The Concept of "New" Music

Cutting edge genres are captivating because they are new to just about everyone's ears. New tracks almost an exploration into the unknown and hold exciting prospects for the future of music in general. With the advent of the internet and self promotion the lifetimes of these genres have been significantly reduced, and in some cases such as drum and bass the genre is exploited by people who value fame and touring over the production and interest in the music itself, leading to a stasis in the progression and exploitation of familiar mechanics. It does not help that a lot of these genres are electronic and infused into the club culture which already puts them at a evolutional disadvantage.

What genres today can be considered "new" and/or cutting edge?

I think the flaw in your reasoning is that you are thinking of cutting edge in terms of genre. In order for a genre to exist, there have to be enough people making it to be identified as such, thus negating the cutting edge or new part.

You have defined nothing, sir

Something considered cutting edge defies conventional genres, IMO.

Then all it takes is for someone like NME / pitchfork / boomkat to give it a "XXX-step" label, and thus a genre is born.

[just like how the klaxons made up nu-rave for a laugh in an interview, and it stuck ]

The cutting edge is an event horizon

I can't possibly imagine what music in today's world would be considered 'new'. Haven't we heard everything by now? Nothing seems to be new.

oops, sorry i forgot to preface the question with, "semantics aside"

  On 2/10/2011 at 6:24 PM, bigfatLOL said:

oops, sorry i forgot to preface the question with, "semantics aside"

lol just put it in your sig

it's almost an oxymoron what you're asking because being on the 'cutting edge' requires you to do some pushing of the envelope on your own. or at least that's the way i've always looked at it.

when does cutting edge branch off from avant gaurd or experimental?

a few artists especially in the 80 were privileged enough to ride the technology wave so being at the forefront of technology kinda gave them an advantage of being cutting edgechowever this music tends to sound even more dated

well in the literal definition of avant-garde, "refer to people or works that are experimental or innovative". an 80s band that you would be describing would be in some sense avant-garde thinkers, they would be innovating. Avant garde doesnt have to mean some sort of hyper experimental artform. in my mind its a strong term for innovation. Even just using synth in a new way in a synth pop band is 'experimental' . these are not catch all terms designed to describe certain genres of music, but unfortunately culturally it's evolved that way. When someone says experimental they automatically think its noise, dark ambient, glitch or whatever. edit: so to clarify i see avant-garde/experimental/innovation/pushing the envelope/cutting edge all kind of one in the same mode of thought.

take as many styles of "old" music as you can gather in an afternoon. put them into a blender with some milk and berries. blend on "high" for ten minutes. PRESTO! new music!

  On 2/10/2011 at 6:21 PM, Hasselbalch said:

I can't possibly imagine what music in today's world would be considered 'new'. Haven't we heard everything by now? Nothing seems to be new.

Pretty much yeah. I suppose there are some tiny unexplored niches still but they're rapidly drying up. Best to just get on with doing your own thing, the best we can hope for is uniquely personal music- I'd say this means ignoring rather than avoiding existing "genres".

The only way "new" music can advance is with new technology by this stage. New music doesn't automatically mean good/meaningful music. Its just the most contemporary, so much so that its pushing the boundaries that we're familiar with.

I like music that references the old and the ancient, but New digital cool is the only way forward in these completely uncool times.

New Digital Cool is cutting edge.

  On 2/11/2011 at 2:57 AM, jim said:

  On 2/10/2011 at 6:21 PM, Hasselbalch said:

I can't possibly imagine what music in today's world would be considered 'new'. Haven't we heard everything by now? Nothing seems to be new.

