Is Underworld innovative?

[BrotherLovesDub]

Originally Posted by Future Proof

push boundaries

I'm so sick of 'pushing boundaries' as a requisite for good music. Why does a band that's been at it almost 3 decades need to push boundaries? You do realize that there was nothing on Beaucoup Fish that pushed boundaries right? I assume you weren't listening to all the other stuff around at the time that was actually pushing boundaries. Underworld have never, NEVER been about pushing boundaries and to hold them to that standard is a fools game. Combining pop and techno? Been done long before Underworld, long before Dubno. Underworld are not and have never been innovators. They've just been damn good at combining the right elements in making dance music you could sing along to.

[Future Proof]

Originally Posted by BrotherLovesDub

I'm so sick of 'pushing boundaries' as a requisite for good music. Why does a band that's been at it almost 3 decades need to push boundaries? You do realize that there was nothing on Beaucoup Fish that pushed boundaries right? I assume you weren't listening to all the other stuff around at the time that was actually pushing boundaries. Underworld have never, NEVER been about pushing boundaries and to hold them to that standard is a fools game. Combining pop and techno? Been done long before Underworld, long before Dubno. Underworld are not and have never been innovators. They've just been damn good at combining the right elements in making dance music you could sing along to.

I assume you wouldn't know what music sounds like when it raises the bar. Otherwise you wouldn't be claiming that dubno and stiti didn't bring something different to the table.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Future Proof

I assume you wouldn't know what music sounds like when it raises the bar. Otherwise you wouldn't be claiming that dubno and stiti didn't bring something different to the table.

yes but "great" albums don't really need to be that innovative. Take the Cars first album, or maybe even Technique by New Order (to use another sacred cow) - neither of them really were terribly innovative, but they were great albums besides...

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

yes but "great" albums don't really need to be that innovative. Take the Cars first album, or maybe even Technique by New Order (to use another sacred cow) - neither of them really were terribly innovative, but they were great albums besides...

agreed. i was thinking something similar after my last post.

bands don't have to move the bar to produce great work. radiohead, as an example, has followed a gradual evolution and frequently revisits familiar territory with brilliance.

but when a group does consistently raise the bar it can make fans like us a bit greedy. we want it want it want it and we're disappointed when we don't get it. it doesn't mean the work isn't good, we just get greedy and want new and sparkley ideas.

[Future Proof]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

yes but "great" albums don't really need to be that innovative. Take the Cars first album, or maybe even Technique by New Order (to use another sacred cow) - neither of them really were terribly innovative, but they were great albums besides...

You're right, and there are more than a few albums I've listened to where I've felt that nothing new was added, but old ideas had just got polished to a point of near perfection. That said, Barking is NOT that album. It's not a bad album, but!!! It's not (IMHO) a classic, and my axe to grind came entirely from the fact that this UW album felt much more nestled in the middle of the pack than any other. I talked about OWB in my original post and how I felt that it was largely a failure. However, it was a risky, daring album with an original and unique feel... and it didn't work.

I have not listened to every album ever made myself. But I've listened to enough to know somewhat when artists are playing it safe, and when they are trying to write something completely different from both A.) their back catalog and B.) their contemporaries. And truth be told, I haven't unanimously liked anything Underworld has put out since STITI. But in spite of the fact that I've had a hard time with the rest of their releases I can feel in their music that they're always reaching and digging for something deeper. Always except for with Barking, a good album with no ambition except to (it seems) make everyone bust a move "when the lights go down".

But whatever, they've contributed enough to their scene and I'd wager that they personally had a ton of fun working with others, and enjoyed how much pressure was lifted when other people were brought in to do some of the heavy moving. This was a good record for them, and with good results in places. It's a different animal than everything else they've done however, and the samey-ness of this record compared to the modern scene is a major detraction.

[ultradave]

Originally Posted by BrotherLovesDub

They've just been damn good at combining the right elements in making dance music you could sing along to.

here, here!

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by BrotherLovesDub

....They've just been damn good at combining the right elements in making dance music you could sing along to.

Amen to that

[big screen satellite]

IS Underworld Innovative

or

ARE Underworld Innovative

i go with the latter...


i can't answer the question, its subjective, what's innovation??

JBO - now they were innovative in signing UW & The Dust Brothers - or we're they just clever? Its more likely right place right time....

and Danny Boyle was innovative in his selection of Born Slippy for his sound track.

[froopy seal]

Originally Posted by big screen satellite

IS Underworld Innovative

or

ARE Underworld Innovative

*prepares popcorn*

[TheBang]

Originally Posted by big screen satellite

IS Underworld Innovative

or

ARE Underworld Innovative

Haha, I wrestled with that in my mind just after creating the topic. Ultimately, I decided to leave it as is.