Here's how this works. Make sure iTunes is on shuffle and see what three songs end up playing. Write about said three songs. Nothin' too bewildering about the process of this particular entry. I'm starting out this morning with The Beach Boys and "Wouldn't It Be Nice" and seeing where things lead me. Almost scrapped the idea entirely, though, to listen to all of "Pet Sounds". Such a great album! But no, this is an excercise in discovery and re-discovery, so here goes:
Jesus Don't Want Me For A Sunbeam, Nirvana, Unplugged in New York
Wow! Haven't heard this track in so long. Probably played this album 800 + times when it first came out. It was actually the album that made me REALLY get Nirvana. This was a talented band and this was the album that captured the sentiment that this was not just some loud rock and roll band. This song is not a Nirvana original and many of the songs are more reflective of Kurt and the band's diverse music tastes, rather than the actual catalog. Kurt's sounding great and the band sounds tight. A lot's being said about Nirvana once again, with two major recent releases ("Bleach" 20 year anniversary re-release and a new concert DVD). And I'm sure there will be plenty more being said within the next couple years since soon it will have been 20 years (!) since the release of "Nevermind", which still stands as THE classic album of the last 20 years. A band like Nirvana hasn't been seen since, nor probably ever will be.
Smiles (Single Version), Spiritualized, The Complete Works Vol. 1.
I came to this band late as well. Much less known of a band to come to late, though, but certainly not a minor act. I really liked their most recent release, "Songs in A & E", which was more reflective than much of their earlier work, which is understandable considering co-frontman Jason Pierce's near fatal illness, which heavily influenced the tone of the record. This is largely an instrumental song, that kind of has a "Satisfaction" riff going on. There's plenty of distortion and guitar effects in this tune that starts slow and builds to a blood vessel rupturing burn right around the 3:45 mark. The word for this is, "cacophony" (just like using that word)--horns, manic drums, strings?. Smiles all around, indeed.
Oceans & Streams, The Black Keys, Attack and Release
I mentioned these guys in my last blog entry. This is soul music meets grungy, dirty rock and roll music. The Black Keys could have been a late '60s psychedelic garage band. Their music's got that raw, jangly (one of the more overused rock descriptors, but hey, it works) sound to it. There isn't too much to say about this track. It's straight ahead rock and roll. I like the new stuff that's filled with layer upon layer, but sometimes it's also nice to curl up with a nice, stripped down, rock song. I'll take it!
Those songs go together really well, actually. My iTunes collection on shuffle is a better program director than most on modern rock radio! Probably isn't an accident that the songs go together so well. Technology is scary smart sometimes. I'd like to see it write reactions to each of the songs it plays, though! Ha! Gotcha, computer! I better not antagonize it.
How about a link to something Nirvana. From the aforementioned concert DVD "Live at Reading/1992", here's a song from the aforementioned album, "Bleach". I'll also put it up on The Hidden Chord FB page. Become a fan today!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfjGsrDKKoc
Showing posts with label The Beach Boys. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Beach Boys. Show all posts
Friday, November 20, 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)
