"Originality is highly personalized, often willfully quirky.
"Innovation is more impersonal, often more technological - and it's something that other people, potentially lots of people, can adopt and buy into. And if you innovate, that's really what you want to happen - that it'll be adopted.
"Originality is signature
"Innovation is trademark
"So from that, I realised that you can be unoriginal but innovative (in the sense of participating in an innovation, propagating it)
"But equally you can be highly original but not actually innovative e.g. any number of cult figures with very quirk, eclectic sounds they've pieced together, often raiding the archives of history, and also maybe an unusual lyrical perspective or vocal mannerisms.
"Innovation is like when Timbaland came up with a new beat structure and all the other R&B producers copy it, and the whole sound of the radio changed. Or Joey Beltram coming up with this apocalyptic bombastic synth sound and 1000s of producers jumping on it. I can see the value in both originality and innovation, but I suppose I'm arguing here that to be sui generis is over-rated and that whatever the Latin for the opposite of that is, is better. it's a huger achievement to have propagated generic-ness - when that genericity is establishing something new.
""There was a time wasn't there, when most working bands didn't even do original material - it was all their version of what was in the Top 40 plus various 'standards' of whatever their genre was. Excellence was delivering an already-known and loved tune with gusto and precision. So that is the ultimate in "positive unoriginality" - turning the new songs into standards, standardizing an innovation until it's installed culture-wide."