Why Innovation Is Not Enough to Build a Brand (Or a Band)

Posted on 01. Feb, 2010 by refe in INNOVATION

Theremins used to be innovative.

Innovation is important. It elevates a product beyond simple retail and causes it to become a catalyst for change in the marketplace and culture. Innovation is also notoriously elusive. Today’s stroke of genius could be tomorrow’s old news. Worse, that first-to-market concept you’ve been hustling to get out the door could be short-circuited by the company down the street. The brief shelf-life of an innovative product is simply not enough to build a business on.

Music is no different. Breaking a “brand new sound” is not easy to do. Most listeners find anything too far outside the norm to be at best challenging, or at worst offensive to their ear. New sounds usually take time to bleed into the mainstream. The listening public gradually becomes accustomed to them as they buzz around their periphery, like messages quietly played on a loop while they sleep.

Sometimes a band is good enough, and lasts long enough, to cash in on this build-up of auditory equity. More often it’s another act that happens to enter the scene at the just the right time. They may seem to come out of nowhere, but if you look closely you’ll probably find the forerunners whose shoulders these new radio (internet?) darlings are standing on.

Is that a bad thing? Maybe for the pretentious scenesters who know the truth. My band-mates and I always shunned those tipping-point bands that stumbled serendipitously into the breakthrough. They got all the glory, but we knew they were reaping what others had sown.

For everyone else, no. It’s not a bad thing. In fact, it’s a good thing because it’s necessary for the introduction of new music into the mainstream. The mainstream and the underground have a symbiotic relationship. One feeds off the other.

Counting on Innovation to Cut Through the Noise

When a new band forms and gathers for the first time in their drummer’s basement they may talk about how they’ll rise above the sea of new music and make their mark. Inevitably one of the members will suggest that all they have to do is “write something totally new that no one’s ever heard before.” Then people will have to notice them. It’ll probably be the guitarist. And while his speech may be compelling, that band will be making a serious mistake if they take his word for it.

I already laid out the challenges of innovation-as-a-business-model in the paragraphs above. The way I see it, they leave our imaginary example band with two primary options. They can adopt innovation as their ’signature’ and strive to reinvent the wheel with each new project. Or, they can try to make a big splash with something way out there and ride that wave as far as it will take them. If you take each of these paths you’ll see that neither is a great option.

1. Innovation as a Signature

Do you really think you can put out album after album, song after song and keep breaking the mold? I’m not saying that it hasn’t happened, but I think we can all agree that this is a tall order. Take for example some of the most well known musical innovators of the past decades: Radiohead. Radiohead released Kid A, then gradually drifted back toward their earlier rock focused writing. They haven’t lost what they gained with Kid A, but they haven’t repeated the feat either.

2. Innovation as Conversation Starter

Gaining exposure through the release of something new and out there is a little like getting struck by lightening. You never really know when it’s going to happen, and while there are things that you can do to greatly increase your chances, there still has to be a storm already brewing overhead.

For those who do make waves with something innovative are usually prime candidates for the classic ’sophomore slump.’ If you can’t get lightening to strike twice you’d better put out something that doesn’t stray too far from the once-revolutionary formula you pioneered the first time or you’ll have some disappointed fans. Not to mention the Pitchforks of the world who live for those moments when promising new bands fall from grace.

And did I mention that just about every new band out there is trying to do the exact same thing?

What Role Should Innovation Play?

I’m not suggesting that innovation is not important to an artist or business. Nothing could be further from the truth. Art in particular is revitalized by innovative works. Innovation is what keeps art forms alive. However, what keeps artists alive is longevity. Longevity is built from many disciplines, innovation being only one of them. It requires insight into promotion and public relations. A solid business model that creates opportunities for consistent revenue and has room to change with shortening market cycles. A well-defined vision and a plan to see it through.

Most of all what long-lasting success demands is authenticity. The greatest skill an artist can learn is to create in their own voice. When innovation is given a disproportionate focus the most common casualty is authenticity. Some of the greatest songs ever written have been simple and traditional. Even in rock and roll. Write music that you’re passionate about and listeners will get it. You will succeed or fail based on your own merits and your own personality. And best of all, you’ll never run out of material.

Share it if you like it:

Tags: ARTISTS, business models, INNOVATION

14 Responses to “Why Innovation Is Not Enough to Build a Brand (Or a Band)”

Andy

01. Feb, 2010

good article man. interesting points. i completely find that anything innovative i have ever done has been when i’ve just been doing what i do without thinking about it. you’re right when you say:

“The greatest skill an artist can learn is to create in their own voice”

if you’re true to yourself and your inspirations then eventually something unique and innovative will happen, whereas if you’re desperate to innovate it’ll be obvious and you end up sounding pretentious and probably producing something that sounds like everyone else’s attempts at ‘innovative music’.

good work.
Mike B.

01. Feb, 2010

Funny that you used Radiohead and Kid A to prove your point.

I think I remember Radiohead explicitly saying, not too long after Kid A came out, that originality was overrated, and that authenticity was what people should be shooting for.

Made sense to me then, and it still does. Thanks for the refresher.
- refe
  
  02. Feb, 2010
  
  Andy and Darren –
  
  Exactly. I think that musicians are the ones who think music needs to be hugely original. Listeners want it to have depth and quality, and the only way to get that is to write authentically in your own voice.
  
