Is innovation important to you?

[Necro Joe]

Do you mind if a band isn't breaking new ground (or even trying to) as long as they have a sound of their own and aren't a direct rip-off of someone else? I'm pretty sure most posters here (and metal fans in general) aren't that concerned with innovation in the music they listen to, even if they can appreciate it when they hear it, as they're more concerned with music being powerful and just enjoyable to listen to.

And to a point agree with this as well but one of the reasons I've never cultivated a really in depth knowledge of any of the main metal genres is that after a while I get sick of small variations on a theme and want to hear something that sounds exiting and fresh. For example I have real trouble getting up enough enthusiasm to check out the new Bolt Thrower or Dismember albums (even though I'm a fan of both bands) simply because right now really good songs and riffs just aren't enough to keep my attention for very long. I mean most people would admit that there aren't many death, black or thrash bands that can match the genre 'classics' which we've mostly all heard. So I guess what I'm trying to say, in a roundabout way, is that these days 'good' music and 'innovative' music are often one and the same thing for me. Though there are obviously quite a few exceptions.

 

[unknown]

Innovation is pretty important to me, but that's not to say I'll completely disregard seemingly "normal"/"run of the mill" metal. I like to see artists that take a completely different approach to metal music (Frantic Bleep, Sculptured), and to see if it actually comes out sounding good. A lot of bands wander off into avant garde territory in the hopes of innovating something, and it just comes off sounding trite and awkward.

it ultimately depends on my mood. some days I'll crave really technical, "innovative", off the wall shit...other days I'll want something simple and straightforward.

 

[no country for old wainds]

I'm pretty sure most posters here (and metal fans in general) aren't that concerned with innovation in the music they listen to, even if they can appreciate it when they hear it, as they're more concerned with music being powerful and just enjoyable to listen to.

I understand this position - I'm a firm believer that the best art's timeless, and innovation isn't what makes it great. But then, I see this as defending the need for innovation - it's precisely because albums like Transilvanian Hunger or Hvis Lyset Tar Oss are timeless that there is absolutely no need whatsoever for other bands (or even the bands themselves) to add to that formula, *particularly* when said additions aren't as powerful.

Also, I suggest that listeners should pressure bands to break new ground rather than accepting good-but-redundant albums, as the latter encourages a comfort-zone mentality - after all, why try to create something truly great when good albums will be enough to get us recognised? Of course, some of the better bands might totally ignore the critics, but there's certainly nothing to lose in supporting innovation over stagnation, and if enough do so the mindset prevalent in metal may end up changing for the better. Otherwise, the best bands of today might end up losing their spark and settling into a groove, as I fear bands such as Summoning may already be starting to do.

 

[byrne]

I appreciate innovative bands more, but still enjoy bands who may not have done it first, but perhaps "do it better".

Also, I agree with tbird in that listeners shouldn't accept complacency from bands rather, they should push for something new/different/fresh to be written (with "new, different and fresh all being distinct from one another AND being necessarily innovative).

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

As long as I like it, I'm fine. If it's unique doesn't make it good.

 

[Necro Joe]

I understand this position - I'm a firm believer that the best art's timeless, and innovation isn't what makes it great.

But would I be wrong to assume that all the albums you consider timeless are also innovative in some way? I would certainly say the two you mentioned are.

Also, I suggest that listeners should pressure bands to break new ground rather than accepting good-but-redundant albums, as the latter encourages a comfort-zone mentality - after all, why try to create something truly great when good albums will be enough to get us recognised?

Yeah this is another reason I find the endless train of similar bands hard to enjoy. If as a listener I know that they can easily produce an entertaining but not groundbreaking album every couple of years and aren't interested in trying to push themselves it makes the expression itself seem somehow false. Obviously metal is often based around violent releases of emotion and if you make it your job to act angry and hateful because its expected of you by fans or you're contractually obliged to keep making abums then you can't really say the music has any kind of heart or soul. Though its not like I can't tell whether a band is being honest or not and you could easily argue that it doesn't matter if you can't tell the difference.

 

[CAIRATH]

I find innovation important on a genre scale. In the sense that I think genres where all the bands are sticking to one sound and not trying to move on become stale very quickly.

But on a band scale, not really. I love it when a band makes me go "huh?" but all the same I love good solid bands that simply are very good at what they do, even if it's been done a thousand times before. Atleast as long as the band in question is not blatantly ripping off some other band, or simply musically inferior to a similar other band (because in both cases I'd rather listen to the other band then).

 

[CF87]

I don't think a band has to be innovative in say the entire spectrum of music, but I do think a band should expiriment if they want to stick around for awile and also push themselves.

Some bands can get away with doing the samething for years and years. Some bands would not be around now or be nearly the band they are if they released there first cd 10 times. I guess all this depends on what you are doing as band and who your music is being exposed to,what label is pushing you,etc..

Technology and the industry changes so you probably should put things in perspective unless you want to always be a low profile band like how you started. I'm not saying forget your roots,etc...

