To Innovate or To Emulate?

A question I've always pondered in all things in life, most certainly applies directly to music as well. Are there any truly original ideas left in the world? Is everything just an imitation of something that came before?





Ironically, this blog idea is not mine. Thanks again, Mike. I'm not sure how many original ideas I have within me. I've learned to surround myself with people who do, though, so I guess it works out all right for me.





I've heard this debate within several spheres of life. There are people within the art world who say that there is no where left to go when it comes to painting. That would be a sad thing, but is there really a limit to what you can do with color, shape, form, and intricacy when it comes to paint on canvas? I'm no expert in this field, so I can't say. Maybe no one can until the next innovator comes along to refute that assumption.





So since this is a music blog, what about music? I once read a songwriting book that quoted one of the Gallagher brothers of Oasis, who said that there is a finite number of notes and chords that one can effectively use in popular music. He basically said everything had already been done, which explains the direction that Oasis has decided to go with their music. They are blatent emulators.





I don't really agree with this assumption. I think it is challenging to be innovative within pop music, but it doesn't mean it can't or doesn't happen. But then again, what's wrong with emulation anyway? There is a certain comfort in familiarity. Bob Dylan started his career basically emulating Woody Guthrie in every single way. Dylan didn't stick with this for long, though. Some make quite a career off of emulating what was done before. Dr. Dog, a band I've blogged about in the past, sounds like they were pulled straight out of the '60s rock scene. They do it well, though. But too much emulation can be a bit tiresome. But on the other hand, too much innovation can too. You don't want to lose your audience by going off the deep end, thank you very much Plastic Ono Band!!!





So what to do then? What are the pros and cons for both sides of the debate? How does one successfully do a little of each (which is probably the formula for success after all)? Let's look at both sides, shall we?

,

Innovation

On most accounts, it's hard to argue against innovation. Inventors aren't usually scolded for the ideas they put into practice. Who are the biggest innovators in today's music scene?



Number one has to be Radiohead. I can't think of anyone who has done more in terms of successful experimentation and innovation. Early on in their career, they were kind of your basic, good mid-'90s alt-rock band. But along comes a little album by the name of "OK Computer" and you can forever drop "run-of-the-mill" as an adjective for Radiohead. And they've continued to push the limits with albums like "Kid A" and "In Rainbows". Their use of electronics and "sound" in general is amazing.



Other innovators that come to mind at least right this moment are Joanna Newsom, Beck, Sufjan Stevens, Saul Williams, and to some degree, Wilco (although they tend to fit in both categories).



But like anything in life, there tends to be a downside to innovation. There is a line between being innovative and experimental and being just plain crappy. Think concept albums. A lot don't work out too well.

I think the problem is when someone thinks they're being innovative, but really are just messing around and fail miserably. You can't fault artists for experimenting, it comes with the territory of being an artist. I think success sometimes brings a whole lot of ego, which leads to grand ideas of what the artist thinks he/she is capable of. Sometimes fans will go along for the ride, sometimes they won't. Remember when country icon Garth Brooks decided to create an alter-ego who sang bad pop songs? Country fans were confused, pop music fans were confused, and most everyone was generally disgusted. I guess you can't fault the guy for trying, but there's a fine line between being an innovator and being horrible. For some, the best thing to do is stick to what they are good at.

Emmulation
Which then brings us to the idea of emulation. I'm going to start with the downside of it. It's no mystery why artists try to emulate the greats. They were great. But given the choice between listening to a knock-off version of The Beatles or The Beatles themselves, it doesn't take a genius to know who most would choose.

For example, there is this band that I saw in Austin called The Explorer's Club. They are a good band, but it doesn't take long to realize that they are blatently ripping off The Beach Boys. They put on a fun show, but I really don't care to buy any of their music.

From an artist's point of you, wouldn't you get tired of emulating someone else's art? I mean, I suppose there is a market for someone who can make exact replicas of Piccaso's and Monet's, but is it fulfilling? Don't you want to explore what you are capable of?

Ok, so it's pretty easy to find the downside of emmulating another artist. So what about the upside?

There is a definite comfort in familiarity (although the old saying does say, "Familiarity breeds contempt). It's fun to hear something and say, "Yeah, I like this, I've heard something like it before". It's kind of like unravelling a mystery. Who did you rip off?

