Controversial Music Opinions On BEA! - Music

Tap
to resume download

Gender: Female
Age: 38

because the people who champion innovation tend to dismiss things like this as being too far out and only end up celebrating things as innovative when they are also in a digestible song format.

also raiijmakers stood out plenty from his contemporaries (many of whom were also great in their own way), like just the way he uses that main sort of croaky percussive bit where each phrase sort of has a similar cadence but he there's play in the pitch and timing within and space between appearances, and then that looped rhythm around 3:25, he put things together in a special way

but yeah I guess my point is that I feel like a lot of usages of "innovative" are done as part of a perspective which pushes this stuff down in favor of songs, and songs are cool, I love songs, but I love this stuff too and it bums me out to see it pushed down. like "oh yeah this is innovative but not in that bad way"

AAL2014

Is it fair to say that innovation, especially at first, is hard to judge. I mean you can hear something and think "I've never really heard anything quite like that", but it takes time to influence and to be innovative. Am I far off on this?
_________________
Attention all planets of the solar federation: We have assumed control.

YoungPunk

Bach directly copies Vivaldi! For example they never play L'estro Harmonico on KUSC radio but they play Bach's basic transcription for solo harpsichord and attribute it to Bach! Presumably these guys have never even listened to Vivaldi's second most popular work besides the four seasons!

Boltzmann
supplier of entropy

Gender: Male
Age: 27

Well, you do need popularity in order to make sure your innovative music actually has an influence on the world. I get the idea that you have an inexplicable urge to defend underground music (which is pretty much the status quo on this site) which often results in hate towards the mainstream. Honestly, you’re just putting words in my mouth, because your underground music doesn’t get the attention it “deserves”. If an underground or underappreciated artist doesn’t get the recognition it deserves, some future artist will use his/her innovation to go mainstream and he/she will eventually namedrop him/her. They will eventually get the recognition they deserve. However, if that never happens, it never really was such groundbreaking music to begin with.

Tap wrote:

also raiijmakers stood out plenty from his contemporaries (many of whom were also great in their own way), like just the way he uses that main sort of croaky percussive bit where each phrase sort of has a similar cadence but he there's play in the pitch and timing within and space between appearances, and then that looped rhythm around 3:25, he put things together in a special way

You can also say this about Pierre Schaeffer and he used samples. See, it’s good musique concrète, but they basically switched the samples with a synth. It does render new possibilities within that genre, but it’s not like you need the synth to make music like that. That is however the case for the genres I named (synthpop, etc.). The synth was necessary to be invented for those genres to exist.

YoungPunk

antaiospiano wrote:

Well, you do need popularity in order to make sure your innovative music actually has an influence on the world. I get the idea that you have an inexplicable urge to defend underground music (which is pretty much the status quo on this site) which often results in hate towards the mainstream. Honestly, you’re just putting words in my mouth, because your underground music doesn’t get the attention it “deserves”. If an underground or underappreciated artist doesn’t get the recognition it deserves, some future artist will use his/her innovation to go mainstream and he/she will eventually namedrop him/her. They will eventually get the recognition they deserve. However, if that never happens, it never really was such groundbreaking music to begin with.

You can also say this about Pierre Schaeffer and he used samples. See, it’s good musique concrète, but they basically switched the samples with a synth. It does render new possibilities within that genre, but it’s not like you need the synth to make music like that. That is however the case for the genres I named (synthpop, etc.). The synth was necessary to be invented for those genres to exist.

Yeah, I guess that's true, I do feel like old artists especially are overlooked just because their music is not "new"

Kool Keith Sweat

antaiospiano wrote:

some things

I think you're assuming innovation and influence are somehow necessarily connected. I also think you're assuming mainstream music is progressive in any way.

Tap
to resume download

Gender: Female
Age: 38

antaiospiano wrote:

You can also say this about Pierre Schaeffer and he used samples. See, it’s good musique concrète, but they basically switched the samples with a synth.

somebody get this guy the olympic gold medal for not getting it, holy shit.

the variations in pitch and timing of the synthesized phrase that mentioned have no parallel in Schaeffer & Henry's Symphonie Pour Un Homme Seul (which wasn't even available on record until the 70s) or any other sample usage of the time, and also Schaeffer wasn't just some guy who used samples.

I'm not saying this stuff deserves widespread attention (altho raiijmakers is one half of one of david bowie's favorite albums, so he had some influence), but when people put a heavy emphasis on the importance of innovation in music I think "oh hey these people might get it" but they don't, every time. so I get disappointed.

glynspsa

Gender: Male
Age: 52

Graeme2 wrote:

If you are a big hip hop fan I'd keep trying with kendrick, just like you did with trout mask. I wouldn't really even compare him directly to 90s hip hop. I'm glad I kept going back to kendrick, took me a while to get it. Same with lots of rap now, it's in a totally different place to 90s rap.

I do plan on giving him some more spins. sometimes the more familiar you become with an album the better it gets and sometimes its the opposite. I do like Kendrick he just hasn't moved me like 2pac or some others have. i guess my age may have something to do with it but like i said i do dig his work i just haven't quite bought in all the way yet.

YoungPunk

I'm actually glad you're having a similar experience to me Smile

YoungPunk

Kool Keith Sweat wrote:

I think you're assuming innovation and influence are somehow necessarily connected. I also think you're assuming mainstream music is progressive in any way.

There's nothing I know of in mainstream music that hasn't been done before. Just combing artist A with artist B. Bass music and guitar shreds are the closest to something new... But then again not really