 

[CAIRATH]

AC/DC are a pretty good example of a band who have done the same thing for literally 30 years and who I have tremendous respect for despite that. Sure, they released pretty much the same album 20 times over, but you don't need to own all 20 of them. I doubt I will ever buy any of their newer albums. But simply the fact that they have said "we're a rock band, this is what we sound like, and this is how it's going to stay" is admirable I think. They have never given in to industry trends and have never experimented with their sound by releasing an album of ballads or electronic-fused music or anything like that.

I guess not every band could get away with something like that, but they can. As far as I am concerned they pretty much are the saviours of rock music. No matter how shitty other bands turn, AC/DC will always be AC/DC until Angus Young dies.

 

[SheisMySin]

It's pretty important to me...

I hate bands that come out right after another band makes it big with a fresh sound.

For Example:

Nightwish.

To me, they were the first band to fuse opera and metal together in a unique way. Now there are a billion Nightwish clones. It's like they aren't even trying to make their own sound...they're just copying what's already been proven to work.

It got really bad with the whole swedish death metal sound...In Flames...Dark Tranquility...etc etc.

Sometimes I don't hear good music, I just hear the band copying what's "in."

Now the latest sound is the clean chorus vocals.

Scott

 

[Demilich]

I don't value innovation very highly, at least not unless it accompanies a sound that I like. I'll never put down an album simply because it isn't pushing boundaries... I love some very traditional metal albums even when they've come out in the 21st century.

 

[Phantom Lord]

I like innovation, but I don't have to have it. I do require that a band be unique to a degree. Sorry no cookie cutter bands for me.

 

[Hell Mike]

ROCKING is important to me, as is GOODNESS. ROCKING GOODNESS = happy hell mike motörbike

 

[cookiecutter]

I don't mind if a band just plays the same old stuff as long as they do it well. There is a reason that that same old stuff is liked.

For example, Brutal Death is one of my favorite genres, but most of the bands have a similiar sound. I still love it though, because I like that similiar sound.

 

[LivingCadaver]

no I like to hear 45346346374574734 times the same album but played by different bands.

 

[Jreg]

I understand this position - I'm a firm believer that the best art's timeless, and innovation isn't what makes it great. But then, I see this as defending the need for innovation - it's precisely because albums like Transilvanian Hunger or Hvis Lyset Tar Oss are timeless that there is absolutely no need whatsoever for other bands (or even the bands themselves) to add to that formula, *particularly* when said additions aren't as powerful.

Also, I suggest that listeners should pressure bands to break new ground rather than accepting good-but-redundant albums, as the latter encourages a comfort-zone mentality - after all, why try to create something truly great when good albums will be enough to get us recognised? Of course, some of the better bands might totally ignore the critics, but there's certainly nothing to lose in supporting innovation over stagnation, and if enough do so the mindset prevalent in metal may end up changing for the better. Otherwise, the best bands of today might end up losing their spark and settling into a groove, as I fear bands such as Summoning may already be starting to do.

I think it's interesting how innovation and timelessness work together. A piece of music can be both innovative and timeless, or one but not the other (like a pop song that holds up after 20 years, no matter how derivative or unoriginal it may be). Even though I generally agree with those who say innovation isn't essential as long as the music's good, I also agree that the best art is timeless, and that's what makes it tricky when I try to choose what bands to invest in. "Innovative" and "good" are usually immediately apparent traits; "timeless" is not. When deciding what new music to buy, I don't ask myself "will I like this?" so much as "will I still like this in 10 years?" It's a gamble, but there's not a whole lot I can do about it.

Just the same, I don't believe innovation is ALWAYS instantly detectable. It can be a slow evolutionary process involving a lot of baby steps. Some bands may, at first, seem like they've recorded the same album at least twice, but many of these will inevitably shed certain traits and subtleties in place of new ones over time until you can play their oldest and newest material back to back and hear a difference. I'd say I'm more interested in this slower organic process of change, as opposed to the more drastic approach of a band like Ulver.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Simply: No.

I don't mind if a band just plays the same old stuff as long as they do it well. There is a reason that that same old stuff is liked.

For example, Brutal Death is one of my favorite genres, but most of the bands have a similiar sound. I still love it though, because I like that similiar sound.

I also agree with this wholeheartedly. Please never preach to me about "UH THAT BRUTAL SLAMDEATH BAND IS SO BORING MAN IT'S JUST SUFFO-WORSHIP WITH LESS TECHNICALITY." I really could not care less. I love Suffocation. I love bands on Unique Leader. I love Carcass ripoffs and think some do it even better than Carcass did. I love stagnant metal. I also love experimental metal. I love everything. Music rules. Life rules. You all rule.

 

[CF87]

Are you high ?

 

[cookiecutter]

Simply: No.



I also agree with this wholeheartedly. Please never preach to me about "UH THAT BRUTAL SLAMDEATH BAND IS SO BORING MAN IT'S JUST SUFFO-WORSHIP WITH LESS TECHNICALITY." I really could not care less. I love Suffocation. I love bands on Unique Leader. I love Carcass ripoffs and think some do it even better than Carcass did. I love stagnant metal. I also love experimental metal. I love everything. Music rules. Life rules. You all rule.

 

[Zephyrus]

Personally I prefer variations on established themes rather than chartering new territory. Experimentation is healthy but it comes with many risks, such as losing an fanbase. If a band choses to forge something entirely new they should progress in baby steps rather than pull a full shift on their sound.