is anything in music truly new and fresh anymore?

[Enemy Within]

just a quick question, is anything new or original in music anymore or just a pale imitation of what has come before? i'd love to hear everybody's views on this.

[TCwebtime]

There is so much noise around (noise = imitation) on mainstream acts and wannabe acts that it is hard to find/spot any original stuff. Also often our own music can sound familiar because our creative moments may be contaminated by what we have been listening to in the past few years.
The other problem is that 'different' music (that could be somehow original) may have hard time to get support, harder to sell. And I'm not even saying original means non-pop.

For me it is easier to find something a bit more different or personalised (refers to composer/act) if I go back to some of the old stuff I like... like Supertramp, Jarre...
More recent stuff and more mainstream today? Actually I like Joss Stone, mainstream but a bit different. The same for Daniel Bedingfield, yes poppy but diffrent. Depeche Mode, they sound like themself, many trying to copy their old sound but they just sound stupid, especially the ones trying to sing like the Mode singer.

So when I don't find totally original I go and look for something a bit different.

[max derelict]

I'm sorry I don't think Joss Stone is a great singer, although I like what she is trying to do

In my own country DJs say: this doesn't sound like (for example) Mandoza, or you are mixing different styles or languages, how can we make fresh music when the people playing it want it to sound the same as something else?

And they want payola too. Yet Bongani Kujah's tracks (2 on my playlist) are liked by the hundreds of young African women I have given the demo to, and scores of African expatriates and African Americans. Not one person has said: I don't like that, ot it is boring. Yet I turn on the radio I hear a junk drumloop with some dude boasting about how he blacks out every day or whatever...

And my own music: "what band is this " (black presumably, they mean I have stolen it from a band) "No it's just me, or just Bongani, or just Eric." One person plays, the other engineers, simple. Disbelief.

"You didn't play all these instruments, this is some kind of trickery. ... Which band is this?" fckin tedious man...... When I finish a CD of my own rather than other ppl'sa trax, I'm gonna call it "which band is this?"

Disbelief, give up, post it on MTM site and other sites. GREAT reception by ppl in US I have posted it to. What gives? Nobody wants to hear anything new, they want it to be packagable, instantly recognisable, an imitation of something else. And "white" or "black" (I mean in my country!), and "don't mix English and esiZulu". But WTF not??

No wonder kids end up imitating big stars, they learn that is the only music that will get played: derivative crap! Mediocrity is loved, who knows why, predictable product maybe.

My tracks are not great, but I am working on new stuff (some of my music, some young singers putting vox over it... we'll see. When I take it to a DJ she'll say "which band is this" ho hum......

[John Zealey]

I think it's a mistake to think that any of us create anything new. Everything I make is a direct result of what I love to listen to, but, it does seem like there is a heck of a lot of stuff out there that sounds very much like it's original inspiration/source.

I think a lot of the 'single' buying public have got lazy. It's like they need to already know a tune. They are not prepared to give themselves time for atune to grow on them. Labels have indetified this and realise a short cutis the best way. Samples (and chord sequences and styles and covers) can be used in all kinds of clever ways but it seems now sticking pretty much the whole tune on a track, with very little changes or creativity, is the way to go. There is no danger involved. The punter doesn't have to think. It's like a Big Mac. They know what they are already getting.

I got my kids (13 and 10) to listen to Daft Punk (Harder Stronger etc) and they were shocked to find out it was a cover. They prefer the Daft Punk version now. Prehaps with tracks that use hefty amounts of other peoples work, there could be more of an effort to make it clear where the orginal sample (or cover) came from, this could encourage a bit more exploration from the punter.

The final nail in the coffin for exposure of new music is...just that......exposure. Radio stations need to 'protect their product' and will only play stuff they believe protects their brand. They don't wanna shock anybody and tracks that already sound a bit familiar are a good bet. Taking a risk is gonna be low on their agenda. Of course there are few stations that try, but not many high profile ones. BBC Radio 6 have thier moments but to me it feels like they are getting more 'playlist' with every day.

[TCwebtime]

Yes it is also because the masses just want to listen to more of this or more of that, something they can easily understand and recognise. Often people are busy and they don;'t have time to explore something new. Were money is involved, familiar sells with less risk as others said above.

If you want you tunes played in a mainstream DJ set you have to sound a certain way, be at a certain beat speed, etc... otherwise you stick out too much and you may be hard to mix in....

