OKsteevio wrote:seriously, you're not getting the point of my post mate.Torque wrote:I don't see it as a dim outlook on the whole thing i think slapping labels on art like innovative has always been dishonest. If we go by the definitions you posted technicly everything we create is innovation therefor the word has become basicly meaningless when talking about it in this context. This is why i think it should be thrown out of the vocabulary in the case of art because in the end it's just cheapened into nothing better than a marketing term. Call me a nut if you want but i believe in a creator and i believe music is his way of communicating though us to other people and if there are any props to give out for innovation they all belong to the creator not to us.
i perceive a staleness in our music in the rhythm section, i hear the same patterns over and over, i'm bored with them, i want to hear new structures, i spend most of my studio time experimenting with rhythm, it fascinates me, it's a passion. i always know when something fresh hits me in a club, because i find my body moving in ways it never has before.
for the last year i've been experimenting with 3 and 3/4 bar loops, i'm not even going to try to explain why because it would take too long , but one thing i know for sure is that you dance in a very different way to a 4 bar loop. i've been working with infinite polyrhythmic loops for years, (there is no 2/4/8 etc. there is only the now.) it centers your mind and hypnotizes you at the same time, i'm constantly experimenting with the interaction between mind/rhythm, body/rhythm, because i have the desire and the technological tools available to me.
thoughts of marketing never cross my mind for a nanosecond, nor do i care whether i write a killer tune or not, it's not even on the agenda, i just want to do my thing and communicate with like-minded musicians who feel the same way.
i asked a simple question 'are you rhythmically innovative ?'
a simple 'no' would have sufficed.
Well then what you want to create is not techno or minimal because both of them have a formula when it comes to rhythm. Dance music is usually in a 4/4 time so you would probably need to step out of that and if you did it wouldn't be minimal really. There's nothing wrong with that, but asking a bunch of people that make electronic dance music if they are innovative in rhythm is kind of retarted simply because the fact that this music is created with a formula because that formula is time tested and proven to work to make people dance. Do you ask rock and roll bands if they are rhythmicly innovative, or polka bands etc...?
So just in case you don't understand the long answer, here is the short one: Nobody is........