Pursuingchange

Look guys, I suppose its necessary for me to gather my belongings and head somewhere else now. I guess I just don't fit in here. Just know that my initial purpose was not to make enemies with any of you people. I'm sorry if it ended up that way. If anyone would like to try this conversation again, I'd be happy to stay around. But if not, I'm fine with accepting that I'm not wanted here. Just let me know.

Janszoon

Please respond to my question.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Pursuingchange

Sorry didn't see it right away. I'm all for continuing the conversation. When things got out of hand I just started going with it. I'm fine with anything. Its up to y'all.

Janszoon

No, it's up to you. Are you able to stay on topic and have a conversation or not?

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Pursuingchange

Absolutely.

Surell

Name recognition and sales of records, though not the same, are synonymous in their implications, I think, pursuingchange. While people may not be familiar with Dizzee Rascal if you went and asked some cats off the street, his influence on the Hip Hop genre can't be denied, and the sales prove that he was not only an influence but was something a million people were looking for (or, perhaps, five hundred thousand people who are very clumsy with their belongings).

Look at Velvet Underground or Captain Beefheart as well. VU were extremely infamous in their day, as well as innovative, taking pop music to boundaries not yet explored. They were taken on by a few well-known critics, but their album sold for shit (10000 in the initial year or something). It's been said, though, that every person who bought one of those albums went out and formed a band. Captain Beefheart is nowhere near a household name, unless you're really into experimental music, fish with hats, or the year 1967. However, he was a true innovator, creating a type of music that i don't even think has been as jarring in context since. I'm not entirely familiar with Free Jazz, I'll admit, but that wasn't his only massive contribution to the popular realm of music.

Hence, familiarity as well as sales aren't the best way to judge innovation, influence, or originality. To this guy, you know.

Also, i'm responding to something brought up way ago so sorry for being late.

__________________

Pursuingchange

I know who Captain Beefheart is. But I'm not too familiar with his music or contributions. I think the general message I'm trying to get across is that there is no clear direction in music now that is very obvious. When I made that comparison between new rock bands and old rock bands and how the same basic formula has not been built upon in years, I think it was pretty accurate. I hate the fact that when I'm old I won't be able to look back on my heyday and point out any true contributions to music with specific names of artists.

VEGANGELICA

Pursuingchange, I'm sorry about all the name-calling, sarcasm, and mockery, including an accusation of mental illness, that people have used in this thread.

I wish a discussion about music, which I think most of us like very much, wouldn't lead to expressions of hostility by so many individuals as misunderstandings and disagreements lead to frustration.

People in this thread do not represent the community as a whole, so please do not assume you aren't wanted here.

I noticed that the first name-calling was done by a mod (http://www.musicbanter.com/general-m...ml#post1260500) and I apologize that you or anyone at this community who is trying to have a discussion about music has been called names, which always exaggerate and thus are inaccurate. For example, I might be an arse in a few instances, but a total arse is probably a slight exaggeration!

I'll give you my thoughts on your original question that you restated here:

I view your topic as containing three distinct questions that need to be answered in order to have a clearer debate:

(1) How do we decide the degree of innovation that music shows? Without answering this, we can't answer the second question:
(2) Have musicians stopped making large music innovations in the last 30 years, having hit a creative wall?
(3) Have there been musicians during the last 30 years who inspired large shifts in music by popularizing a sound or style such that many people were inspired to copy them?

Below are my answers to these questions:

(1) Deciding the size of an innovation is subjective, so we'll probably find little agreement on this issue among a large number of people, which makes answering your main question difficult. Here's my answer, though:

I think there are two types of musical innovations: new instruments, and new patterns of sound. I feel the four large innovations in musical instruments happened many years ago and are the invention of woodwind, string, and percussive instruments, and the use of synthesizers to make sound. Stylistically, we have two basic types of music: melody-based music and beat-based music, and combinations thereof.

Since these inventions, I feel that every music invention/innovation has been incremental rather than a sea change.

For example, I view the style of shred guitar as a small innovation, and not really much of an innovation since shredding is like a chaotic classical music cadenza solo, and a whammy bar just exaggerates bending of strings that is typical in violin vibrato.

I agree with you that rock guitar solos (that I've heard) haven't changed much in the last 30 years. One reason is that our fingers are close together and work fastest when moving one after the other, which results in guitarists often playing short, repetitive arpeggios (which I hear frequently in shred guitar). Unless people use very atypical tunings, or the shape of people's hands and arms change (like if we grew a third arm!), we'll tend to hear similar melodies and patterns of notes coming out of a typical guitar.

