way rad, post it up when it's finished.

Yeah, no. Not really. the underground is a significant source of more innovative music - innovation and experimentation being the reason it's not mainstream (kinda "duh" but whatever). Who truly innovated pop in the past? In the 60s there was mainstream attention, but after that who did? Since the 80s it's primarily been indie/experimental musicians (the Pixies, Husker Du, REM, Radiohead, etc.). Ok, just so your panties won't be in a bunch, we could say Frank Ocean is revitalizing the pop R&B/Soul scene, and Lady Gaga/Rihanna are bringing prominence to electronic music. But they're not the first, and they're definitely not the most innovative in their field (some of Frank's sound is directly aligned with Marvin/Wonder, and techno sprung from the underground almost twenty years ago).

If you feel so entitled to snark, why don't you actually bring some ideas to the table.

But Grizzly Bear is?

Yes, more than them probably. What on Shields can you point directly back to in terms of influence? Besides, this isn't just about Grizzly Bear.

Who exactly do you think is so much more qualified? It's just a little annoying to have some one off to the side criticizing ideas with absolutely none to contribute.

Speaking of Grizzly Bear, after listening to their albums on the internet the past week, I bought each of their last 3 albums (I'm one of those people who actually buy the CD's) this weekend. I even picked up Shields. When I bought Veckatimest yesterday and listened to it a few more times, it had a better impression on me than it initially did, so I decided to grab Shields today as well, wondering if it would grow on me as well. After a couple more listens I do like it better than I originally did, though I still think Yellow House > Veckatimest > Shields.

Anyway, last night I discovered no one's started a dedicated Grizzly Bear thread on this forum, so I'm about to start one myself in the "Indie/Alternative" section.

I still get vinyl for especially good albums so :p:

But to anyone else out there I wasn't kidding about if you had someone else you think is better, I'm not trying to promote only indie bands as innovative, they're just who came to mind.

No it was just a question. Didnt mean to start a fight or anything. I dig Grizzly Bear (especially Shields and Yellow House), it's just I never really thought of them as really innovative or experimental. That being said, I don't think I truly understand what it means to be "innovative". Maybe because I dont really put as much emphasis on innovation in relation to overall quality of music.

It just seems weird to say Rihanna isnt as innovative because of 90s electronic music when Grizzly Bear arent the first in their respective field either, whether it be indie in general or psychedelic pop. Ive always got a Beach Boys or Kinks vibe from them, but theyre also taking advantage of this lush indie sound thats become pretty popular lately (ala Beach House, the xx, Tame Impala, etc). But like I said, I might just not get what being innovative even means so who knows.

I don't think there's actually much you can do these days that is *truly* innovative. After all, even the "innovative" music of the 1966-67 Beatles got some of their ideas from Indian classical music (which had been around for hundreds of years), as well as avant-garde classical music such as Stockhausen, which had been around since at least the 50's, and some as far back as the 20's.



So when I think someone says "innovative" they probably really mean "out of the ordinary" even if it's something that's been done before.

From the mid-1920's.



Hell, even Animal Collective isn't this weird. ;)

Well I'm really sorry to have such an attitude, i guess I was just a little flustered after DJ's comment (still haven't gotten a response) and kinda raged on you. I will grant you that Grizzly Bear aren't the most experimental band at least in the general sound of their recordings, though the way they meld genres could be qualified maybe as unique or fairly idiosyncratic, which i think is innovating in its own right. While they're in the same field as the bands you listed, who are all credible in their own right, I think their sound is distinct - the music is fuller than Beach House, less electronic than the xx, and more folk/jazz oriented than Tame Impala. They also write their lyrics with a different tone, and on Shields at least show an entirely different concept in the writing.

Pertaining to the Rihanna comparison, she as well as Gaga do a good job to revitalize electro types of music in pop, but it's more like taking this part of the sound and having them sing on it, whereas Grizzly Bear are blending different styles and creating something a little more distinct with it (of course, that's just how i see it, i'm pretty lousy with a lot of new music though so i may be all kinds of wrong). Radiohead, a band hailed for its innovation, are also masters of concocting entirely unique music out of a sum of their influences, and freely admit it.

