Holy fuck you guys

Holy fuck you guys.
I didn't even know music could hit this hard. EP of 2017 for sure.

if you like pretentious EDM marketing itself as innovative and sleek to an audience that doesn't know any better, sure

the absolute state of "industrial"

Never listened to skrillex before, I just stumbled on this album on youtube. I'm guessing skrillex isn't actually this good and you're just being a dick to bait response?

>implying it even markets itself as industrial

>this good
he's a little worse than that album sure, but the point is that this album is underwhelming, stylistically muddled, and tries to pass off basic millenial production gimmicks as innovations in a genre/scene where innovativeness isn't valuable. Possibly out of spite.

It's just so misguided and mediocre.

>innovativeness isn't valuable
so, a shit genre?

also, buzzword more fgt

Okay, you obviously get this music more than I do. If I like this (and I really do), what would you recommend instead?

innovativeness isn't valuable in itself. It's just fetishized novelty.

Shitty witch house mixes on youtube.

>innovativeness isn't valuable in itself
it literally is. Good job buzzwording even harder like I recommended in my previous post, though.

>falling for modernist memery
>after 1955

innovativeness is not valuable. It's one way among others to find things, some of which suck ass.

stagnation does not lead to finding anything at all

oooh, pretty words

nothing at all is better than bad things. Stagnation is literally not bad.

Overall stagnation and innovation are strictly equivalent.

and beautiful truths

Wrong, stagnation inevitably leads to things worsening.

>innovativeness isn't valuable in itself. It's just fetishized novelty.

Agree.

"Innovative" is the stupidest buzzword in history as it applies to art.

things getting worse is a form of innovation.

It's a modernist meme. It was in its death throes in the 60s, and since then it's been recycled by popular entertainment as a marketing gimmick for people who lack historical hindsight.

that's the stupidest thing I've ever read. Innovation describes change by intent. Stagnation is not intentional.
your argument is wilfully polemizing bullshit based on you (deliberately or not) misinterpreting words. try Sup Forums for this kind of shitposting

> The music you're listening to sucks
Oh okay, what should I listen to instead
> I don't know
Good job user

>Innovation describes change by intent
nice arbitrary redefinition
innovation describes change in cultural fields If someone comes up with something new by accident it's still innovative.

Think before posting

But I do know. And I told you what I know: shitty witch house mixes on youtube.

and if no one comes up with anything new it's dead. There's literally no non-innovative art of any value. you can't name any.

That's because there is no art that isn't innovative at all.
Just like there is no art that's entirely innovative.

The point I am making (in case that wasn't obvious) is that value in art doesn't come from innovativeness or stylistic orthodoxy alone. Saying "this is good because it's new" or "this is good because it's not new" is retarded if you don't point out what's good about that.

so you admit you were bending your meaning and words for the sake of arguing. yeah, as I said, try a more shitpost-oriented board for that low-quality contributing

No I fucking don't.
As I said, getting worse is a form of innovation. So you can't say that things are good because they innovate, it's stupid.
stagnation preserves good things and bad things
innovation creates good things and bad things
Overall, neither of them are inherently valuable. You can't brag about being innovative or conservative without showing the good things you're creating or preserving.
That is common fucking sense.

And that album isn't creating good things.

I never said that innovation is inherently good, I said that its absence is inherently bad.
Stagnation does not "preserve", it spoils.

I haven't heard the album (though I clicked on the thread because the cover is neat) and I don't really care about it specifically.

Not him, but that makes little sense, and confirms his quote that innovation seems to be a fetishizing of novelty in this case and not much more.

"innovation" is a stupid buzzword to apply to art because using that term strives to put art into the "progress paradigm" of science and technology. In those fields, innovation has a clear meaning: Something new that does something better than the old version (whether that's a new technological product that does something faster and cheaper or a scientific breakthrough that overrides an old theory).

Schoenberg's "innovative" 12 tone system did not render Bach obsolete. He just created a new form of musical expression, not necessarily a "better" one. Better is a matter of opinion, obviously.

>No non-innovative art of any value

Oldest instrument is probably the human voice. There's plenty of value in passionate acappella singings of a song (Son House's John the Revelator, one of the greatest songs of all-time).

If you're merely using innovative as synonym for change, fair enough. But the word doesn't imply "evolution." Art doesn't evolve. It can't. Evolution implies a progression toward something better, and with regard to art, better is unquantifiable. Science has a clear definition of what better is: predictive accuracy. Art? No such thing.

...

>But the word doesn't imply "evolution."

*But the word DOES imply evolution

>EP of 2017 for sure
*blocks your path*

That’s not even your opinion. You copied that from somewhere