  Again, originality is important, but not the catch-all that some have made it out to be.
anonymous

02. Feb, 2010

i should just go back into my room and regurgitate what my profs say, and just maybe i can elevate their thoughts into something novel…
Rich Huxley

02. Feb, 2010

Great post again Refe, and great comments too. I couldn’t agree more with the points about longevity and Mike’s point about authenticity.

Innovate thinking is useful as you say, for creating “news” and keeping the blogosphere and twitterati talking about you, but without songs (and realising that eveything has been done before) we’re lost as artists.

It strikes me that in popular music, there is an established language; and well-trodden paths which act a bit like audio short-cuts to meaning for our Dear Listener. How you combine the nuts of bolts of the song is what defines an artist. Kind of like constructing a paragraph, we all use similar language, but it’s the order you choose, the pitch, the conviction and the accent you have which gives the words their authenticity.

I may or may not have though this metaphor fully through.

Rich
- refe
  
  02. Feb, 2010
  
  Your right, there is nothing new under the sun. So don’t kid yourself – just write what your passionate about writing and make it your own. If you really do that it won’t sound exactly like anything else anyway, so there you go.
Alex

02. Feb, 2010

you’ve contradicted yourself:

http://www.creativedeconstruction.com/2009/08/the-importance-of-innovation-in-music/

why?
- refe
  
  02. Feb, 2010
  
  It is admittedly a bit of a contradiction, but I would consider it to be more of a clarification. Notice in this post that I did say that innovation is important. The point I am trying to make is that to focus on building an artist’s career on innovation is a very challenging thing to do. And as I’ve said in the comments here I believe that most originality happens organically when an artist writes what they love.
  
  Part of the reason I wrote this piece is because I think that I have focused to much on innovation in the past. I’m beginning to realize that the kind of constant evolution that many (including myself in many cases) have been trumpeting is not the catch-all solution to the music industry’s challenges.
  
  I wanted to get back to the basics of where great music comes from and how innovation can play an important part in that, but that it is not the end of the story.
Greg Nisbet

02. Feb, 2010

Magnificently written and argued, Refe. I would even go so far as to say that innovation is just one branch whereas authenticity is the tree. If you are consciously trying to innovate, you are probably copying somebody, anyway. Not that that’s a bad thing…

On the contrary, the fact that not all authenticity breeds innovation should not discourage anyone. Success has always been more about passion and determination than about genius, and flying in the face of “auditory equity” (great term!) is a long, hard journey, not for the faint of heart.
- refe
  
  02. Feb, 2010
  
  I would even go so far as to say that innovation is just one branch whereas authenticity is the tree.
  
  Well said. I think that sums it up nicely!
Mario Mendoza

02. Feb, 2010

“Longevity is built from many disciplines, innovation being only one of them”

Innovative music is very subjective and thats what I love about this industry. Some artists I’ve known feel everything has to be innovative or else its not worth putting out. I’ve also seen that long project worked on for months flop right out of the gates. I agree with Andy, don’t be desperate to innovate constantly.

From a business standpoint, I think innovation plays a role as well and is part of the bigger package. I embrace innovation but I wouldn’t base my complete business model around it. One phrase sums it up for me “Monetizing a business is redundant”. Keeping a solid foundation for your revenue streams from the beginning and allowing innovation to expand your message to appropriate channels is my focus. I couldn’t agree more with your statement about flexible marketing with an ability to “change with shortening market cycles”
Tweets that mention Why Innovation Is Not Enough to Build a Brand (Or a Band) | creative deconstruction -- Topsy.com

04. Feb, 2010

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Gabriel Nijmeh, Mark McGuinness, Paul Sloane, Refe Tuma, Refe Tuma and others. Refe Tuma said: RT @chagota: Pondering http://bit.ly/bhlGxe by @refeup Delicate balance between innovation & one's true signature seems to be the key. Everywhere. [...]
Pete Smith

09. Feb, 2010

Talent ! Luck ! Drive ! The holy trinity. Hitting all three at the same time is a tall order. We can but try
Brian Franke

10. Feb, 2010

I’m chiming in late here as I’m catching up on blogs during the blizzard. This is a good question. One thing about innovation is that I don’t think it’s ever a 100% pure thing because every musician and artist has been influenced by someone else. When rock n’ roll came around it was innovative but was also based on jazz, blues, which came from African rhythmic influences. So, I see innovation more as how music, in any form, evolves over time.

Of course there are moments when artists put out that one album or song where everyone goes–wow really–and blows us away. And it could be simple things like an instrument never used in the genre/style was used or a standard beat was changed up just enough to sound new or fresh. I think these innovative moments are very rare and I know as a singer/songwriter myself I have yet to have one.

But you’re point on bands forming and trying something new I believe leads them to being unsuccessful. Furthermore, if that’s the goal of the band most times I would think they break up over “artistic differences”.

Anyway, I’ll also add here that innovative things like new sounds (ie: effect pedals), instruments (ie: sythasizer that defined the 80s), and even ways of recording add to the evolution of music and are contributors to what counts as innovative.