Really, nothing could be called totally original, at least in terms of the songwriting, because if it simply has a rhythm there's an inspiration it can likely be linked to. The most innovative thing about the 60s - 70s and let's say the 80s was the technology developed for those eras. This is where bands like the Beatles were truly innovative, as they pioneered techniques in their recording that musicians/producers still look back on, and from there developments in things like synthesizers and electronic music production allowed more musical opportunities. But even the theremin, a technically electronic instrument depending on the model, has been in play since "Good Vibrations" and even before then.

Brian Wilson, whose songwriting innovation with the Beach Boys that influenced even Paul McCartney, laced his particularly avant-pop-before-that-was-really-a-thing lost masterpiece SMiLE with references to his inspirations: 50s Doo Wop and Soul ("Gee," "I Wanna Be Around"); old timey folk tunes ("My Sunshine"); Ragtime ("Look"); even "Heroes and Villains" is rumored to be a melodic flip of his all time favorite classical piece, "Rhapsody in Blue," and if you listen closely to one moment in that piece you can make out where the vocal melody of the faster section (that begins the song) comes from.

TL;DR truly there is no entirely original music, maybe occasionally there is something that shifts paradigms (The Beatles, the Beach Boys, electronic music) or challenges the audience (the Velvet Underground, Captain Beefheart (who can be traced back to caveman drawings of sex and mutilation as well as the blues)), or whatever else you may consider an innovation. But most of what it comes down to is what kind of twist they put on the sounds their engaging. Or to me, it seems that way; especially at this point in the game, where music technology hasn't really created anything new to work into songwriting.

Why were you so highly offended by my comment? I'm not trying to discredit the music that Grizzly Bear and Animal Collective make but to pass them off as being pop and claiming that they are innovative to pop music just doesn't seem to make sense to me. Artists that are in the top 40 are still going through that phase where they are adapting electronic music into their work. It may be dying down some but it's still being heavily used.

I just looked over the current top 40 here:
Top 40 Chart for the week of September 07, 2013 - American Top 40 With Ryan Seacrest

Nothing really stands out as innovative. Also as far as pop is concerned the genre just changes with time and adapts to current trends. Sure, there are a few artists on that list that tend to borrow from their influences that come from different decades but that's the state of music in general lately.

But Pop isn't just Top 40, though it definitely can be. It can actually be it's own songwriting ethos; this is why there's a differentiation between Pop and Rock, even though they can both share spots on the charts. It's like how Disturbed and Carly Rae Jepsen could be on the chart at the same time; they both may popular music, but only one is Pop. Or, back in the day, there would have been the Beatles and the Rolling Stones; the Stones were definitely Rock, through and through, even in their experimenting they were primarily based in Rock, but they were on the charts. This doesn't immediately change their status to Pop, even being right alongside the primary Pop band (besides the Beach Boys, who were definitely the most Pop on the spectrum).

yes yes, I know that. I only used the Top 40 to dig through and find which pop acts were actually in the Top 40.

On the same token, I can't get behind the idea that the indie bands you listed are Pop. Do you feel like that are?

Well Animal Collective I would definitely consider pop, at least as far as Feels or Strawberry Jam onwards is concerned. Their newer releases are mostly based in Pop convention: Verse/Chorus Structure, emphasis on melodies and harmonies, full arrangements, and especially utilization of studio recording techniques. Grizzly Bear is a bit of a stretch, but they do put a good focus on melody and harmony. Fleet Foxes are probably more in the Pop realm, though they clearly derive from folk they have that same kind of sheen and hookiness as Fleetwood Mac or the like; they also have a studio obsessive songwriter.

I honestly think that the question of whether pop can still be innovative is pretty bogus. Sure, the difficulty to innovate may seem higher, but whether or not it's possible is not a question.

The definition of pop has changed so much I don't think it means anything at this point, if not young and barely dressed "celebrities" disguised as musicians.

Not that "pop" has ever been a real genre, everything from Frank Sinatra to the Beach Boys and late Genesis have been called pop at some point, so I guess it's more of something that has to do with popularity

Yes, the problem is the song has to be popular which is a huge problem if you set out to be "innovative"

There are alot of innovative and creative songs that have been popular. There is no reason why pop songs today can't be as artistic.

