it's derivative, but i like it anyway

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

why do some people automatically think that a song that is "derivative," "imitative," or some synonym of the foregoing, automatically means "bad"?

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 06:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Because in the case of Interpol they're right.

(More seriously, because one can never not be new in music or your claim to representing the now is damaged and flawed. This explains why tribute bands and cover versions do not exist, among other things, because there is no market for them.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 06:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Because in the case of Interpol they're right.

hahaha ... yer obviously not gonna win mr. miccio's heart!

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 06:26 (twenty-two years ago)

seriously now ... at work, i listen to this streamed internet station. a bel canto song came on -- i don't remember which -- and i was thinking, "wow, this sounds exactly like the cocteau twins." it was derivative of the cocteau twins as all hell. right down to the singer sounding exactly like elizabeth frasier. but i liked it anyway.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 06:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Sounds like all the justification you need, then, ie, you liked it. I speak as both a Bel Canto and Cocteaus fan too. Personally I hear more differences in general but that's due to relative amounts of exposure and they do share a certain template, and one came before the other and the other almost certainly did some listening in, and that's no surprise...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 06:30 (twenty-two years ago)

My band rips off Jesus Lizard not because we're trying to pay homage to Jesus Lizard, but because we're disappointed there aren't any new Jesus Lizard songs being made today, so we're making our own.

― Famous Athlete, Wednesday, 12 November 2003 08:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I've increasingly come to dislike "derivative" as a negative critical term.

Almost all music has both derivative and new elements. Used as a term of disapproval "derivative" normally suggests that whatever value a piece of music has is in the borrowed elements, and that the new elements are banal or superficial.

As theory this is fine. But in practice it often seems to operate as as a way for people to avoid confronting the real reason why they don't like particular music. Most people who dismiss music on the grounds that it is derivative seem to have no problem liking lots of other music that is highly derivative.

― ArfArf, Wednesday, 12 November 2003 12:14 (twenty-two years ago)

First meanwhile back in communist russia album and ooodles of Sarah records shite.

― flowersdie (flowersdie), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 12:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Rather the opposite. All the best music is music that will be stamped "derivative" by most ILM regulars.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 12:26 (twenty-two years ago)

"But in practice it often seems to operate as as a way for people to avoid confronting the real reason why they don't like particular music. Most people who dismiss music on the grounds that it is derivative seem to have no problem liking lots of other music that is highly derivative."

Agreed. You'd be hard pushed to find anyone who doesn't like some retro/derivative music, so it's a bit of a non-starter when used as a criticism. I'm sure I've used it before, but I was probably just using the nearest available stick to beat the artist with, rather than getting down to some real criticism. For me:
1. It's possible to make great music that is completely unoriginal, provided you have the tunes and the personality to make it fun.
2. There are certain styles and sounds I could never tire of hearing variations on.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 12:31 (twenty-two years ago)

(3. and of course, the modern update may not be as ground-breaking as the original - but it could be still be an improvement and more enjoyable to listen to - more contemporary production, etc)

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 12:33 (twenty-two years ago)

3. and of course, the modern update may not be as ground-breaking as the original - but it could be still be an improvement and more enjoyable to listen to - more contemporary production, etc)

see: Rancid.

― Matt Helgeson (Matt Helgeson), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I certainly don't understand what all the Interpol bashing is about. Every generation is going to offer its own interpretations of music. No one is totally original; we don't live and grow in a vacuum. Therefore everything is derivative and if someone can't see that, then they aren't looking deeply enough. Cage could never have "written" Silence if the traditional structure of music didn't exist, and besides, someone tried to sue him for copying something they claimed to have already done. Where does it end? It all seems a bit beside the point.

Much of this Interpol bashing just seems to arise from a shallow desire to be anti-cool. In some respects, that desire is an attempt to remain elitist, to keep this occasionally narcissistic "indie" world away from the "mainstream". How fucking political is that. There are other considerations that make the "mainstream" problematic, but it hardly has to do with any simple accusations. What's wrong with Pop music? What's wrong with spectacle? Why is it sometimes okay and sometimes not okay? Are they not every youth's dream of NYC? What's wrong with that? Until there are more nuanced answers that rightfully implicate something beyond the band, the music, or the label most critics are going to languish in and perpetuate a different sort of historical amnesia so that they can continue to make themselves look knowledgable and cool while they guard the borders of authenticity. Hey, if it works for you, keep going at it.