But "rip off" is too strong. Some bands are incredible because they obviously draw upon past influences, but somehow make it sound fresh. One of my favorite bands of all time, as I've said here, is The Band. If you listen to their music, you hear about every imaginable influence conceivable, from early rock and roll, to country, to R & B, to Tin Pan Alley. You can hear it all. But at the same time, when you hear it, you know you are listening to The Band's sound.

I kind of feel the same way about Bright Eyes/Conor Oberst. You've heard this type of music before, definitely, but he manages to put his own spin on it (at least most of the time).

The first time I heard "The Underdog" by Spoon, I thought I was hearing a rarely heard track by Thin Lizzy. But once I knew it was Spoon, it was kind of like, "Ohhhh, ok, Spoon". I hear it now.

The Best of Both Worlds
I'm going to make a slightly disappointing conclusion by saying a mix of both innovation and emmulation is necessary. But like most things in life, the truth is found somewhere in the middle ground.

Let's say for example, I invent a word called, "crangigulous". Obviously, just because I invented a new word, doesn't mean I'm an innovator. The way I would become an innovator in this example, is by either convincing people that this is an incredible word that they should be using in every day life to express profound emotions and somehow having them accept that, or by creating a suitable context for this word to fit into. The latter is probably more reasonable, as what is a word without context anyway? As it is, in creating this word, I'm using a basic knowledge of the English language. "Crangigulous" would probably be an adjective because of its "ous" ending, such as "ambiguous", or "ambitious". So in a way, I'm emulating what I already know (which isn't a lot, considering I've spelled "emulate" a few different ways as you may have noticed). The trick would be taking some random keystrokes, like "alueouohfoiawhfkhd" and finding a way for that to work. Then I'd be among the truest of the true innovators.

But I don't think that type of world exists. People need context. What makes the really great innovators of today's music truly innovative, is that they take risks and try new things in the fairly narrow field of pop/rock/indie music. Instead of branching off completely, they are simply adding to the lineage built before them. "Odelay" is one of the most innovative albums of the past 25 years, but there's really nothing new there. Beck managed to take all sorts of elements and meld them together into something original. It's kind of Frankenstein monster-ish. Making new out of the old.

To me it's not necessarily creating something previously unheard of, it's creating something with the pieces you have in a way that has never been thought of. I don't know if a truly new form of popular music is even possible. Maybe it is, but we won't know until we see it. So I guess the only thing we can hope for is for true artists to keep creating and see what happens.

The One That Got Away

I'm kind of frustrated right now, I must admit. I'm trying to distract myself from the prospects of going out to my roommate's karaoke bar where I will no doubt drink too much and butcher one of my favorite songs in the process of trying to impress girls who are probably too young for me and too drunk to walk. Yes, slight impairment of the opposite sex may be good in that I just might seem a little more attractive and charismatic that I actually am, but it's a fine line between that and sloppy drunk. And once they or I reach the sloppy drunk point, well, all bets are off and I'll stumble home to get not enough sleep before a long day of work. All around, it would be a bad idea. Hense the need for a distraction.

The problem is that my distraction, music, isn't coming to me like I had hoped. Each month I get new downloads from eMusic and today is my "refresh" day. Usually it kicks in later in the day, so I just checked about five minutes ago and it hasn't given me my 40 new downloads for the month. Arrgghhh!!!! Yes, it's true that I have over 4500 songs on my iTunes, most of which I haven't even heard, but there's something exciting about something new. It's like cracking open the cellophane on a new cd, or showing my age and/or dorkiness, a record. You don't get that new smell from the download, but still, it's exciting.

Is it still exciting? I'm not sure if it is for the vast listening public. Sales are down across the board. I mean, the general business model for record labels these days doesn't hardly even consider the retail end of things. The money is in touring and merch if you're lucky.

Yeah, there are many reasons for this, but my mind started wandering a bit, once again hopelessly trying to avoid the karaoke bar, to a different theory. Indulge me for a minute while I open up my bizarre thought process.

I went to eMusic and I was excited about checking out two albums in particular. 1.) The new album by Of Montreal that is pretty well hyped and rightly so, as this is a good band that people expect good things from. 2.) The new album by The Rural Alberta Advantage, who I just heard recently for the first time because of a free track given out by eMusic. I dug it, so I was curious to hear more.

