October is almost here and I feel like I sense Autumn before I actually feel it. Maybe the date on the calendar just triggers some switch in my brain that recalls fallen leaves, apple cider, and brisk days of Autumn's past. Who knows?
Currently listening to a band called Girls. The song album, which is called "Album" (catchy title), is very good. A lot of old influences at work--'60s rock and soul definitely. Will probably be giving this another listen soon.
Song 1: Come On! Feel the Illinoise!, Sufjan Stevens
Title track from Sufjan Stevens' great 2007 album. This is the guy who of course claimed he wanted to make an album for each of the 50 states. He's done one for Illinois and for Michigan, so if he was being truthful, he's got some work to do. Sufjan's music is filled with a lot of interesting stuff--polyrhythms, horns, bells, layering of textures, mood shifts. It's kind of like an indie rock symphonic piece. Being from Illinois, the album is extra fun (current part of the song is talking about being approached by the ghost of Carl Sandburg), but this was pretty well-loved outside of my homeland, so I hear. Apparently Sufjan is getting ready to release an all instrumental album soon. Can't wait!
Song 2: Possum, Phish
Ok, I'm not a huge Phish fan. I liked their album "Farmhouse", but jam bands occasionally get on my nerves. Maybe you need to be on 'shrooms and at their concert to "get" a 25 minute all out jam. Can't you accomplish it a little quicker? I mean, these are rock chords they are jamming on, not complex jazz chords. There's only so much you can do. All right, I'm sounding a bit elitist. On the other hand I do like improvised music and a lot of their songs are fun. They're pretty good musicians, even though Trey Anastasio's voice is kind of hit or miss. I downloaded this for a couple of their covers, which they provide ample amounts of. I'm always intrigued by cover songs. I like to see what direction a band takes with the work on a artist that may be completely different. This tune I think is a Phish original that clocks in at a mere 8:25. It's all right. Good fun rock and roll. I still prefer The Dead, though.
Song 3: Strange Condition, Pete Yorn
I guess the iTunes is giving me some live stuff to work with. This was somewhat of a radio hit. It's got a lot of pop sensibility to it. I like this version. Pete's voice isn't as polished as the album version. Little bit more gravel and drawl in it, which I enjoy a lot more than hearing someone hitting every note spot on. He gets his point across a lot quicker than Phish. Not to say that I'm particularly bowled over by this performance. I think I've heard this song too many times to have a lot of opinion on it.
There's three songs for you to ponder, as you ponder the advent of Autumn, as well. Nothing particularly Autumny about the above three, but I think songs have a way of taking on a different life in different parts of the year. Are summer hits as powerful during the winter? If the song "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley would have been released during autumn rather than summer, would it still have been such a big hit?
The songs playing right now are actually a lot more interesting than 2/3 of what I just wrote about. Oh well, shuffle'll help you and it'll let you down sometimes too. Enjoy your Sunday!
Click on today's blog title for a live performance of Sufjan Stevens performing the song "The Man From Metropolis Steals Our Hearts".
Showing posts with label Sufjan Stevens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sufjan Stevens. Show all posts
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Friday, November 21, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