They don't sound like Joy Division, regardless if the bass lines are similar. Working in a record store, i would never recommend Joy Division for someone who likes Interpol, though I might recommend Interpol for someone who likes Joy Division. And maybe enjoying Interpol is going to lead people to explore older bands and musicians, to dive beyond the most palatable forms of music. But then wouldn't that open the gates for the lowly proletariat, us poor plebeians.

― mandinina (mandinina), Monday, 17 November 2003 03:45 (twenty-two years ago)

So you wouldn't recommend JD for an Interpol fan but you figure they'll come across them anyway, being an 'older band' and all...I admire your restraint. (And much as I don't think much of Interpol, I agree the whole 'Interpol = JD' canard is the worst possible criticism to give them.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 November 2003 03:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Uh, so I came into this thread, and I was going to say Interpol?

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 17 November 2003 03:59 (twenty-two years ago)

See, you're a wise and good man. :-)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 November 2003 03:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I especially dislike the word "derivative" when applied negatively to bands I like.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Like... uh... Interpol.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:01 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm sensing a theme.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Here's the thing: I really hate the "derivative" criticism, because I feel like you should be able to appreciate an album on its own terms; the main question should always be, "Is it enjoyable or isn't it?" But I also know that, for some people, it's really, really hard to get the original band out of your head and to stop comparing, and in that case, it's not a matter of proving your cool and snootily saying, "Joy Division was obviously far superior," it's more like, "Man, I'm sorry, I just can't get into this without wanting to hear Joy Division instead."

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Did you know that if you take the derivative of e raised to the x power, you get e raised to the x power? I always thought that was kind of neat.

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Interpol is derivative?

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Interpol sounds as much like Afghan Whigs as Joy Division.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually, Ned, I had only heard an odd Joy Division track here and there before hearing (and loving) Interpol. So I borrowed a friend's copy of Still and HATED it. I'm fully aware that this is by no means JD's best work, but I feel like my love for Interpol is more closely related to my love for the Cure and the Smiths (which the dudes in Interpol admit are far stronger influences, anyway).

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Athlete - I'd like to HEAR that band of yours...

I like Kings of Leon, they're pretty derivative, but i prefer to think of them as 'reverent.' that's a good catch-all rationalization for most things (posers from Interpol to Kingdom Come excluded)

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:11 (twenty-two years ago)

At heart, Interpol's just dull, every time I've encountered them from then to now. Most recent encounter: the other day I was listening to some collection of remixes or something -- at least that's what the desk clerk at my fave local record store said it was, as I heard extremely minor variants of the same damn Interpol song four times in a row. All that and I can't remember anything about the fucking thing except 1) I didn't hear the dude sounding like Ian Curtis at all even when everyone around me was commenting about it [which reminds me about how even my dad thought Ian McCulloch sounded like Jim Morrison but I've never sensed that connection] 2) I was hella glad when it finally ended because I was getting extremely annoyed and 3) Chameleons, the Sound, the Kitchens of Distinction, even Puressence does a better job! (And the Smiths and the Cure, for that matter, whose boots Interpol are not fit to lick!)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Ned bait: "Interpol's debut lp is a better Chameleons album than Why Call it Anything."

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:11 (twenty-two years ago)

*shrug* If you think so.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Ned doesn't take bait well.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I leave that to the ddrakes of this world.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:14 (twenty-two years ago)

interpol is OK. and if they don't sound exactly like joy division, it's because they've also ripped off (a) echo and the bunnymen; (b) the cure; and (c) the chameleons. among others.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:15 (twenty-two years ago)

That post was actually written before he slagged off the comparison in his longer post above.

I should probably have nixed it.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Besides, who am I to talk?

I like the Bulletboys solely for their ability (at least on the first two records) to carry on Ted Templeman's dream of DLR-era Van Halen.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Smoothe up In ya

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:18 (twenty-two years ago)

See, let's switch this argument to the Darkness now.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:18 (twenty-two years ago)

But the title explicitly states that you should like it.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Haven't heard a note from the Darkness. On purpose? Possibly.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Then Tico Tico to thread!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:25 (twenty-two years ago)

I heard a Darkness song for the first time yesterday. I liked it!

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I like most of the JaMC clones: Raveonettes, Warlocks, BRMC, etc.

