Is innovation necessary?

Is innovation necessary?

Yes. Innovation is the most important thing in art

Innovation, or at the very least bringing a new and unheard sound, is the only way to estimate a piece of art's quality.

What do you think about revival acts?

Innovation separates artists from entertainers

More necessary than you.

Not really, it's important and always welcomed but a lot of great music doesn't innovate at all

What about technique? Tonality?

no, what's necessary is making good music, if it happens to be innovative - great, if not - whatever

>technique
Irrelevant. Virtuosity means nothing without something to say.
>Tonality
wdhmbt?

Innovation is unavoidable

the embodiment of top keks

>Virtuosity means nothing without something to say.
You're no longer my favorite trip.

>*gets* rothko once

top kek

Art itself is not necessary. Innovation is not necessary.

Lateral movement is still movement.

take the stick out of your ass

nothing is necessary you fucking codpiece. you're all imbeciles.

Well when you say technique/virtuosity what do you mean?
What's wrong with Rothko?

You know exactly what I mean.

If they revive in order to make new shit, then that could be good, if it's just to pander to other people from the 70s and 80s and play old songs that they can't even sing anymore, fuck that noise

If somebody is saying something that everyone has said before, but they are saying it with good technique and skill, that can make it good.
That's user's point.

Example: Panda by Desiigner. Same lyrical content as literally every other mainstream rapper today, his style and flow isn't different enough to count as "innovation" in my opinion, but the song is still good. He does a good job singing the same old shit, the same old way.

I'm not really saying that it's either good or shit. I'm saying that when it comes to stuff people remember, it's always the innovative stuff.

I don't think that's true at all. A lot of factors can contribute to what makes something memorable. Repetition is a major factor in that, whether it's in the song itself or because the song was played over and over on the radio.

Maybe you should define what you think is "innovative" before you go around saying that only innovation constitutes what has quality or what is memorable, because it's a pretty broad generalization using a pretty vague term.

We get bored of the same music over and over again and like to hear something new.

Also, if you want to make a meaningful "statement" (in the broadest sense) you need something new to say. Otherwise it's just a reiteration.

And if you think of art as creation (which is just one possible sense, but it is an important one), well... there's your answer. Creation is a form of innovation.

From a music history perspective, innovators are usually important figures but it shouldn't make a huge difference to your personal enjoyment of an artist's work.

There are a number of things that can make music good, innovation is just one of them. If you aren't innovative you better be on point with the rest of your shit.