One issue I saw raised by you and debated is whether innovative music will become well-known and a household name, such that the size of an innovation can be measured by its popularity. I don't think it is true that innovative music will necessarily become well-known. Music that one person plays but no one copies can still be innovative...just maybe nobody hears it or likes it! I feel that popular music is *inspiring* music but doesn't necessarily have to be particularly innovative.

For example, guitar shredding (according to Wikipedia) was first heard in the music of Scorpion's Ulrich Roth, but Eddie Van Halen's use of shredding inspired more people to take notice of this style. So EVH didn't invent shredding and was not the innovator, but he inspired more people to appreciate it.

Similarly, the moonwalk was invented decades before Michael Jackson displayed and popularized it. I've always been underwhelmed by MJ's persona, dancing, and music, which never struck me as massively innovative. (I've lost mittens as a child, too, so the one-glove thing never wow'd me.) He did inspire many people, though, and became well-known around the world. I never liked his music, so I wasn't inspired to want to copy him in any way, but others seemed to be.

So an inspiring musician is not necessarily an innovative musician. I suspect commercial and popular music doesn't usually reflect the most innovative music because people tend to like to copy what is popular, so music that differs too much from the current norm might not appeal to a wide audience. So unless one listens to a wide variety of musicians, one may miss innovative ideas. I agree with Surell's point here:

(2) During the last 3 decades, I feel that musical innovations have been small and incremental, so I do not feel there have been major musical innovations...but definitely there have been many smaller changes, and with enough of them music continues to diverge into trends or sounds that I hear as different compared to the music created earlier.

An example is the genre of Dubstep, which sounds very distinct to me compared to other music, and apparently has its origins as a genre around 1998. I'd never heard of Dubstep before I joined MB, but as soon as I heard it I felt this genre of music sounded different than any other music I'd heard before...low, pulsing, menacing, driving. Since I can hear a song and classify it as Dubstep, this suggests to me that it required innovation to create it, because I *hear* a difference.

In comparison, I don't feel rap music is particularly innovative, because many hundreds of years ago there were bards roving around speaking lyrical poetry, which is basically rap.

I agree most closely with Rock N' Roll Clown's answer below, because I feel that innovations in music are continuing and music has not reached the end of its creative possibilities. People still tweak and create instruments that allow different sound combinations, and music styles continue to change:

You can read about experimental musical instruments made in the 1990s and 2000s here: Experimental musical instrument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(3) I feel that during the past 30 years there have been musicians who have inspired major changes in music genres, but this may be harder to tell or appreciate because there are so many more people listening to and creating music than 30 years ago, so it is harder for a musician to corner the market.

Just using one country as an example, the U.S. population has increased by 100 million in that time period. That's a lot more listeners and musicians, and that's in one country alone. (What's happened to music in India during that time period?) The style of listening to music has changed, too, so that it is harder for one musician to gain wide public attention because so many different musicians' music is available for easy consumption.

Lady Gaga comes to mind as the biggest superstar recently whose style/music combination has probably achieved very high household name recognition around the globe. Her clothing style is definitely innovative, although her music may not be, but I think she has made many people feel greater appreciation of music as a performing art. Do you view Lady Gaga as inspiring or innovative (or both)?

I already mentioned Dubstep as a distinct genre that *I* feel is original enough to feel distinctive and unique to me. And Urban Hatemonger mentioned some guy I've never heard of, but I trust UH's judgment that the musician inspired a shift in his music genre. Just because I haven't heard of that musician doesn't mean he isn't doing something new.

Pursuingchange, you wrote:

^ I feel you may not be distinguishing between *inspiring* musicians who cause others to admire and copy them, vs. *innovative* musicians (who may or may not inspire others and become popular). For example, I don't know if John Lennon, Michael Jackson and EVH were particularly innovative, according to my definition of innovative [see my answer to (1)].

I do have confidence that music will continue to evolve or change for as long as humans survive into the future as new ideas, tweaking of old ideas, and fads come and go. Consider also that because humans (including their brains/minds) are continuing to evolve, in the far future people may appreciate different styles of music than they now tend to appreciate, since our perceptions, attention spans, etc., will probably subtly change as the millennia pass.

I wouldn't underestimate the creativity of people. They're crafty critters.

Your turn, if you wish.

