replicate it. You could argue that his style is the closest one could get to innovation for the sake of innovation; it's certainly a singular way to make music using a saxophone.

I don't know anyone else who does what he does with reed instruments

You should check out Evan Parker. He's the first person that sprang to mind when I heard Stetson. Parker's been employing many of those same techniques since the 70s.

And Parker picked it up from Roscoe Mitchell:
https://youtu.be/ljsqEVniA58

That's a whole style I'm ignorant of outside of Stetson so it's great to get the names of his predecessors!

I think you'd like the Art Ensemble of Chicago, DJP. Mitchell formed the group in the mid '60s along with trumpeter Lester Bowie, bassist Malachi Favors and eventually saxophonist Joseph Jarman and percussionist Famoudou Don Moye. Their music blends high-level abstraction with multiple forms of jazz going back to the '20s, more vernacular forms (funk, blues, reggae), and a lightheartedness that kept it from feeling like homework (their percussion setup, which multiple members would play, included everything from giant gongs to bicycle horns). Bowie was married to R&B/gospel singer Fontella Bass, who collaborated with the Art Ensemble on a couple of albums.

Lester Bowie is a name I recognize but I don't know any of his work.

Thanks for the recommendations!

A lot of their albums drift in and out of print, but the live Bap-Tizum or the studio disc Fanfare For The Warriors, both on Atlantic, are good starting points. After that, go backwards to the giant pile of stuff they recorded in 1969-70 while they were living in Paris (A Jackson In Your House, Message To Our Folks, People In Sorrow, Reese And The Smooth Ones, Tutankhamun, Certain Blacks, Go Home, Chi-Congo, Phase One and The Spiritual).