ilovefuzz.com

backwardsvoyager wrote:I think what a lot of artists that are considered innovative have in common is that they don't exclusively draw their influences from other musicians.
I've found personally that I write better music when I'm not comparing it to other music (whatever genre that may be), rather making it an introspective process. e.g. thinking of things or people that are important to you when you play rather than whatever song was last stuck in your head.
Sure, any musical influences will affect the outcome but the music you make is supposed to be a personal expression, not copying other people or trying to improve upon their work.

Just my opinion, anyway.

Quoting for appreciation.

backwardsvoyager wrote:I think what a lot of artists that are considered innovative have in common is that they don't exclusively draw their influences from other musicians.
I've found personally that I write better music when I'm not comparing it to other music (whatever genre that may be), rather making it an introspective process. e.g. thinking of things or people that are important to you when you play rather than whatever song was last stuck in your head.
Sure, any musical influences will affect the outcome but the music you make is supposed to be a personal expression, not copying other people or trying to improve upon their work.

Just my opinion, anyway.

In my old band, we tried so hard to hone in a particular sound, but we couldn't stick to any one genre. We started to feel lonely as a result of it, as if no one would like something so eclectic. But after about a year of jamming we decided to accept who we were as a band and work with it. We eventually disbanded for various different reasons, but I learned something valuable: Your personality determines what music you create, not what you listen to. It's more of a subconscious influence than a conscious one.

AngryGoldfish wrote:In my old band, we tried so hard to hone in a particular sound, but we couldn't stick to any one genre. We started to feel lonely as a result of it, as if no one would like something so eclectic. But after about a year of jamming we decided to accept who we were as a band and work with it. We eventually disbanded for various different reasons, but I learned something valuable: Your personality determines what music you create, not what you listen to. It's more of a subconscious influence than a conscious one.

Yeah, that's something I've come to terms with over the past year or so. I used to try so desperately to reproduce all the things I liked about my favourite bands when writing/playing.
It seems like every time something innovative comes along people who like it just put out stuff that sounds as similar as possible. Not saying I have a problem with artists like that, it just gets tiring.

Twangasaurus wrote:

Mudfuzz wrote:

phantasmagorovich wrote: That is a sort of good thing, but I think it also hinders creativity.

I am not sure... I have always liked a wide rang of stuff... I have never been able to just go and like most of a type, for me you'd find a few artists that were good and the rest was boring...

Do you mean it hinders creativity in that you're not trying to innovate within a specific genre but instead you're more inclined to simply take something from somewhere else and apply it in a new way? If so I can see the reasoning behind it but I'm with mudfuzz, I could never imagine being a "mono genre" listener. Half the fun with finding new music these days is digging through all the awful to find that gold nugget, makes it more rewarding and fun I think.

That is one aspect, the whole understanding stuff as "this mixed with that" takes away part of the fun in being creative.

But more importantly I think that wanting to NOT be someone and NOT like something and be AGAINST stuff was what fueled a lot of musical progress the last couple of decades. We have all become a bunch of librarians and we spend more time listening to music than inventing music. Now I am able to sate most of my musical needs by digging up a couple of old records from the web or a new band from bandcamp if it is a really exotic whim. Otherwise I'll just have it readily available from spotify or iTunes.
Of course it is a part of creative work to absorb influences and get new ideas from what people did before you. You have to be standing on the shoulders of giants, I get that. But it is only one, the first, step. The next one is to develop your own ideas and to do that - I think - you have to bar yourself from influences that will only lead you away from what you have formulated as your vision. I think unless you keep that vision pure until you have produced and can start to go through the cycle anew, you will get a watered down version of what would originally be (at least potentially) true art.

Disclaimer: I am in no way doing what I am preaching. But I also don't take myself serious as an artist. I like to play and write but I won't give a shit if anyone else likes it or if it is original. I would if I were to decide that this is a route I want to follow.

backwardsvoyager wrote:

AngryGoldfish wrote:In my old band, we tried so hard to hone in a particular sound, but we couldn't stick to any one genre. We started to feel lonely as a result of it, as if no one would like something so eclectic. But after about a year of jamming we decided to accept who we were as a band and work with it. We eventually disbanded for various different reasons, but I learned something valuable: Your personality determines what music you create, not what you listen to. It's more of a subconscious influence than a conscious one.

