I always wonder what they mean... specifically what it means... when a pop musician is supposedly doing something new, different, daring, that type of thing.
If they really did, they'd be music history, right?
Modulate the piece to an unusual key center and make that standard... That's new and different.
New form, modes, etc.... That was different once.
Orchestration
After the first person does it, it's not so revolutionary anymore.
What's so innovative about a piece of music that follows patterns well worn? Form, 4/4 time, same length of time, build to a climax, etc.
I was kind of laughing in the documentary when they said Sting's music fits the patterns for popular music. Depending on how you take that... A computer (assuming it can measure aesthetics) says x-piece fits lots of criteria that makes it "good" music vs. A computer says x-piece matches the same patterns as many other pieces of music which are popular/considered "good." And then did it just happen to end up that way or was it composed more by formula? Even if it "flows smoothly" for the composition, it could still be following a pattern. Or someone could be intentionally following a pattern but not consider that a negative. We did x in a section... so now we need something different in a new section....
The Musical Brain, PBS documentary