Rehashes or Innovation

Generally, I think what holds truest is Kandinsky's idea that any attempt to give artistic expression to the ideas of the past can only ever result in a still birth (I paraphrase, but you get the idea).

However, as Kandinsky's work itself proves, neither is formal experimentation necessarily a guarantee of quality. And, to give 2 good, if quite different, examples, Joanna Newsom and a lot of the artists referenced on the Hauntology thread, I'd say that listening to artists who give something back is nearly always a rewarding experience.

In summary: it depends on how slavishly you're rehashing the past. Arctic Monkeys bad. Arcade Fire good.

I think it should at least be a consideration, you need some sort of pressure on new acts to innovate. It's rarely disscussed, ten years ago journalists might have a go at Oasis for being sixties throwbacks, but now innovation is dismissed with a shrug.
"Why bother?"
I read an article or review on Pitchfork recently defending some retro band's musical staidness, stating that you simply can't innovate now, it's impossible, and you'll only end up looking silly in the process. I think this attitude is as much to blame as a lack of ideas.

swears said:

I read some on Pitchfork recently defending some retro band's musical staidness, stating that you simply can't innovate now, it's impossible, and you'll only end up looking silly in the process. I think this attitude is as much to blame as a lack of ideas.

Click to expand...

There's so much to pinch from, why does everyone want to sound like Rod Stewart?