Yeah, that's something I've come to terms with over the past year or so. I used to try so desperately to reproduce all the things I liked about my favourite bands when writing/playing.
It seems like every time something innovative comes along people who like it just put out stuff that sounds as similar as possible. Not saying I have a problem with artists like that, it just gets tiring.

The problem, though, is that bands like Rage Against the Machine, Korn, and System of a Down, they can't be used as inspiration because once you do you start to immediately sound like them. They weren't purposefully selfish or anything, but there is a certain amount of criticism for bands like Rage Against the Machine because no one can do anything they first made famous without instantly being labelled as a copycat. That includes any of the guitar techniques Tom Morello made famous. Where Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath paved the way for others to follow, System of a Down held the fort on their own permanently, even after retiring as a band.

i think that part of why this is the case--which is kind of contra your point--is that the influences of bands like Sabbath and Zeppelin were less assimilated, which made it easier for people to follow their stylistic innovations. the newer bands are so much more specialized in their techniques that it's hard to emulate without rote copying. even in the Van Halen era, there was enough wiggle room in their style to spawn some of the LA hair-metal bands, and U2 conquered the world with Edge's clattering delays. by contrast, Radiohead are so individuated that the bands who tried to emulate them--Muse and Coldplay most obviously--had to mutate away from the Radiohead style towards prog or pop songs respectively. it's also the case, i think, that all too many modern bands' success is based on a stylistic tic or two which set them apart from the crowd of their genre but which don't substitute for actual ideas.

Can't argue with that. Good points.

“Everyone knows rock n’ roll attained perfection in 1974; It’s a scientific fact.”

Homer Simpson....

Future of Music: I'm going to get better at song writing and please only myself. I look forward to new, creative things from my friends. Past that, I don't really care.

I think mainstream music in the near future will be more like Mumford and Sons and Fun. That's all I hear from people I know who keep up with new mainstream music. And it seems it's turning folk/indie stuff into something that the radio likes. But the folk/indie I like is still on its own, I believe.

This
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG2ccH8jlCA[/youtube]
still sets itself apart

Thinking a lot about this topic over the past few months. So much has changed with the distribution side of music - no more radio play per se to sell singles, tours to promote the album, the Top-40 Concept in general...the cynic in me fears these changes may not benefit the artist. And the music industry cut its own throat by charging WAY too much for CD's to begin with...

I'm probably one of the older folks on this forum, and I really what I'd call "organic heavy music." Black Sabbath is a perfect example - I love the tones of their early studio recordings, just the sheer Doom-forecast that they brought. I picked up a Geezer solo CD from a few years ago, and his tone was so buried in production, digital compression, etc. I couldn't stand it. I know if that band were to re-record their first album in today's studio it would just be a big overblown digital noise fest with a major label behind it.

So I really like bands that keep that vibe alive for me today - they seem to be labeled "Stoner/Doom," and it sounds like they'd fit right in with that 1969-ish era: Russian Circles, Dead Meadow, Radio Moscow, Wolf People, Arbouretum... I don't care for cookie monster vocals, but labels do get in the way as most of my friends would have no idea what Stoner/Doom (or my favorite "Doom Folk") music means sonically.

As far as the future, I just hope bands like this can keep expanding and touring live. But without the old model of "Radio airplay - tour - record" cycle I'm not sure how they get the capital. Kickstarter-concepts may be the new payola without the sleeze perhaps?

PWV wrote:Thinking a lot about this topic over the past few months. So much has changed with the distribution side of music - no more radio play per se to sell singles, tours to promote the album, the Top-40 Concept in general...the cynic in me fears these changes may not benefit the artist. And the music industry cut its own throat by charging WAY too much for CD's to begin with...

I'm probably one of the older folks on this forum, and I really what I'd call "organic heavy music." Black Sabbath is a perfect example - I love the tones of their early studio recordings, just the sheer Doom-forecast that they brought. I picked up a Geezer solo CD from a few years ago, and his tone was so buried in production, digital compression, etc. I couldn't stand it. I know if that band were to re-record their first album in today's studio it would just be a big overblown digital noise fest with a major label behind it.

