I realize this question was for pE, but I only value originality and groundbreakingness insofar as it improves the sound of the music as I hear it. I don't listen to something that sounds pretty good, and think, "well, that doesn't sound great, but it is unlike anything I've ever heard, so I think I'll put it #1 on my list." Sometimes, originality can be a big part of why I like something, but only because the newness of the sound increases my enjoyment of the album. (I'd say that the Fiery Furnaces Blueberry Boat kind of fit this bill. It wasn't like anything I'd heard before, and I think that was a big part of why I liked it so much.) I don't rate something higher than my enjoyment of the album would warrant just because it is important or influential.

I suppose in that sense, the reason I sometimes like originality or groundbreaking sounds is the same reason I like to listen to a lot of new music instead of listening to the same albums over and over. The new stuff is fresh compared to the old stuff, even if it is derivative, because I've never heard it before.

quote:

Originally posted by Vykromond:

quote:

Am I the only one who loves Love Kraft?

I certainly hope so.

Awesome! This makes me a beautiful and unique snowflake. Mom was right.

Good to hear your thoughts.

I think something can be original (or at least "unique" because "original" is an awfully intense word and should be used sparingly) AND good at the same time.

Any band that is tucked away cleanly into a genre, like Radiohead into brit pop, but then does a record that almost single-handedly perfects that niche ("The Bends"), redefines that niche ("OK Computer") and then essentially destroy it ("Kid A"). Stuff that is rare in its flagrant display of pure AWESOMENESS. It is both high in quality and uniqueness at the same time.

Of course, you're not forced to choose between the two, but often times music forces us to pick one or the other because most bands simply don't have that kind of interesting balance. And besides, people like what they like. People like how they like. Certain people are going to graviate towards certain kinds of music. Not everyone likes everything, certainly.

For example:

Squarepusher's records are extremely uneven and so are Venetian Snares'. Regardless as to why this is, they're fascinating to listen to (even if its only once) because they make sounds you've probably never heard before in your life. I see it as an expansion of consciousness without the drugs.

Interpol or Bloc Party, however, are the polar opposite. They reductively do what their musical forefathers did before them, and (on most accounts, anyway) they do it very well. They aren't even remotely original, but they're tight musicians and they're talented and they have a focused vision of what they want their sound to be. That counts for something, obviously.

But the electronic artists I named have no forefathers (unless you count Richard D. James or Merzbow, maybe), are insanely original, but are not focused or tight in any sense of those words. The only reason that is, though, is because they are pioneers. Do pioneers ever have their, for the lack of a better phrase, "shit together"? Of course not. Because they have no clue what they're getting into.

And as a listener, neither do I. I think that's thrilling and unpredictable and that's why I listen to stuff like that. That's why it interests me greatly.

If I've heard "Entertainment!" and "Unknown Pleasures" before, I can kinda see where Bloc Party and Interpol are going with this whole post-punk revival thing. It's not that THEY'RE boring, its just that its been done before. And so has 99 percent of everything else, I guess, but its that other one percent that breaks ground with Significance, vision and gravitas that (and I have to be honest here) I value more than raw talent.

I guess you could say I value originality more than talent. Talent can be taught over time, but you're born with originality. Originality can't be taught.

But like I said when I started this: There a great balance to be struck here, even if its just temporary, that can put a band or artist into the annals of music history.

My very original TOP TEN:

1. Sufjan Stevens: Illinoise
2. Spoon: Gimme Fiction
3. The New Pornographers: Twin Cinema
4. Okkervil River: Black Sheep Boy
5. Rogue Wave: Descended Like Vultures
6. The Decemberists: Picaresque
7. Bright Eyes: I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning
8. Sigur Ros: Takk...
9. My Morning Jacket: Z
10. Stars: Set Yourself on Fire

Major Changes:
Okkervil River isn't as good as I initially thought, and it's the one album on my list that I picked up after seeing 2005 "Best of" lists. The second half isn't as good.

The Rogue Wave album I put ridiculously high because I thought it was underrated. And yes, it has some really catchy and joyous pop tunes, but it's a bit shallow, and doesn't hold up well over time. In the end I put it at #21

Stars basically had a few amazing songs (Celebration Guns, Ageless Beauty, Ex-Lover), but the whole album wasn't consistent.

also: I think that GIMME FICTION is a better album than ILLINOISE, and I kind of new that all along, but didn't really feel like changing it since Sufjan is a long-time favorite. He was # 3 on my 2003 list, and #9 on my 2004 list.

Final list:

1. Sufjan Stevens: Illinoise
2. Spoon: Gimme Fiction
3. The New Pornographers: Twin Cinema
4. Andrew Bird: The Mysterious Production of Eggs
5. Wolf Parade: Apologies to the Queen Mary
6. The Decemberists: Picaresque
7. Bright Eyes: I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning
8. Sigur Ros: Takk...
9. Sleater-Kinney: The Woods
10. Okkervil River: Black Sheep Boy
11. Broken Social Scene: s/t
12. My Morning Jacket: Z
13. Bloc Party: Silent Alarm
14. Architecture in Helsinki: In Case We Die
15. M83: Before the Dawn Heal Us
16. Clap Your Hands Say Yeah: s/t
17. Mae: The Everglow
18. Jamie Lidell: Multiply
19. The Clientele: Strange Geometry
20. Stars: Set Yourself on Fire

missed out on final list: Doves, Rogue Wave, Devendra Banhart, Caribou, Fiery Furnaces, The Mountain Goats.

quote:

Originally posted by BContrat:
The Rogue Wave album I put ridiculously high because I thought it was underrated. And yes, it has some really catchy and joyous pop tunes, but it's a bit shallow, and doesn't hold up well over time. In the end I put it at #21

I'm sort of the opposite on my opinion of that Rogue Wave album. I thought it was just okay at first, and I didn't initially put it on my list. However, I was with a friend a few weeks ago, who had some of the tracks on a mix, and I was suprised how well I still liked them. I recently revisited the album, and I think it holds up better than some of the stuff I had on my list.

quote:

M83: Before the Dawn Heal Us

You win. Such a great, great record.

I was conflicted about putting that record on my list at first because I thought "Dead Cities..." was its pastoral (and better) predecessor, but now I'm thinking I should've put it in my top 20 over records that were safe choices (like "Illinois").

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
I suppose what I'm asking pE, in a roundabout and sort of snarky way (and again I apologize for that), is if he values gravitas in his pop. Is originality and groundbreaking paramount to you?

Yes. And no.

I do value gravitas, but it's not essential. I can have as much love for simple pop as I can for the groundbreaking new stuff. Simple pop usually does it for me, honestly. I get that Joanna Newsom is an original and an iconoclast, but I don't like her music. I'll take the Hold Steady's Replacements-meet-Springsteen over Joanna any day.

Honestly, what I love about the British Sea Power record is the cinematic quality and the sense of drama (gravitas!) in pop songs that are, clearly, dripping with 80's new wave goodness.

Its good to have a balance, of course.

Like when I spread hummus over an asiago cheese bagel, that's a light flavor with a strong flavor. Both of them have an aged, almost earthy taste to them, but its the strong and the light flavors together than create the full experience.

I'm hungry. Can you tell?