__________________

Burning Down

Really? It's 7 AM and I've just briefly read through this thread and I noticed the majority of name calling was done by this guy in return, actually. So don't come in here and say that he's not at fault either.

VEGANGELICA

Curious how innovative I'd feel Dizzee Rascal is, I listened to two of his rap songs ("I luv u" and "Fix Up, Look Sharp") and also read about him on Wikipedia.

Just listening to Rascal's music doesn't make me feel it is "distinctive" or particulary innovative. I'd probably classify it as mostly "rap" and not think of it as being different in any way from rap I've heard years ago. However, my lack of appreciation for uniqueness in Rascal's music probably reflects that I'm not familiar with all the different trends that have swept through rap music over the years, and so I can't perceive surprising nuances.

Wikipedia says of Rascal, "Although his fast style of rapping and his subject matter are nothing more than ordinary in the UK, Dizzee Rascal's diversity nonetheless separates him from other UK rappers. His music is a mixture of UK Garage and hip-hop beats with an extremely broad palette of influences, ranging from metal guitars to drill and bass synth lines, eclectic samples and even Japanese court music. Dizzee's tracks are traditional grime in that the beats are often asymmetrical and make it difficult to dance to his music. Grime is today still considered underground, despite Dizzee's large mainstream exposure." Dizzee Rascal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ Based on this, I'd say Rascal wasn't making large innovations in music, but his eclectic, multi-cultural style of music has perhaps broadened minds. It sounds like he is using old ingredients to make a new soup with a slightly different flavor.

Most interesting to me is that Wikipedia says, "The chart success of grime-influenced artists like Rascal is heralded as a signal in the way that white Britons are adapting to a new multicultural and plural musical mix in contrast to previous bands."

So even if Rascal's music may not be so innovative, his use of diverse musical traditions within his music may reflect that Britons are becoming even more accepting of a variety of backgrounds. This means that perhaps Rascal's music is inspiring a cultural change toward greater appreciation of different cultures, and so his music isn't just resulting in music evolution but some cultural evolution. <-- That impresses me.

* * *

I didn't.

I said to the OP, "I'm sorry about all the name-calling, sarcasm, and mockery, including an accusation of mental illness, that people have used in this thread. I wish a discussion about music, which I think most of us like very much, wouldn't lead to expressions of hostility by so many individuals as misunderstandings and disagreements lead to frustration."

I intentionally made my statement general by referring to "people" and "so many individuals" to try to include everyone in this thread who reacted with hostility, because I did see that Pursuingchange used name-calling while trying to defend himself against name-calling. I'm sorry he used name-calling, too.

My interpretation of the thread's emotional mood evolution is that it started friendly, and then after some members debated what "evolution" means, Pursuingchange perhaps felt they were trying intentionally to be obtuse. I think this was a misunderstanding, because I've observed that many people are confused about biological evolution, and so the word "evolution" confuses them, too...especially since Pokemon (curse Pokemon!) have completely misguided a whole generation of kids who now think "evolution" means "change that leads to improvement."

I think Pursuingchange was then on edge, expecting the worst from people, and so he responded to well-meaning questions and replies by Janszoon with some preemptive hostility. Then, rather than trying to assure Pursuingchange that their replies weren't meant to be combative, the moderators eventually became hostile back. UH upped the level of hostility by saying the OP came across as a "total arse." OP responded angrily, and as other members jumped on him, he defended himself by responding in kind. He got accused of going off topic by a mod (and I'm not sure why). Finally the OP tried to regain a peaceful status so discussion could continue if anyone wanted to discuss the topic. And that's when I entered the discussion to give my 1,332 cents.

^ This is my perspective on this thread's evolution. I *am* sorry the discussion went the way it did, because I can see the OP wanted genuinely to discuss a topic that interests him. This doesn't mean I condone all of Pursuingchange's replies to people, but I think I understand why he made them. Also, I feel that established members have a greater responsibility to be polite and welcoming to new members, such as by trying to clear up misunderstandings and settle ruffled feathers rather than disturb them more. It's hard to come into a new community, hoping for friendliness, but fearing being jumped on.

I felt it would help Pursuingchange to know that he has some people on his side. Also, I felt it would help him to know that sometimes the fur flies here at MB, but then many of us can settle down and continue to discuss a topic maturely. I think the issue of the evolution of music is an interesting one, and it might inspire people to listen around and hear what they are missing in the world of music. If not for this thread, for example, I probably would have never listened to a single Dizzee Rascal song!

__________________