I guess it is all down to what one really wants to do. I like a bit of everthing and I can see myself doing some track in a few different recognisable styles (be it techno, underground, easy listening, orchestral, etc...) and some of it will be not fully original because I want it to get to the lazy listener.... other times I'll by more myself and try to push my own style which BTW needs work and refinement..

[Dwoogie]

One of the best things about the internet is that anyone can upload their creative output for the world to hear.

One of the worst things about the internet is that anyone can upload their creative output for the world to hear.

[Dwoogie]

The fault is not with the listeners. The human ear has not evolved at all over the last 40 years, so humanity is, to all intents and purposes, the same.

The fault lies with the suits. These are the people who decide, through their collective actions, that if you want your music played in the clubs it has to sound like this, and you have to look like this. If you want your music on the radio, then do it like this. They're in the branding game. Make your artists a recognised, and recognisable, brand, and watch the money roll in. The superstar bands are complicit in this. They're corporations just as much as the multimedia conglomerates which own the majority, money-wise, of the music industry are.

Don't blame the listeners, they only listen to what's provided for them. Twas ever thus.

[John Zealey]

I hear ya!!:

'One of the worst things about the internet is that anyone can upload their creative output for the world to hear.'

:-)

The net has been great for me. I've discovered loads of new music and artists I never would have found by listening to the radio or watching TV. I used lots of networking sites but nothing replaces having a huge budget for promotion.

As far as the men in suits go, I guess it has to be a bit of both, if there wasn't demand they wouldn't be putting that stuff out. As a human being, one has a choice to buy something or not.

I think it's really difficult to get a clear picture of what folk want when you are a musician. I also believe a lot of people buy music cause they wanna be part of something and are really not that interested in the music itself. Festivals being a prime example. We saw pretty much the same bands at every festival this year. All the line-ups seemed to be safe bets for the major ones.

[Dwoogie]

I'm almost with you about the demand aspect, except that a lot of what goes on in business is creating a demand and then satisfying it. I don't think the music business is any different in that regard.

I certainly agree that we always have a choice, but for many people that choice is limited by their sources of information. It takes effort to make informed choices about anything - it requires an open mind, a desire to learn, and persistence - so it's not surprising that many choose not to do it. Not because they're lazy, but because they don't have the time or the energy, or they don't see the need.

I also agree that many, if not everyone to some degree, see their taste in music as a lifestyle choice - "I like this kind of music because it matches my image of myself". That's unavoidable. But I have to confess, egomaniac that I am, that when I'm creating my music what folk want is utterly irrelevant. It's what I want that counts. If others appreciate it, great. If they don't, well,. it's not the end of the world, is it?

[Grant Bridgeman]

I think I've written this before, but it's worth writing again:

"There's only one important word in the phrase "music business". And it's not "music""

You (not personally, but anyone) - may be making strokes of audio genius, but unless your art has got a commercial market (ie, it can be labelled and sold) then it will remain uncommercially viable. Once you have a name, your name will sell your art and put a price on it.

"Art is the cherry on the top of the capitalist cake" - from the Alan Yentob programme the other night.

If you are doing something truely original, then how can people relate to it and how can you attract people to listen to it ? (A real question, not a point of view).

Just my 2 sense.

G

[EOSPete]

Some of the Blue Man stuff is original both in its sound and the instruments used although it does seem to conform to traditional musical structure. BMG seem to be able to get massive drum sounds, some of which use gated reverb but I cant quite work out how else it's done. Layering sounds, compression, doubling. Some of the percussion tracks from the Complex album are just huge!

I don't have a wide musical taste I'll admit, but most new musical genres seem to be dance music based. There hasn't been anything as radical as punk or new wave in the non dance genres for quite a while. Even the old timers like Jarre who was mentioned in a previous post, have been drawn into the dance strand - his last release Teo and Tea was very dance based. Maybe its time for something brand new!
P

[TCwebtime]

Yes the new Jarre album.... I think he compromised too much.

[Dwoogie]

Most of the new genres are indeed dance-based, but they come and go like rainshowers. "Oh, you're still listening to quicksteppsychotrancefoxtrotbreakbeathardbossanova? That's so-o-o-o-o-o last week." And what do you have to do to create a new dance music genre? Have someone go thrrrrrrrrrrrrack down a washboard every couple of beats, and sell it as the next new sound, and away you go. It's marketing gone crazy.

I spend a fair amount of time trawling the netlabels to see what's going on almost out of the public eye, and there's a lot of weird and wonderful stuff to be found. Does it have commercial potential? Probably not. But the degree to which a work is successful as a piece of art isn't measured in those terms.