So I really like bands that keep that vibe alive for me today - they seem to be labeled "Stoner/Doom," and it sounds like they'd fit right in with that 1969-ish era: Russian Circles, Dead Meadow, Radio Moscow, Wolf People, Arbouretum... I don't care for cookie monster vocals, but labels do get in the way as most of my friends would have no idea what Stoner/Doom (or my favorite "Doom Folk") music means sonically.

As far as the future, I just hope bands like this can keep expanding and touring live. But without the old model of "Radio airplay - tour - record" cycle I'm not sure how they get the capital. Kickstarter-concepts may be the new payola without the sleeze perhaps?

Come join us in the Doom Room if you fancy it. It's mostly older people, so you don't have to feel old if you don't want to.

Although I agree with what you're saying, I understand why artists today rely so heavily on digital processing. Firstly, it's cheaper. Secondly, they're pressured into doing so on many fronts, both by their record label, their studio engineers, owners, and producers, and by the multitude of other artists out there who are fighting for a spot in the limelight. These artists and engineers might feel they could be on to something fresh and bold with each new processor that is released. They might have come across a quick fix to an age-old problem: How do I get paid to be a musician with the least amount of work? NIN, Amanda Palmer, Radiohead, they're all making a lot of money from 'DIY' projects and 'pay what you want' checkouts. They already had huge followings so were never in any danger of going back to their day job, but small underground artists have to either take the chance and offer their music for free, which potentially diminishes their value as an artist and eliminates any potential respect and/or media attention, or charge for it and possibly lose out on fans who would have supported them in other ways.

Ultimately, like any industry, it has its ups and downs. Artists these days are subconsciously fearful they'll never live up to their heroes from the 60s, 70s, 90s, whenever, so they pursue new areas and new techniques in the hope of redefining music for a new generation. But they sometimes fail miserably. Emo was one of them. That has fallen flat on its face. That was essentially young kids trying to live up to their fathers impression on the world. They wanted to leave a mark just as their Uncles and Granddads did in the 60s onwards. I understand why they dressed in such clothes and played such music. It was, in my opinion, insecurity and the desire to be recognized. Approval is something we all seek. If a child isn't given it then it will grow up to be a stunted adult, looking for it in all the wrong places. That's why you always applaud your children when they manage to shit in the right hole in your house.

I'll be in the Doom Room soon, still getting around the ILF forum and I'm totally diggin' this place. *You're in Ireland? I'll be there in August - end up in Sligo for 3-4 days I think....

Yes. studio pressure and/or cheaper production costs...ugh. Rush is another great example. That album from a few years ago - Vapor Trails - some of the best music written AND one of the shittiest-sounding recordings ever. Lots of "saturation" in the levels I guess. I'm not much of a technophile but it just sounds OVER - everything. Over-loud, over-produced, over-compressed, etc.....Give me 2112 please!

That's why you always applaud your children when they manage to shit in the right hole in your house.

Sig-worthy, and a great metaphor for today's music industry me thinks.

I think the whole industry will die, probably not soon, but maybe in 20 years it will be gone. Along with it the whole concept of being a musician that can live off his money will be gone too. Maybe the old concept of a patron that lets one or two musicians live off his money will rise again or something else completely (crowdfunding, who knows?) will be installed. But I do think that the majority of future music making will be done by hobbyists like us.

Gents, just popped in to throw in my 2C.

It's my belief the we are in the beginning of a new golden age as far as music is concerned.
Video killed the radio star right?

Technology has killed the music industry. Well fuck the industry says I!

I've tried to focus on local music lately and it seems like every time I hit a show I find another local band that upsets my perception of what good music is. There is so much good shit out there and so many people getting involved in music at the grassroots level that it blows my mind. House shows and basement shows. AWESOME.

I saw Mos Generator at a house in Olympia Wa for free a few months back and a week later they were touring europe and playing for big packed venues judging from the pics they had on FB.

I think it's a waste of time to worry about genres. Who cares what label gets slapped on your band. do YOU like playing the music? Do people have a good time when you play for them? Who gives a shit what its called?

Yeah sure if you play music so you can buy a ferrari and fuck groupies, that may be gone.

So fuck the future, fuck the past, enjoy the now. Do what you like and enjoy it for what it is.