I have a confession to make. I sometimes say things to “get a rise” out of people. This is something that I have had to work on for years. I’d like to think that I’ve improved, but the tendency is still there and I recently evidenced it here on my blog. In my review of “Floating World” album by Anathallo, I intentionally included a comment that I knew would “get a rise” out of people. Apparently, it did, becoming my most commented-on post to date. I’m not apologizing, because I do believe what I wrote, simply rambling my way into an introduction.

Reading and interacting with the comments has given me time and opportunity to think through some of these issues a bit more, so I hope I can articulate a bit of what I hinted at in the other post.

Broadly speaking, there seems to be a couple of different ways we can discuss artists, and musicians in particular. On one hand, there are bands (I will simply speak of music here because that’s the context of our discussion) who do what they do very well. These artists have established themselves within a particular genre and they excel within those existing parameters.

That last thought becomes a key consideration in this discussion. U2 is a basic “rock” band. I’m not saying that as negative, just as fact. They exist within the basic structures of “rock” music: instrumentation, song-structure and length, band line-up, etc. U2 may be one of the best rock bands ever, but they are solidly a rock band. With the exception of the Zooropa and Pop excursions, every U2 album is a rock album through and through.

Some will immediately point to the fact that U2 is immediately recognizable, which they are. They have succeeded in adapting the “rock” specifications and putting their own stamp on them, but they have not redefined them or significantly pushed any boundaries, simply personalized them and made them their own.

U2 is a prime example of a band who does what they do exceedingly well. I will be one of the first to admit that, I love the band, so please don’t read my comments as otherwise. However, none of this places U2 (for me) as a truly “innovative” act, which brings us to our other hand.

On the other hand, there are artists who consistently push the boundaries of genre, sometimes succeeding in redefining them, sometimes not. These artists are not as immediately accessible to many people, but we must learn to appreciate their role, which is innovation, creativity, exploration and the like. That’s not to say the first class of artists is not “creative,” its simply a different classification, and possibly a different use of the word. It’s also not to say that the second class doesn’t “do what they do well,” but they’re focus is different, it’s as much about the creative process as it is the final product.

Though my initial thoughts focused on Anathallo as a “creative” act, here I want to focus a bit more on some others for the sake of discussion. Personally (and I admit that this is coming from my subjective tastes, there are other valid names to place here), three names immediately come to mind: Medeski Martin and Wood, Tom Waits and Miles Davis. For this discussion, I want to primarily consider Miles.

I don’t know of anyone who would argue that Miles didn’t play jazz well, in other words, he certainly met the criteria for the first category, he did what he did very well. However, many wil admit that many of his excursions weren’t as successful as others. Some will even say that there are periods of Miles’ music that they just “don’t get.” How can this be if its the same artist? Because Miles wasn’t content playing bop or cool jazz well, he wanted to push the limits of jazz, and ultimately, creativity.

That last thought becomes a key consideration in this discussion. Miles Davis repeatedly redefined the boundaries of jazz itself. Not only did he work well within its established structures, but he expanded those structures. Miles continually pushed his creativity and pursued innovation. This separates him from the class of musicians who are content to do what they do well. He did that, but he did more.

What’s difficult for many people regarding this other group is that sometimes their explorations work and sometimes they don’t. That’s the nature of experimentation, and it’s also the process of creativity. They often shatter our expectations, and we don’t like that. Think of the folk community’s reported reaction to Dylan “plugging in.” They wanted what they knew and he came at them with something else. Miles continually pursued that “something else,” drawing from the foundations of his past but pushing those ventures in new directions.

Returning to the big picture, saying that a band doesn’t fall into the second category is not the same thing as saying that they’re not “good,” or even that they’re not “excellent.” It is simply to say that they are content to work within established parameters. In turn, saying that a band falls into the second, “creative/innovative” camp is not to say that they are “better,” just that they have a different focus; one of redifining genres rather than existing within them.

We need both groups, but we must understand that they are different and we must speak of them as such. I think that part of the difficulty here has been people hearing me say that “U2 is no good,” when what I’ve said is that Anathallo is in a different category of “creativity,” and is more “innovative” than U2 (a statement which I do stand behind). Happy listening, to bands who do what they do well and those pushing the boundaries; there’s a place for them all in my ears.

• Read my review of Anathallo’s Floating World.
• Visit Anathallo’s official website.
• Visit U2’s official website.