Very true, though i'm plugging the same band, Animal Collective had a decent success - at least considering their popularity before - with "My Girls," which has a very different structure and sound than pop songs of today or even a lot of the past. I would actually say that "Somebody That I Used to Know" from Gotye was pretty innovative, it was lyrical, had an unusual structure as far as radio songs go, and unique instrumentation.

Still, I don't think we necessarily have to think of Pop in terms of popularity, it's evolved beyond that in many respects. How would Avant/Experimental Pop exist in this regard? Experimental music is never popular, as it dabble in unpopular and unfamiliar sounds, but it's still pop.

So true, as my recent attempts to get my father, and a couple of my sisters, interested in AC can attest to.

What's interesting is, my sisters at least, are all big Yes fans. At one point Yes used to be considered fairly experimental art rock. But now that they've become so familiar I don't think people think of them as experimental anymore - or, if they do, the familiarity of their music has blunted the edge of their experimental-ness. This makes me wonder if AC will be more accepted and liked in 20-30 years than they are now, as people get increasingly accustomed to the musical style.

There is certainly a generational thing going on, too (my sisters and I are all in our mid-late 40's). Maybe someone here can tell me, but if you go to an AC, or even a Grizzly Bear, concert, are there many people there over the age of about 35-40? I almost wonder if younger people have actually gotten more accustomed to complex and abstract music than people 20+ years older than them, despite the pretensions of the Baby Boomers that their music was musically superior.

My first hint of this was when I tried to play AC to my father a couple months ago (he is 80). Here is a guy who spent most of his life listening to Beethoven, Shostakovich, Mahler and other classical music composers. This is supposed to be complex music - right? But when I played AC for him, he simply couldn't stand it, told me it was much too busy, and insisted I keep the sound way down. Go figure. Though I also got the impression from him that a combination of hearing issues and crankiness of advanced age lowers one's tolerance for something like that, so that's probably a factor as well.

Yes were arty rock in their day, being a Progressive band, but I think this was usually signified in their compositional expertise as opposed to their embrace of harsher or unfamiliar sounds. It can be hard to get into because of this, such as a disorienting time signature or a melody so complex it's hard to decipher, but overall their sound was based in rock/pop with superb composition and playing. In its day, though, it may have been fairly difficult for the audience, but this was the era when people really loved Sgt. Peppers for being a concept album and having classical undertones - though they really don't stack up compared to Yes' themes and classicism. So it could have to do with the era your siblings/generation came from, with their acceptance of a certain degree of experimentation (do you guys dig Captain Beefheart or Velvet Underground as well?) or perhaps it is age that engrains you in a certain mindset/familiarity with the sounds you know, and anything new is hard to accept. When I'm older, I'm sure I'll have some issue with my children's favorite band just because I'm so comfortable with what i know, it's precious to me and i've known it for too long, I suppose.

BTW: AC shows, from what I've seen, are usually people around my age, late teens to early 20s, but usually i'm all in the zone of the show. I saw some older people around the festival i recently saw them (and Grizzly Bear) at, but there were also older acts at the show, such as McCartney and ZZ Topp, the same night as those bands.

It has and what it has evolved into isnt as experimental or creative like it was in the past. I think popular music today is more so about image than music. Its always been about both but it appears to be alot more emphasis on image now.

I think we're still talking about popular pop music though, which we can, but it doesn't speak to the bigger picture. Most popular forms of any genre aren't as experimental as more underground stuff.

Haven't heard of Captain Beefheart until you mentioned them/him/it right now. I'm sure I've heard some Velvet Underground but nothing pops in my head right away.