I suspect I'm in the minority on this one, though.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I downloaded the whole Darkness album a few weeks ago, listened to half of the first track, shook my head, and deleted it. Unfair? Sure. But goddamnit, I don't have the time to "get into" an album that's so proudly a throwback. Especially a throwback to something I never listened to in the first place.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Serious question -- what makes, say, the Darkness a throwback and Interpol not in your eyes? I'm not being snarky, trust me.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I like most of the JaMC clones: Raveonettes, Warlocks, BRMC, etc.
I suspect I'm in the minority on this one, though.

just about every JAMC clone has some appeal to me. same with MBV.

― the surface noise (electricsound), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Let's talk about D'Angelo Voodoo instead.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:31 (twenty-two years ago)

btw, I've got the Darkness queued up in slsk so I can properly hate on it tomorrow.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:31 (twenty-two years ago)

(follow-up to my previous post:) But then again, I've never been well-versed in hard rock or metal, so I wonder if I don't experience it as derivative (and thus bad) as much as vaguely, pleasantly familiar (and thus good). (For what it's worth, this could explain what I like about Interpol, too, not having heard all that much 80s British rock. But nobody wants to actually admit something like that, or else they look like they're totally ignorant and only into these bands because they're trendy.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Ned: Interpol is derivate, but not a throwback. The difference is in the intention, I think.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Nah, The Darkness are pretty cool, man.

I particularly despise JaMC clones, for some reason, probably because the spirit is so different. Without the Reid boys and their inimitable attitude, all you have is some very boring G / C chord progressions and some mumbling. Ewww.

Why doesn't anyone rip off the Groundhogs fer chrissakes?

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:33 (twenty-two years ago)

The difference is in the intention, I think.

That must be why Interpol wear such modern clothing.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:34 (twenty-two years ago)

The Darkness
Similar Artists: Tenacious D * Ween * Andrew W.K.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 17 November 2003 04:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 32 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

But in this formulation "new" doesn't have to mean "original." They still make you pay for Interpol records, don't they?

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 05:47 (twenty-two years ago)

see, I always heard there being more emoticons in Interpol, but what do I know? I'm just another failed rockcrit on ILM

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 05:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, we sold a lot of Doo-Wop records at the record store... my parents raised me on John Denver and Barry Manilow. they had influences, they themselves were an influence

but then there's that obvious problem of blatant unapologetic imitations. and they're usually fairly obvious because they have no reason to hide the fact that they are an imitation.

I suppose that i myself am going through a crisis about indie music, because i have nearly lost my faith in there being any political importance to it anymore. it's become just a smaller version of the majors, only more cool because it's smaller, more elite. It's all my generation's fault, i'm sure. but that would be another thread.

― mandinina (mandinina), Monday, 17 November 2003 05:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Good morning, Mr. Matos!

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 05:50 (twenty-two years ago)

"New York Cares ;-)"

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 17 November 2003 05:51 (twenty-two years ago)

good morning, Keith! (how did you fucking know?!)

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 05:52 (twenty-two years ago)

well, let me clarify, originality happens everytime something is produced.

― mandinina (mandinina), Monday, 17 November 2003 05:52 (twenty-two years ago)

originality /= freshness, though

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 05:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Don't be so hard on yourself, mandinina. Hipsters were pretending obscurity had political significance long before any of us were here.

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 05:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Adorno to thread

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 05:53 (twenty-two years ago)

we can diminish that originality because we don't like what it's derived from, though. the push for the new is always the new. it makes it so much better when it's the new & original. hmm. that sounds like a damn effective slogan, doesn't it?

― mandinina (mandinina), Monday, 17 November 2003 05:54 (twenty-two years ago)

if it actually meant something, maybe

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 05:55 (twenty-two years ago)

so they you don't think originality has political significance? i mean, it's not possible, to be original. not really. but i'm going to set Foucault aside and choose to redefine my terms. if nothing is original then everything is original.

― mandinina (mandinina), Monday, 17 November 2003 05:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I just mean the sentence "the push for the new is always the new." it's kind of zen koanish in a way.

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 05:57 (twenty-two years ago)

(obviously I have no fucking idea what a zen koan is)

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 05:57 (twenty-two years ago)

to go back a bit:

Cage could never have "written" Silence if the traditional structure of music didn't exist, and besides, someone tried to sue him for copying something they claimed to have already done. Where does it end? It all seems a bit beside the point.

um what? Silence is a book.

