I don't think so..

An artist doesn't have to re-write the musical history books to be good, imo. Come to think of it, a lot of my favorite songs are quite similar..

What do you guys think?

Nope.. and that's why a lot of people don't understand my opinions on music. Music either sounds pleasant to me or it doesn't, and that's all I judge it by. I don't care how groundbreaking, influential or historically important it is.

Trying to justify being a Whitney fan?

Not necessarily.

I have alot of songs/artist that I like that arent innovative.

However, the problem with why alot of people particularly on this board dont like alot of artists who arent is because innovation shows creativity. Who wants to listen to music that just sounds like a poor carbon copy of jazz for example when you can just listen to jazz? I guess that some peoples mentality. I can understand it and even at times depending on how good or bad the song or artist is I am the same way.

My personal beef with the word is that people throw it around to much. Everything is NOT innovative that doesnt necessarily mean its bad music/artist. Calling something or someo innovative is really really making a big statement in relation to music when most things especially post 80s really isnt.

Like someone mentioned above how Whitney wasnt innovative.

I dont completely agree with that statement.

I think her music wasnt innovative but her particular singing style and vocal talent was innovative and it influenced a generation.

I respect them more if they're unpredictable, or else I'll grow bored of them. That's what happened with janet and now even madonna.

No. People like what they like. The most mind blowing artist may catch you one day and the most mindless popstar the next.

No, I don't believe so. If you have real talent it doesn't matter if you're doing something that's not been done before. In fact, sometimes those that try to do things that they think are innovated just end up looking stupid - Lady Gaga anyone??!!

alphastreet said:

I respect them more if they're unpredictable, or else I'll grow bored of them. That's what happened with janet and now even madonna.

Isn't it more about the quality? If a song is good, it's good even if it's predictable.

Rhythm Nation was unpredictable, but the songs also just had good melodies, lyrics etc.

On her past albums that wasn't the case for me so yeah, it gets boring, the songs get forgettable.

Terrib3Towel said:

I don't think so..

An artist doesn't have to re-write the musical history books to be good, imo. Come to think of it, a lot of my favorite songs are quite similar..

What do you guys think?

I'm pretty sure that innovative artists could give a fuck if you think they are

good or not. They are too busy crafting innovative art and pushing their

art form beyond its norm.

Terrib3Towel said:

mancabdriver said:

Trying to justify being a Whitney fan?

I don't even know why I'm replying to you because you're a troll, but Whitney's greatness speaks for itself. If not, she would have faded into oblivion after the 80s, which she clearly did not.

That term is used so loosely nowadays.

I'm a fan of Whitney so I don't know what your on about. My question was genuine.

Terrib3Towel said:

mancabdriver said:

Trying to justify being a Whitney fan?

I don't even know why I'm replying to you because you're a troll, but Whitney's greatness speaks for itself. If not, she would have faded into oblivion after the 80s, which she clearly did not.

Right on Terrib3Towel!

Whitney may not have been a songwriter or musician, but she had one of the greatest voices ever!!

Terrib3Towel said:

Empress said:

Right on Terrib3Towel!

Whitney may not have been a songwriter or musician, but she had one of the greatest voices ever!!

I don't know what the fuck people's problems are..

Every damn time I post people talk shit about Whitney. I seriously don't understand, people on this site spew venom on her and Beyonce like they did something personal to them.

PRESSED.org

[Edited 9/7/12 9:16am]

You say Beyonce is everything but a child of God yourself and you talk trash about MJ and other artists....

Yes I think sometimes people go over the top with the bashing BUT PLEASE dont sit up here and imply you dont do this yourself.

You always complain about this but then turn around and do the very thing you complain about

Ive seen you post alot of hateful shit about Janet, Michael etc so please stop calling the Kettle black.

[Edited 9/7/12 11:41am]

Not all the time no, in my music snob day's i wanted every artist i liked to be ''innovative'' but sometimes an artist can just be good without having to be innovative.

There are many different way's an artist can be innovative, since Terrible & MJ like Whitney & One like's MJ.

They where both innovative for their voice & to an extent the production there producers did but they where not great musicians. Van Halen is innovative because of eddie's amazing guitar skills & the pounding drums of AVH. but in the early day's with DLR he was sure not writing poetic lyrics by any means

Bob Dylan may have a voice many don't love, but his lyrics and stories where innovative for the time & many people dislike his songs & voice but love his words.

So there are many way's an artist can be innovative for a small or big reason, And then some are just good at what they do but not doing anything special.

Either is acceptable, and in the end love what you love. And don't care about if people on a music forum tell you an artist's sucks

If you like Beyonce.. or Mili Vanili or Lady GaGa... then blast that shit and don't give 2 fucks about it

no

2 examples.

[Edited 9/7/12 16:15pm]

No.

No. Less that 2% (my estimate) of artist I dig are innovative.

Conversely there are artist that are innovative that sould like complete trash.

No.

robertlove said:

alphastreet said:

I respect them more if they're unpredictable, or else I'll grow bored of them. That's what happened with janet and now even madonna.

Isn't it more about the quality? If a song is good, it's good even if it's predictable.

Rhythm Nation was unpredictable, but the songs also just had good melodies, lyrics etc.

On her past albums that wasn't the case for me so yeah, it gets boring, the songs get forgettable.

I agree with that too, as long as it's not too redundant, then that's boring. There are still later janet songs that could have fit into earlier eras but stand on their own as strong songs, while others are just lacking melody and soul like some 20 yo cuts

A better question coud be What is innovative Now? What instrument that exsists in this world hasn't been used on a recording, The Elephant Man's ribcage or a can of pork n' beans? The music cycle spins and shifts everyday or month, it's impossible to know what the public will like.

CrabalockerFishwife said:

Nope.. and that's why a lot of people don't understand my opinions on music. Music either sounds pleasant to me or it doesn't, and that's all I judge it by. I don't care how groundbreaking, influential or historically important it is.

Exactly, it's about whether you enjoy it, not about critics deciding it's cool to like, or because everyone and their brother listens to it. Certain pop acts amassed a group of fans who like to put themselves above the rest because said artist is supposed to "bring sounds from the underground to the masses" and nonsense like that.

Absolutely not.