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.