― hstencil, Monday, 17 November 2003 05:57 (twenty-two years ago)

fuck, you're right. i mean the composition 4' 33" Silence

― mandinina (mandinina), Monday, 17 November 2003 06:00 (twenty-two years ago)

So mandinina, I'm still not clear on what you're getting at about the political significance of originality.

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 06:01 (twenty-two years ago)

also who sued Cage in '52 over 4'33"?

― hstencil, Monday, 17 November 2003 06:02 (twenty-two years ago)

That's backwards. Cage's estate sued someone else over co-opting the idea of 4'33.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Monday, 17 November 2003 06:04 (twenty-two years ago)

"That's backwards. Cage's estate sued someone else over co-opting the idea of 4'33."

you're absolutely right.

― mandinina (mandinina), Monday, 17 November 2003 06:08 (twenty-two years ago)

back to the question at hand though, I have to say that having some sense of "derivative = bad" is helpful but it's all a question of taste. Saying "well yeah ALL music is derivative" isn't really that much of an response (although repeated all the time) when confronted with "x-new-band that sounds like y-old-band" - of course all music is derivative because, fuck music, ALL SOUND is made of the same basic physical sound-wave-stuff. However, it's not interesting to say that "x-new-band sounds like y-old-band" unless you're going to point out why that might not be good. The statement-of-derivativeness as bald statement is dud, but I'm not always sure that the sentiment behind it is. Hell sometimes derivativeness can be used as a positive (as evidenced upwards on the thread), just not in a "duh like notes are notes" way, that's just stupid.

(what was I talking about?)

― hstencil, Monday, 17 November 2003 06:17 (twenty-two years ago)

the political significance of originality... well, given that nothing is original/everything is original, then the politics of originality lies in its reception, or maybe in intention. i'm not sure, honestly. But it seems like more of a selling point than something of actual critical value.

yes, john cage's estate did sue someone. i think that Sun Ra must've claimed that he did it first. j/k

― mandinina (mandinina), Monday, 17 November 2003 06:34 (twenty-two years ago)

interpol so obviously wants to be an eighties british black-overcoat band. only now it's 2003, not 1983.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Monday, 17 November 2003 07:08 (twenty-two years ago)

i.e., they're the wilco for folks who grew up to joy division, EATB, JAMC, the smiths, etc. my theory would be that one would like them in rough proportion to how much one liked the original black-overcoat brigade -- but ned threw a monkey-wrench into that neat idea, didn't he? ;-)

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Monday, 17 November 2003 07:10 (twenty-two years ago)

i don't like the jesus and mary chain clones at all,but i love the jesus and mary chain most when they are being a thinly veiled velvet underground pastiche

― robin (robin), Monday, 17 November 2003 13:38 (twenty-two years ago)

How could you possibly leave out Interpol's most obvious influence of all: Wire.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Monday, 17 November 2003 13:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I hate to say it, but I think ultimately only the test of time will say whether or not something was too derivative.

― Rockist Scientist, Monday, 17 November 2003 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

oh, like the Monkees? Because I still can't get that song out of my head. :)

― mandinina (mandinina), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:47 (twenty-two years ago)

The Monkees are contenders.

― Rockist Scientist, Monday, 17 November 2003 14:50 (twenty-two years ago)

But not local bands who ripped off the riff from "Pleasant Valley Sunday."

― Rockist Scientist, Monday, 17 November 2003 14:51 (twenty-two years ago)

do you suppose Josh Groban will make it? I wonder if there aren't still many styles where influences are not only important but necessary.

― mandinina (mandinina), Monday, 17 November 2003 15:01 (twenty-two years ago)

youch

― mic (mick hall), Monday, 17 November 2003 15:03 (twenty-two years ago)

i mean, there are styles where having a similarity to another artist can increase an artist's poplarity and accessibility.

― mandinina (mandinina), Monday, 17 November 2003 15:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Speaking of weird genre descriptions, I still can't believe I read this description of Farid el Atrache on the www.rashid.com web-site:

Farid is the true legend of Arabic music.. the music of this emotional(emo) singer/songwriter/actor will remain in the hearts of all Arabs...forever.

Is that some sort of weird typo, someone's idea of a joke, or what?

― Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 18 November 2003 00:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Just to say that I totally agree on the point that the band
Interpol are totally ripping-off is not Joy-Division but
Kitchens of Distinction. How I wish that back in '89 they had
a hit and achieved the comercial success they deserved
and Interpol gets.

