Is innovation necessary?
>>65705248
Yes. Innovation is the most important thing in art
Innovation, or at the very least bringing a new and unheard sound, is the only way to estimate a piece of art's quality.
>>65705294
What do you think about revival acts?
>>65705248
Innovation separates artists from entertainers
>>65705248
More necessary than you.
Not really, it's important and always welcomed but a lot of great music doesn't innovate at all
>>65705308
What about technique? Tonality?
no, what's necessary is making good music, if it happens to be innovative - great, if not - whatever
>>65705693
>technique
Irrelevant. Virtuosity means nothing without something to say.
>Tonality
wdhmbt?
Innovation is unavoidable
>>65705315
the embodiment of top keks
>>65705704
>Virtuosity means nothing without something to say.
You're no longer my favorite trip.
>>65705704
>*gets* rothko once
>>65705744
top kek
Art itself is not necessary. Innovation is not necessary.
Lateral movement is still movement.
>>65705308
take the stick out of your ass
>>65705248
nothing is necessary you fucking codpiece. you're all imbeciles.
>>65705765
Well when you say technique/virtuosity what do you mean?
>>65705778
What's wrong with Rothko?
>>65705886
You know exactly what I mean.
>>65705315
If they revive in order to make new shit, then that could be good, if it's just to pander to other people from the 70s and 80s and play old songs that they can't even sing anymore, fuck that noise
>>65705886
If somebody is saying something that everyone has said before, but they are saying it with good technique and skill, that can make it good.
That's anon's point.
Example: Panda by Desiigner. Same lyrical content as literally every other mainstream rapper today, his style and flow isn't different enough to count as "innovation" in my opinion, but the song is still good. He does a good job singing the same old shit, the same old way.
>>65706006
I'm not really saying that it's either good or shit. I'm saying that when it comes to stuff people remember, it's always the innovative stuff.
>>65706180
I don't think that's true at all. A lot of factors can contribute to what makes something memorable. Repetition is a major factor in that, whether it's in the song itself or because the song was played over and over on the radio.
Maybe you should define what you think is "innovative" before you go around saying that only innovation constitutes what has quality or what is memorable, because it's a pretty broad generalization using a pretty vague term.
We get bored of the same music over and over again and like to hear something new.
Also, if you want to make a meaningful "statement" (in the broadest sense) you need something new to say. Otherwise it's just a reiteration.
And if you think of art as creation (which is just one possible sense, but it is an important one), well... there's your answer. Creation is a form of innovation.
>>65705248
From a music history perspective, innovators are usually important figures but it shouldn't make a huge difference to your personal enjoyment of an artist's work.
There are a number of things that can make music good, innovation is just one of them. If you aren't innovative you better be on point with the rest of your shit.