 

Pretty much yeah. I suppose there are some tiny unexplored niches still but they're rapidly drying up. Best to just get on with doing your own thing, the best we can hope for is uniquely personal music- I'd say this means ignoring rather than avoiding existing "genres".

that's just as illogical as saying 'everything has already been done' there are plenty of unexplored areas to pleasure someone aurally

only thing I know is you can't expect much innovation from anyone who thinks all the ideas have already been used up

  On 2/11/2011 at 3:56 AM, luke viia said:

only thing I know is you can't expect much innovation from anyone who thinks all the ideas have already been used up

it does seems like a self fufilling prophecy

Misunderstood my post. I was saying that stylistic/ textural/ conceptual avenues have been pretty thoroughly mined in the last 100 years or so. That is not to say that individual musical voices won't create something that is refreshing and new in a less overt but, perhaps, more meaningful way.

Also, I do make music. I have been told by people that it sounds very individual. I'm not deluding myself that it breaks down barriers in a huge way but I'm happy with having a musical voice that's identifiably mine.

  On 2/11/2011 at 4:42 AM, jim said:

Misunderstood my post. I was saying that stylistic/ textural/ conceptual avenues have been pretty thoroughly mined in the last 100 years or so. That is not to say that individual musical voices won't create something that is refreshing and new in a less overt but, perhaps, more meaningful way.

Also, I do make music. I have been told by people that it sounds very individual. I'm not deluding myself that it breaks down barriers in a huge way but I'm happy with having a musical voice that's identifiably mine.

i should have said i was replying to Hasselbalch. I think it's all too easy these days for a burgeoning artist to be intimidated by what's out there. It seems as though all ground has been covered once you get to a certain point in your musical discovery. I guess the direction i'm coming from is, has the concept been done before? was it executed in a way that resonated with you? can you inject a new spin on it to make it resonate with you and other people as well? To me that's the most important aspect of it, and every time this discussion gets brought up in here i have to bring up the Stockhausen interview where he deduced aphex twin's music to 'simple african rhythms" saying in so many words he thought it was unoriginal garbage compared to his own music.

orchestra and drum machine

  On 2/11/2011 at 5:53 AM, Awepittance said:

and every time this discussion gets brought up in here i have to bring up the Stockhausen interview where he deduced aphex twin's music to 'simple african rhythms" saying in so many words he thought it was unoriginal garbage compared to his own music.

Well that example fits my point I suppose, although wasn't it Richie Hawtin on the receiving end of that particular criticism? Anyway doesn't really matter. Stockhausen, in the bluntest terms was right, I think. The aphex track he was given to listen to used relatively simplistic (naive to the mind of a 20th century boundary smashing composer, especially one so famously weird and insular) harmonies and rhythms. I always wonder what Stockhausen might have made of Drukqs, which was more accomplished and experimental than what came before it.

Anyway I suppose it depends what you mean by doing something new. Is aphex twin new simply because he did something new with dance music by crossing boundaries which had already been crossed many years before by so-called classical artists? I would argue that he is new only in the sense that his music has a very personal feel. It does nothing particularly new with melody, harmony or rhythm but you really do get the sense that the music is 100% him and that he has developed in his own bubble... which is why I admire him as a musician.

so thats all everyone could come up with is "orchestra and drum machine" surely there must be some other stuff out there

yeah, they call him james blake

as a musician, i seek to be the maximum utmost.

  On 2/11/2011 at 2:57 AM, jim said:

  On 2/10/2011 at 6:21 PM, Hasselbalch said:

I can't possibly imagine what music in today's world would be considered 'new'. Haven't we heard everything by now? Nothing seems to be new.

 

Pretty much yeah. I suppose there are some tiny unexplored niches still but they're rapidly drying up. Best to just get on with doing your own thing, the best we can hope for is uniquely personal music- I'd say this means ignoring rather than avoiding existing "genres".

I have thought that what Wendy Carlos created has been for the most part unexplored, which is interesting considering how avant it remains.. Synthesized original classical motifs or suchlike. The Tron soundtrack for example, Beauty and the Beast, A Clockwork Orange. I have been expecting IDM's superstars to graduate into something more advanced or fluid compositionally, but most have regressed into jazz fusion or something. There seems to be a lot of room to move there IMO.