A few weeks back I read an article about the loss of
innovation in music. The article bemoaned the lack of current bands pushing the
boundaries of music to create something “brand new”, when it only referenced
bands that have been presented to us by the mainstream. There’s always going to be someone out there
somewhere who has dived into the Ultima Thule of sonic possibilities and kept
on swimming into uncharted waters, but you’ll never hear about them. Q, NME,
MOJO or any number of online music sites will not talk about such things –
probably because most people would find it unpalatable and therefore would not sell copy.
When did true innovation cease in mainstream music? Probably
the late Eighties if you ask me. That was the last decade in which we had youth
cultures and music that could be easily identified with the times. But even
before that, trailblazers like the Stones copied Chuck Berry, The Beatles
copied the Everly Brothers, Led Zeppelin stole songs from old bluesmen, the Sex
Pistols recycled the Stones take on Chuck Berry and so on and so on... “But”, I
hear you say, “These bands took those influences as their roots and built upon
them to create something unique.” Which is my point, one has to take off from a
reference point to begin with – it’s the personality of the music produced that
matters.
Too often the press get hung up about bands reflecting in
the past, yet will crow on about certain bands whose work is just as derivative
as the groups they malign. The Horrors’ album “Skying” sounded to me like
Simple Minds – but was hailed as a masterpiece. Yet I read everyone slating The
Strypes for being too Sixties derived, but at least they are group with snotty
teenage attitude of the kind that rightly belongs in 3 chord garage rock. How
come the Coral got away with not being labelled derivative.
I remember during my short stint in the music biz, my band
were written off as Stooges wannabes – whereas peers like The Rakes where held
in massive regard despite sounding exactly like Joy Division, and having a
singer who dressed exactly like Ian Curtis and danced like him too (I’m not
bitter, honest!).
So why are some bands allowed to be derivative when others
get mocked for it? Probably has something to do with whether the labels are in
bed with any particular magazine and whether they can “influence” enough
motivation to elevate a particular group to god-like status whether they
deserve it or not. Oooh cynical! Well, I met a guy from NME who told me that
all the bands that are to be bigged up are decided upon at the beginning of the
year and in cahoots with the record labels! I’m sure there was a time when journos
actually went out and discovered bands for themselves!
The best you can do with music is to be honest about it. Don’t
do anything for acceptance, don’t do anything just to fit in – follow your muse
and your artistic instincts, then it will be “real”. It may echo a few things
in your collection, but that’s where you come from. Forget innovation, there
are records from the Fifties to the Nineties that are far more forward thinking
than a lot of stuff we’re presented with. Look online – sites like Soundcloud
and Bandcamp, you’ll probably find stuff that’s also more forward thinking than
a lot of stuff we’re presented with as well. Those guys, however, probably don’t
care if they’re innovating. For example, do you think Iggy said to his Stooges,
“Hey Guys! Let’s invent Punk Rock!” All those Block Parties in New York
during the Seventies, did those kids spinning records all whisper to each
other, “This is all going to evolve into Hip Hop one day!” No, they were just
doing what they were doing and it caught on.
