Around the start of the 20th Century, the scientific community was generally of the belief that they had explored most of what could be explored in the universe - there were few mysteries left (I was going to add the famous 1899 quote from the US Patent Office stating that there was nothing left to be invented, but the quote is actually mere urban myth. Glad to hear it!). Since those days, we've invented and developed computers, air travel, space travel, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics and MRI's; we know there are particles far smaller and elusive than mere atoms; we've virtually eradicated diseases such as polio and TB; we've determined (roughly) the age of the earth and our universe; and thanks to folks like Leo Fender and Ted McCarty, we've got some pretty cool 20th century musical instruments to play on.
We're also a little more aware of what we don't know - such as why the universe is apparently expanding at its current rate (one popular theory is that there's a massive amount of mass and energy out there for which we can't account), what (if anything) unifies the laws of gravity, relativity and quantum mechanics; what could eradicate cancer, how we stop human short-sightedness and greed from ruining the planet, and how to perfectly clone a Stradivarius violin or even a prime '59 Gibson Les Paul.
Meanwhile, in the world of music, serious composers at the end of the 19th century were growing uncomfortably aware that western tonality - the system of music as we know it - had progressed as far as it could. For a thousand years, musical rules had been made, bent, broken and re-vamped according to the aesthetics and dogma of the times. Fans of Franz Liszt (who believed conventional tonality was exhausted) were fearing he was losing his mind in his autumn years as his music grew more dissonant and experimental. In the '20's, composers such as Arnold Schoenberg and Alban Berg took it upon themselves to discard the tonal system as we know it and try to musically reach the psyche with an almost mathematical approach to generating pitches and rhythms. Opinion is still sharply divided about such composers. It's fair to say that most people accustomed to a diet of pop media would find Schoenberg's music unlistenable. I know some musicians who despise such works, and some who venerate it. Once thing is certain - you'll rarely even hear it on classical-music media, let alone pop radio, where you'd sooner hear instructions in calculus or Stephen Harper singing Peaches' Greatest Hits.
Thanks to recording technology, a parallel strand of musical exploration developed in the 20th century: popular music. As jazz and blues, and later as country and western, swing, folk, rock and roll, rap and plain old pop, this "people's" music would, for the first time in history, survive its practitioners despite their (in most cases) musical illiteracy. The music could now be preserved in recordings. It's fair to say Jazz and rock especially played a role in innovating music and progressing the art of lyrics, but so much of currently popular music is based on harmony and melody that was old hat even in J.S. Bach's time, and rhythm that had been done (arguably better) by the 60's.
This begs the questions: is there anything new to be said in pop (as the broad category, encompassing jazz, rock, metal, pure pop, etc.)? If not, does it matter? If so, what is the way forward? Because this is 'popular' music, after all, innovation might be weakened by having to serve two masters - progress and popularity.
You could even argue that as soon as pop music grows rhythmically or harmonically innovative, it isn't pop music anymore - it's, at best 'serious' music, and at worst, putting on airs. 90% of blues music has been using the same basic chord progression for a century. Non-innovation is almost a prerequisite.
There's no Great Pop Arbiter to tell you what is ultimately the correct answer to these questions, of course - it's really up to your gut response. Personally, I love the idea of room for musical innovation in pop music, even using western tonality as a starting point. I enjoy the challenge of making unconventional musical ideas accessible to 'pop' ears, although I wish I could do it more often than I do. This certainly adds an extra challenge to song writing, but for me it's a necessary one (at least as an ideal). Luckily, Curtis holds a similar musical philosophy, and we both get hugely inspired by attaining that ideal. Such a view might get you burned at the stake as a heretic in some circles (from AC/DC to the Sex Pistols, in fact), but better folks than me have been so barbecued.
We're also a little more aware of what we don't know - such as why the universe is apparently expanding at its current rate (one popular theory is that there's a massive amount of mass and energy out there for which we can't account), what (if anything) unifies the laws of gravity, relativity and quantum mechanics; what could eradicate cancer, how we stop human short-sightedness and greed from ruining the planet, and how to perfectly clone a Stradivarius violin or even a prime '59 Gibson Les Paul.
Meanwhile, in the world of music, serious composers at the end of the 19th century were growing uncomfortably aware that western tonality - the system of music as we know it - had progressed as far as it could. For a thousand years, musical rules had been made, bent, broken and re-vamped according to the aesthetics and dogma of the times. Fans of Franz Liszt (who believed conventional tonality was exhausted) were fearing he was losing his mind in his autumn years as his music grew more dissonant and experimental. In the '20's, composers such as Arnold Schoenberg and Alban Berg took it upon themselves to discard the tonal system as we know it and try to musically reach the psyche with an almost mathematical approach to generating pitches and rhythms. Opinion is still sharply divided about such composers. It's fair to say that most people accustomed to a diet of pop media would find Schoenberg's music unlistenable. I know some musicians who despise such works, and some who venerate it. Once thing is certain - you'll rarely even hear it on classical-music media, let alone pop radio, where you'd sooner hear instructions in calculus or Stephen Harper singing Peaches' Greatest Hits.
Thanks to recording technology, a parallel strand of musical exploration developed in the 20th century: popular music. As jazz and blues, and later as country and western, swing, folk, rock and roll, rap and plain old pop, this "people's" music would, for the first time in history, survive its practitioners despite their (in most cases) musical illiteracy. The music could now be preserved in recordings. It's fair to say Jazz and rock especially played a role in innovating music and progressing the art of lyrics, but so much of currently popular music is based on harmony and melody that was old hat even in J.S. Bach's time, and rhythm that had been done (arguably better) by the 60's.
This begs the questions: is there anything new to be said in pop (as the broad category, encompassing jazz, rock, metal, pure pop, etc.)? If not, does it matter? If so, what is the way forward? Because this is 'popular' music, after all, innovation might be weakened by having to serve two masters - progress and popularity.
You could even argue that as soon as pop music grows rhythmically or harmonically innovative, it isn't pop music anymore - it's, at best 'serious' music, and at worst, putting on airs. 90% of blues music has been using the same basic chord progression for a century. Non-innovation is almost a prerequisite.
There's no Great Pop Arbiter to tell you what is ultimately the correct answer to these questions, of course - it's really up to your gut response. Personally, I love the idea of room for musical innovation in pop music, even using western tonality as a starting point. I enjoy the challenge of making unconventional musical ideas accessible to 'pop' ears, although I wish I could do it more often than I do. This certainly adds an extra challenge to song writing, but for me it's a necessary one (at least as an ideal). Luckily, Curtis holds a similar musical philosophy, and we both get hugely inspired by attaining that ideal. Such a view might get you burned at the stake as a heretic in some circles (from AC/DC to the Sex Pistols, in fact), but better folks than me have been so barbecued.