BTW, since you're young, at some point in your life you might experience something like what I did: Somewhere around 1990 I mostly stopped paying attention to new music, because that's when Grunge came out. I had a roommate who was into Nirvana and the like, and he used to play them all the time, and I thought to myself, "What's the big deal? This sounds just like Neil Young's hard rock version of 'My My Hey Hey.'" Some guys moaning into a microphone. So I thought, if the latest and greatest thing was something that sounded just like something that was already more than 10 years old, then rock/pop music must be going downhill, and it wasn't worth the bother anymore. Couple that with the fact that that's when rap started becoming really popular, which I couldn't stand. The only time between then and in June (when you got me listening to AC) that I payed attention to anything "new" was a brief period about 10 years ago when I started listening to some Brazilian music (some guy on another forum encouraged me to listen to this, which is really great stuff). Anyway, the point is, I think there might be a point in a lot of people's lives when they run across some "new" stuff they don't think is all that great, and figure that means music is going downhill, so they stop paying attention to new stuff. That might be a natural inclination anyway - most people only have so much time to listen to music, and can't spend so much time checking out every new band that comes along, so the slightest excuse to tune out new stuff means they'll do just that and stick with their own true-and-tried material.

EDIT: It was also shortly after 1990 that I really started getting into some Classical music as well. That probably distracted me from paying attention to anything new as much as my disinterest in grunge and rap.

I was specifically referring to mainstram music but I see your point as well.

Pop has such a vast amount of artists and sounds to cover, lots of new pop music is innovative, people have become very snooty about music- just because its popular doesn't mean it is ****. tbh in my opinion indie music is less innovative than pop,all sounds whiney and the same

The point is making something innovative is actually not really profitable, which is the key if we talk about pop music. People like certain type of things and most artists prefer to go the old tried-and-true ways. However, I believe there are lots of ways to discover.

I was always meaning to answer this but woops.

I think the hype killed it there, like how I can hardly listen to MGMT or Vampire Weekend because they're just so adored that it distracts me from what they do well - pretty much, I think what they do isn't that impressive, but I can't tell if it's because of the hype, if it's the core of my feelings, or a mixture of both. I know I hate MGMT because it seems like they soak up all the success that could be AC's so I'm just a mad hater in tht respect, but with Vampire Weekend they seem to have this really pretentious air about them while not writing that great of songs, just spinoffs of Pet Sounds and Paul Simon with some new instruments.

Basically, I think it's a skepticism you show mostly because of hype, especially when the music is being branded as truly original or something similar. There are a lot of rappers that i can't get into for this hype surrounding them as well as other bands, and it does make me tune out a little, but I'm also am in the rediscovering process, back into Neil Young and the Beach Boys and Beatles when I'm not listening to some favorite new stuff. I don't think it's because of my aversion to hype, it's just how I'm working - maybe that's where my age comes in. I am on the boarder of real adulthood and technical childhood (teenage bullshiit) so maybe I'm recovering all the sounds from when I was a little dude. I'm sure Freud has a theory.

But I'm still into some new things, just a little later than everyone else. If it's brand new, like debut album this year new, I'm probably not into it. Hype actually does guide me in some ways, because if a band's around long enough and is still talked about with the new people around (like AC or Mastodon or the Shins are) then I'll check it, because it must be cool, but that newness is relative, or non-existent. The newest album I've bought is John Maus' one from 2011, and I only heard it last year. I kinda like living behind like that though.

Point is, I'm not sure, but I think hype is bad, kind of.

It's always possible to be innovative. But it much harder to be listenable at the same time. And sadly, nowadays if you are innovative chances are very little that you make it big, so if your innovations are never noticed, they are actually very useless

@Surell,

No, it wasn't the hype of Grunge that turned me off, I'm not the kind of person who lets something like that bother me. It was the actual music of Grunge, I just thought it was a big fat "what's the big deal?" Held no appeal to me at all (and it still doesn't).

OH. well then. ooops.

I'm totally that type of person, I guess the context is key for me. It isn't always so, but if it doesn't meet the standard then I'm irked. But now I guess I just see it as you don't like Grunge, much like how I don't like popular Country of today, or 80s R&B/New Jack Swing for the most part. For the most part, I hate everything 80s, and my mom hates me for it, but that's just me. But as far as new music goes, and my place in dismissing it or not, could very well be part of my age, if that gets back to the original question. But it's not because I'm not impressed, per se, just that I'm at a point where I'm discovering older rather than newer music. I want to say it's because, being so caught up in music, I want to touch on the things that are making what I hear today possible, or where the newer stuff is sourced, and see how they progress or stagnate with it. Or I just might be at the age of nostalgia, bordering on a quarter life, graduate crisis or something.