A friend pointed me to this article about the significant lack of change on the creative landscape over the last 20 years. Essentially, once we hit post-modernism we ceased to invent creatively interesting artwork, architecture, fashion, and–perhaps most relevant to the causes and passions of Colossal Youth–music. The watchword of the creative sector over last 20 years has been “innovation” rather than “invention.” Inventing became for the scientists, innovating is for the artists.
Inventing implies creating something new while innovation connotes improving an existing product. Our technology has changed vastly with new inventions like mp3 players significantly altering our consumption. Our methods for consuming art and entertainment are different–the screens are larger, more vivid and intense and each song is handily available just a few clicks away, but the music we consume isn’t that different.
One explanation is that we’re overexposed, our ears can access just about anything if we try hard enough. Music recorded on cellphones in Saharan Africa? Got it. Japanese psych records from the 1960s? totally in the bag. A sole-existing 78 from Charlie Patton? bingo. A dirty recording of the last surviving Castrato? that voice is insane. THANKS INTERNET! There’s no need to try to make our own sounds when we can get any sound we want. Some of the most distinct and unusual records are odd 78s from remote, isolated regions of the Appalachians, primarily because they lacked access to the popular music of other parts. Their insularity fostered invention. The Pangaea effect of modern music access means that no one is isolated and because we have access to everything, it’s all old hat. It’s all been done before. All we can do is add up our influences into an equation of musicology.
Every band is a tribute to their influences. Music is little more than adding up and subtracting and dividing elements of what came before. You can easily pin-point the past in many of my and your favorite musicians right now. The most inventive we can get anymore is probably seen in the maniac drumming of Zach Hill, but who can sit around and listen to a song that is nothing but big-dicked egomaniaical percussive controlled chaos? It’s an intensely indulgent Buddy Rich without the charming pizzazz–the turtleneck got swapped for a loose-fitting knitster hat. Sure, it’s cool if you’re into that sort of thing…but you have to be into that sort of thing.
And only a pocket full of people are.
Mainstream music in particular suffers from the complete dearth of innovation more evidently than non-mainstream music. We’ve somehow settled into being okay with acts that have played the same song for the last 12 years (look at me when I’m talking to you, Nickelback). The pop groups of the 1960s and 1970s lasted maybe 5 years if they were tough, and solo breakaway careers only happened to the luckiest (Diana Ross, Michael Jackson). Sure, the Rolling Stones have been playing the same arena rock riffs since 1973, but they earned their credit, by being a part of a veritable cultural shock. What was once extreme and outlandish has been neutered by overexposure and the general stagnation that can occur by staying together for over 10 years. But at least they did the required minimum to stay relevant in a culture that willfully changed. In only 5 years they went from playing R&B ballads like “Time is on my Side” to balls-out Rock n Roll intensity with “Gimme Shelter.” In 5 Years Britney Spears went from “…Baby One more Time” to “Toxic” and the only thing that really changed was her cup size.
Even Radiohead, the band many a music fan has heralded as the closest thing we can get to the Beatles has ceased to be interesting since 2000’s Kid A, the last drowsy, disarming nod before they slipped into the comfortable sleep of mixed percussion and nord organs galore. In their first 8 years they went from angsty alt-rock on Pablo Honey to a quaalude deep sea dive on Kid A. And in the following 12 years? From one IDM-rock record to the next, playing a game of rote musical hopscotch. And how do you distinguish Thom Yorke’s solo stuff from Radiohead? you don’t.
But more importantly how Radiohead can never be the Beatles despite being a talented ensemble of personalities, they were never all that popular. Yeah, they’ve made waves in the critical community, but Americans read Cosmopolitan and Sports Illustrated and watch How I met Your Mother and Two and a Half Men. If what critics said actually mattered, we might be in a different situation. But as it is, Thom Yorke may be the scrawny lazy-eyed dreamboat to a 32 year old Community College Biology teacher, but he was never a catch to the proto-tweens of 1990s.
No, instead we get to cycle through a series of dreamy eyes and haircuts: Joey McIntyre, Taylor Hanson, Justin Timberlake, Justin Bieber. And with recent attempts to revive their careers on the first two, and the desperation of the latter two to linger in the limelight, we won’t be allowed to leave the past behind if present momentum is any indication.
The last hope we had to spread our obsessive good taste to the bumbling masses was Nirvana, and we all know how that ended. Kurt Cobain dead in 94, Courtney Love terrorizing MTV, Dave Grohl churning out generic, inoffensive radio-ready alt rock and Krist Novaselic became a State Committeeman. Major labels jumped on any promise during that time, Sonic Youth hung out on Capital for years with no damage to street cred, but no significant seepage to the public ear.
Similarly, The Arcade Fire can win a Grammy because they do have the musical skill and slightly otherworldly appearance to win hearts and minds from an institution seeking to highlight songwriting and production–because they’re actually pretty good at that (despite my personal feelings towards Winn Butler and crew, i can concede those simple facts). Grammys aren’t a popularity contest, it’s a panel decision. Usually their decision only kind of reflects what people out there actually listen to.
My fellow millennials seem to have no issues with soldiering on, being completely comfortable with manufactured taste. Late 1990s and early 2000s reality shows like Making the Band (prominitently featuring Boy Band machine, Lou Perlman) made the process apparent to us, and it unsettled no one. We’ve come to accept music as a process of meeting the right people, perfecting an image, and making the right impressions. American Idol made it democratic, and since the mainstream audience makes the choice, they’re ready to live with it and support it for the next 10-20 years. The magic of discovering someone on the radio is gone. We’re now subject to watching our entertainment audition for us by karaokeing on live television over the course of 3 months.
Why would you expect anything to change when the only inventions have been in our process of consumption?