Of course, I have to wait until the damn downloads refresh, but I noticed something. Montreal, Alberta--Canada. Thank you, I know, I am master of the obvious. It's a talent I can't explain, nor can I impart to others. But then I started thinking about how I've been into Sigur Ros a lot lately and have really enjoyed some of the bands that have come out of the Saharan region of Africa, like Tinariwen and Etran Finatawa. Rock music has become quite international since it's "birth" in the '50s. Then I thought for a minute--maybe it's just spread out too much.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all. In fact it's brought a dimension into the music that the Chuck Berry's and Bo Diddley's of the world never could have dreamt of. But while this is exciting, I think as it keeps straying and fracturing and pushing into new un-thought-of grounds, its original core is lost a bit and it gets harder for the general public to follow. "Scenes" don't really exist anymore. I feel like rocks last real movement was grunge and the whole Seattle scene and after that fell apart, things were never quite the same for rock music.

And a lot of that happens to be a matter of timing as well. At around the same time, technology was beginning to change the world drastically. Physical product and media lost their strangle hold on the business and things began to open up. More people than ever have bands as social networking sites and easy to use home recording software make it seem like any idiot can do what the so-called big stars had been doing for half a century. And maybe that's it too. Maybe rock music lost a bit of its magic when everyone became a participant.

But here I am going on a tangent. But I think all of this is connected though. I think as people got bored, the truly talented decided to take new leaps and take risks and hope that a certain segment would follow. And I think it's that certain segment that also began to expect quality and substance over the drivel radio has been putting out for quite some time now and from what the amateurs on MySpace try to shove down their throats. Here lies the opportunities for the Tinariwen's and Sigur Ros's of the world to make their mark. It's also good timing for a band like Vampire Weekend who relies a lot on international influence and discerning "art-rock" lovers.

But look at the Billboard charts these days. These are just numbers, mind you, that have as much meaning in terms of quality as the tarnished old statues known as the Grammy Awards. That's right, ultimately nothing. However, it gives one a bit of an idea where the pulse of popular music lies, at least in the grand scheme of things. It isn't with any of the ones I listed above. Sure, an indie act charts high every so often, but it's usually a flash in the pan, I think out of sheer curiosity more than anything.

Let's be honest, though. There is no more "rock music". Just like there is no single definition for hip-hop, or electronic, or country, or any of the labels of the past. I think the effect that is going on right now is that so many unique niches have opened up that it's nearly impossible to market music on a large scale. In the days of '60s AM radio, you could turn on a station and hear everything from Neil Diamond to The Beatles to Aretha Franklin. It was all in one place. But the world has changed and radio has changed. The major labels try to fight it, but it already happened. Popular music has been freed from the clutches of the few and is now a true world democracy. It belongs to one and all, but ironically this amazing phenomenon has killed the industry.

Ultimately, like I said before, it's not necessarily a bad thing. The music hasn't died. Far from it. The music is more alive and vibrant than ever. And I have a feeling that as we continue to learn about and exchange ideas with our global neighbors, it is only bound to continue to get more interesting. And my original thought about Canada may not have been the best example. Our hockey loving neighbors to the north have been contributing for quite some time. And oh, there's that island nation known as the United Kingdom who's had a few decent bands over the years too. But now the world is such that it is possible for a more diverse selection of nation's peoples to contribute as well. I think the world is such too that the possibility for a larger diversity of ideas is available for artists as well. Things that were maybe taboo or too "outside-of-the-box" for major labels to handle, are now available because the majors just don't have that say anymore.

The only risk that underground or indie or whatever you call this pool of music runs is the potential for pretention. Rock music has always had a sort of "every-person" appeal to it, but every so often strays into territory that is elitist or too ego-filled for its own good. It's bound to happen to a certain extent. But I don't think it will matter. That music will have its niche and others will come along and fill a less pretentious niche.

So even though the industry may be "The One That Got Away", I have a feeling we are just at the beginning of an exciting time for rock and all popular music. There are a million different directions everything could go into. Hopefully it won't come to a point where it is so splintered that no one cares to put in the effort to seek out the good stuff.

But for now it's still relatively easy for those who don't mind a little effort in exchange for a large reward. And there will always be word of mouth, no matter how technologically advanced we become.