― daavid, Tuesday, 18 November 2003 03:08 (twenty-two years ago)

But I remember Kitchens of Distinction reviews comparing them to Joy Division. (I never actually heard much by Kitchens of Distinction though, so can't comment.)

― Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 18 November 2003 03:10 (twenty-two years ago)

They sounded like a shoegaze version of Interpol, but with better songs.

― daavid, Tuesday, 18 November 2003 03:18 (twenty-two years ago)

i.e., my theory would be that one would like them in rough proportion to how much one liked the original black-overcoat brigade

aside from Ned's monkeywrench, what about the legions of Interpol fans who have never heard said overcoat brigade? in theory, they should trade in their Interpol albums for Unknown Pleasures as soon as they hear it. in my experience, though, people who like 'derivative' bands don't stop enjoying them once they become exposed to their influences.

(Keith H. on the money about Interpol vs. Darkness vs. BRMC, even though I like Interpol - all derivative, some better than others).

― Dave M. (rotten03), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 03:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Here's a general theory that I'm sure is easily disproven:
1. Bands derivative of bands you hate--you will of course hate
2. Bands derivative of bands you love--won't stand up to the comparison
Bands derivative of bands you like-not-love--well, it was fun the first time, why wouldn't you like it

1. Since I'm not into droopy 80s Britstuff, I'm bored by Interpol
2. Can't think of an example right now, so blahblah
3. Since I like JaMC a lot but they're not extra-special to me, I say go-go-go Raveonettes

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 04:00 (twenty-two years ago)

for me #2 is probably The Ratpure. most of the time they're great, but when they're so PiL it hurts, it hurts.

― Dave M. (rotten03), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 04:07 (twenty-two years ago)

My problem with Interpol isn't that they're "derivative." It's that for me the dude's voice conveys a kind of stylized despair that I have no emotional use for. The music I might even be able to get into, maybe even the lyrics if I tried, but that voice shuts me down immediately.

This is why I like them... I think despair, or some form of it, permeates Interpol's music, but Paul Banks' voice is all about not letting it show.

BRMC are boring because they think sounding like JaMC makes them dangerous. The Raveonettes I like because they sound so pleased with the fact that they're able to recreate this sound they love so much.

This is otm!

What happens when you hear the derivative band first - then when you go back to the 'original', find that it doesn't live up to what you'd envisaged it to be? I've heard, like, two JAMC songs ever, and neither were as compelling to me as either Raveonettes album (both of which I heard first).

A lot of 'derivative' acts can be better because they're derivative of more than one thing - you can tell exactly where they stole their ingredients from, but the fact that there are all those different ingredients (or even two different ingredients) there can make them better (or better to listen to) than the originals.

PJ Harvey at times sounds like a perfected version of Patti Smith.

― The Lex (The Lex), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 20:08 (twenty-two years ago)

1. Bands derivative of bands you hate--you will of course hate
2. Bands derivative of bands you love--won't stand up to the comparison

In my case, 1. is correct (obviously) while 2. is as incorrect as could possibly be. I generally fall in love with styles rather than bands, and if an album by a certain band is in a style I already love, then I love that album and that band too.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 20:14 (twenty-two years ago)

the bel canto song in question is "summer," BTW

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Tuesday, 25 November 2003 22:06 (twenty-two years ago)

So derivative, but I haven't heard it yet. . .

― Rockist Scientist (rockistscientist), Tuesday, 25 November 2003 23:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Who cares? A friend told me I should check out Interpol because he knew I have been a Joy Division fan forever. I heard it. I dug it. I spent my money to hear em' play in San Francisco and I had a great time. Derivative, ingredients...who fuckin cares. The same NYC music freak forces me to listen to The Stills...likening them to Echo or whatever. I only liked one song and wouldn't pay to see 'em. Derivative, ingredients...who cares.

― baronzen (cs appleby), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 06:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Thank you, that boggled the mind.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 06:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Ned, in which way?

― cs appleby (cs appleby), Thursday, 4 December 2003 04:06 (twenty-two years ago)

BTW..I also love Echo & TBM.

― cs appleby (cs appleby), Thursday, 4 December 2003 04:26 (twenty-two years ago)

The Exploding Hearts totally filched those jangly progressions, and lyricism mired in post-adolescent angst from a number of my fave bands (Buzzcocks, The Undertones, The Chords, The Jam)

I love them anyway! They released one of my favourite albums this past year.

― Kate Silver (Kate Silver), Thursday, 4 December 2003 04:35 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.