But now, my rambling ideas must stop (I don't think my high school English teacher would approve), as my downloads have finally refreshed. I have successfully resisted the temptation of beer and karaoke. For the millionth time and counting, thank god for great music.

A Look into an Obama Presidency

There's a line in "High Fidelity" that says (paraphrased), "It's not what you are like that matters, but what you like." Rob Gordon (John Cusack) tells us that what makes people interesting is their taste in music, movies, and all things pop culture, rather than their actual personality traits. I'm not quite as gung ho as this, but as a recovering music snob, I do give creedence to this philosophy. So based on this, what is an Obama Presidency going to look like?

Barack Obama's music taste isn't necesarily new news. Rolling Stone ran an interview with him in which he revealed some of what is on his iPod. But now that he's been elected, now is a good time to re-examine the tracks that can now officially be deemed, "president-worthy". To give credit where credit is due, my friend and talented musician in his own right, Michael Mullowney (left in photo) gave me this idea. I'm including the picture of him and podcast contributor, Joao Morlett (right in photo), with Michelle (and Sasha) Obama, who is (or I guess more appropriately, was) a regular at the restaurant we all work at. I'm supremely jealous of their photo op, but I too have waited on Michelle and the kids, and once, the man himself--the 44th President of the United States of America.

Yet I digress. My brush with greatness is a mere footnote. Let's get back to the serious business of fortelling the nature of the Obama Administration, based on his music tastes.

The Rolling Stones "Gimmie Shelter" I've always liked the song, but honestly never understood most of the lyrics beyond, "If I don't get some shelter. oh yeah I'm gonna fade away". So through the magic of search engines, I was able to find out what slurring Mick was singing about. Wow! Did you know this song is political? Here all this time I thought he was talking about finding a dry place to have a picnic!! Boy was I wrong! Kidding...mostly. What does this tell us about President Obama? It shows he's a realist. "War, children, it's just a shot away". He'll be careful with how he speaks to the rest of the world. There will be no chest-thumping speeches about the "Axis of Evil". President Obama will take the path of diplomacy. War is just a shot away and we are already mired in too much conflict. But this song is also a sign of Obama's optimism, as well. For in the end, "love is just a kiss away". Can we have peace in the world, Mr President? Yes we can!!

Bob Dylan "Maggie's Farm" and the album "Blood on the Tracks" So Barack is a fan, not just a casual observer, of good 'ol Zimmy. I mean, who doesn't like Bob Dylan. But there is a difference from saying "I like Blowin' in the Wind and Like A Rolling Stone." and saying you're into "Blood on the Tracks". Just one more piece of evidence that Barack Obama is the most perfect human being alive.

These are a couple of good choices. What does "Maggie's Farm" say? "I tried my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants me to be just like them...I ain't gonna work on Maggie's Farm no more." This is Dylan declaring himself to be his own man. Obama too, will be tested by those who want him to be just like them, but will hold firm in his beliefs and vision. He will rise above the "Idiot Wind" that blows through politics ("Idiot Wind" being a track from "Blood on the Tracks"--How do you like that segue?).

Essentially "Blood on the Tracks" is a break-up album. Inevitably, many Obama supporters who are currently "Tangled up in Barack" will feel let down, ignored, and betrayed. A break-up will be had. And like most break-ups, it won't necessarily be one thing that causes the split. It will be a series of things, but it will add up. And the once jubilant supporters will wonder who this man they once knew has become. For once they will see him for what he is--an imperfect human being like the rest of us. Obama knows this already and spoke of this at his victory rally in Grant Park. Expectations for any president are high, but expectations for him are Dylan-esque. At some point President Obama will metaphorically trade in his acoustic for an electric and many in his fawning masses will cry, "Judas!". Oh it will happen.

Jay-Z "Dirt off the Shoulder" I've got to admit, I've got nothing on this one. Maybe his suit will be dirty one day and he'll ask Joe Biden if he can brush it off for him. That's what the Constitution wants the Vice President to do right?

I mean, I liked the song, but I'm not very good at analyzing Jay-Z. I think it's Obama's way of being contemporary. This is a stretch, but here's my take on this song. There will be plenty of cleaning up to do when Obama is sworn in this January. Oh he'll be needing some extra strength multi-purpose cleaner to rid the the country of the unpleasant layer of Bush that pervades. This song will remind him that there will be some serious scrubbing to do. It's that or when we see him brushing his shoulders off it'll be how we know when President Obama is "feelin' like a pimp." I haven't quite figured it out yet.

Stevie Wonder The string of amazing albums in the '70s before anyone imagined he was capable of writing the awful load of crap called "I Just Called to Say I Love You". I mean, really???

Above anything this shows Obama's great taste in music. Stevie Wonder had a string of five albums that are unparalleled in music. These albums have it all--soul, rhythm, love, politics, spirituality, funky grooves, and innovation. This is Stevie Wonder at his genius period. Hopefully we are seeing Barack Obama at his genius period as well.

I think the song from this period that best encapsulates President Obama is "Higher Ground". Ok, so maybe that wasn't the biggest leap one could make, but oh well, my blog, my selections. "Teachers, keep on teachin', preachers keep on preachin' (the election is over, Rev. Wright, you too are allowed to preach again)...believers, keep on believin." To steal a phrase from Obama's former adversary, "It takes a village...". President Obama knows this and will ask for as much passion and effort from everyday Americans as he asks from himself and his own staff. "Gonna keep on tryin' till I reach the highest ground." He will fail, undoubtedly, but President Obama is not a quitter. There is always a higher ground to reach for, and this will be the time and place and history to reach for it.

Sheryl Crow Huhhh??????

Ok, so if you've seen the man dance, you know he's not the coolest person alive. That award goes to his wife Michelle. And no disrespect to you Mr. President, but if you have Sheryl Crow on your iPod, please don't admit it. Sigh! Ok, here goes.

I'll focus on "Are You Strong Enough". It is President Obama's way of telling his staff that, "I have a vision, but I'm going to rely on you heavily. You need to be strong enough to be with me and ready to support me when I fail and help me when I say 'I don't know'." As opposed to our current president, President Obama will not be afraid to ask questions and seek answers, rather than acting carelessly. He'll surround himself with intelligent, thoughtful, and pragmatic men and women who are strong enough to be his advisors on the tough road ahead.

This will be no easy ride, President Obama. This ain't no disco. This ain't no country club. This is DC. Again, I'm sorry to be a broken record, but...Sheryl Crow????

Miles Davis, John Coltrane, and Charlie Parker President Obama reclaims some of his lost cool points with these selections. I mean, without jazz, there would be no term "cool". Miles had an album called, "Birth of the Cool".

This is an encouraging sign. Jazz is a thinking person's music. Yes it may be improvisational, and no doubt President Obama is going to have to do a lot of improvising, but it is highly technical and complicated. Real jazz isn't Bill Clinton honking away on a saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show. It's ground-breaking and spiritual like Coltrane's "A Love Supreme". It's technically and auditorally beautiful like Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue". It's jaw-droppingly perfect like any Charlie Parker solo when he wasn't out of his mind on drugs. And jazz is the one true American artform. I think Barack Obama is a jazz kind of guy. Cool and calm on the outside, but always thinking and looking to break new ground on the inside. Constantly innovating and finding new ways to riff on old themes. He'll bring out the best in his side players to produce great work.

So there you have it: A look into an Obama presidency based on his iPod selections. You probably can't tell I'm an Obama supporter. I'm just basing my predictions on the facts that the music presents us. I'm sure McCain supporters are wondering where R.E.M.'s "It's the End of the World As We Know It" is. I'm not so naive to think that perfection is going to be what happens. There's going to be a lot of bumps in the road and missteps and moments that bring to mind Bob Dylan leaping into born-again Christianity that make us all collectively say, "What????" But I have hope.

Most of the music listed above is music for the thinking person. It's the type of music that academics study. And I don't know about you, but there is something very comforting in knowing that an intelligent person is running our country. And our government consists of three branches, not just an executive branch like George W. Bush wanted us to think. Our country's recovery is in the hands of Congress and the Supreme Court as well. I think President Obama can unite everyone if they are willing to be united. You're not going to "get" Miles Davis's "Bitches Brew" if you don't allow yourself to "get" it. You've got to keep with it and finally it all comes together and you realize that you've found something. You have been transformed in a way. That's what it's going to take for the USA to turn around: a good dose of transformation from the inside out.

Yes We Can!!!