Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pentaen]

I was wondering whether or not all of you consider bands that are obviously derivative of others, worthless or less-important?

I am a huge fan of My Bloody Valentine, Joy Division, and The Jesus and Mary Chain, and for years i've been looking for a band that can pull off some of what they do, but with a more modern twist.
Finally, Last night i found  a band called "A Place To Bury Strangers" which seems to mesh all of these sounds into one.
 For me it was one of my best musical finds of a lifetime, but after showing it to a friend of mine he just, paused, took the headphones off, and said, "Rip-Off", and was done with it. In my opinion, derivative isn't necessarily bad as long as there is some elaboration on the source material. What you guys/gals think?

[GenericName]

I generally prefer it when bands are original-sounding, but obviously they have to derive something.
Generally though, when my friends put on some shitty music i place the influence within 10 seconds, and then proceed to get annoyed.
So I guess I'm more like your friend.

But as long as the band brings something new, like better guitaring than the influence, or better vocals, I can find some way to enjoy it.

[a pack of wolves]

I really, really like fast hardcore. In other words, no.

[Ballard]

Black Rebel Motorcycle Club is proof that derivative is not bad at all. They're basically The Jesus and Mary Chain all over again, but they're fucking solid.

[tommydski]

Depends what they are derivative of I guess.

Les Savy Fav stole all their ideas from Polvo but because they threw in some Fugazi and U2, it sounds different enough that it doesn't bother me.

[Tom]

In answer to your question

[a pack of wolves]

But on the other hand


Or alternatively

[Tom]

Point taken.....wait, who are they?

Everything is derived from something when you get right down to it. It ends up being bad when bands either a) just mimic with out trying to improve in any way on the original idea or b) when they can be summed up as playing long lost <insert band name> tracks that were "lost because the sucked bad.

[a pack of wolves]

Annihilation Time and Career Suicide. The reason I chose them is because they don't improve on the original ideas of the bands they borrow from (although they certainly are good at what they do and not inferior examples). Look at that second photo; when things are kicking off like that who cares that it's derivative?

[Inlander]

but with a more modern twist.

That's the catch right there. I have no problem with bands basing their sound on something that's gone before it - a massive and essential part of any artistic endeavour is learning from your predecessors and borrowing from them where necessary - but there has to be something new brought to the table. That's partly why I can't stand bands like Wolfmother - because there's absolutely nothing new there. In an age where there is such a massive amount of old music readily available to listen to, why would I want to listen to somebody reheat old ideas verbatim when I can just listen to the original?

An interesting variation on this idea is found in more traditional music (folk, blues, country) - with such music, where re-singing old songs is such an important part of the scene, a new idea can be as little as singing an old song that has new relevance to contemporary society, a song that people thought they knew but which might reveal new parts of itself or of the world around it when sung in a new social context.

[TheFuriousWombat]

Lots of bands, especially in the so-called "post rock" genre, are often derivative of others. I listen to about a dozen or so bands that sound quite a lot like Explosions in the Sky for example. But all these bands are still really good. I don't like September Malevolence or This Will Destroy You any less because they sound like EitS. I don't like Sparrows Swarm and Sing less due to the fact that they often sound like they're covering long lost Godspeed You! Black Emperor B-sides. In other words: I don't mind eating a delicious steak fillet at one restaurant so why should I like a fillet from a different restaurant served in the same way less just b/c the former restaurant has been around for longer? That oddly worded little metaphor should suffice to describe my general feelings on derivative bands. That being said, garbage which looks a lot like other, older garbage, is still garbage. In other words: quality band: I don't mind copycats too much b/c I get more music that sounds like said quality band. Bad band: I don't like there being a lot of derivative stuff because, well, the world has enough garbage in it already.

[jeph]

If you're looking for MBV-clones you will probably like Heaviness.

Basically all a band has to do is rip off Hum and I will enjoy them.

[Johnny C]

It also depends on where you'd like to draw the line between "derivative of" and "influenced by."

I don't really like playing "spot the influence" with bands. It's hardly ever as rewarding as listening to the actual music.

[JimmyJazz]

Like others have said, there's a different between "rip-off" and "influenced by". The Brian Jonestown Massacre manage to pull from a variety of influences and yet make their own unique sound. And despite being much better then the BRMC, aren't metioned as much.

[pentaen]

Did The Smashies Rip Off Hum?

[Caspian]

I generally listen to and enjoy a lot of derivative bands, so it doesn't really bother me, as long as they aren't jet or wolfmother.

Basically, as long as the band don't rip off bands that preceded them by more then, say 20 years I'm down with the derivative.

..Also, this does not apply to bands ripping off old thrash, because old thrash rapes your mum.

[Tom]

Did The Smashies Rip Off Hum?

Depends will Jeph listen to the regardless?

[öde]

I would see a band called Did The Smashies Rip Off Hum?

[Valrus]

No. Derivative is fantastic for finding the tangent line to a curve.

i can't believe no one made that joke but it had to be done

[KharBevNor]

i can't believe no one made that joke

Perhaps because it is utterly incomprehensible?

[Katherine]

In other words: quality band: I don't mind copycats too much b/c I get more music that sounds like said quality band.

[Johnny C]

Perhaps because it is utterly incomprehensible?

Maybe to you art students.

Incidentally, A Place To Bury Strangers are glorious cacophony.

[mediumrare]

Maths geeks unite, yo.

Annywho, my view is the "with a modern twist" bit is enough to validate a band and remove that "derivative" label. Really, pretty much every band is doing something that's been done before but with a twist or two. For some the twists are greater and more numerous, but it's only the ones that do things that have done before and do it the same way they've been done before that are "derivative".

In my opinion.

Wait, that doesn't answer the question!

...

[supertankguy]

I clicked the title, hit ctrl+f and typed "Wolfm" and *boom*  It was like a premonition. 

Honestly, I don't mind as long as it's not terrible or a case of plagiarism.  Also, nice math joke.

[StaedlerMars]

Perhaps because it is utterly incomprehensible?

Maybe to you art students.

Incidentally, A Place To Bury Strangers are glorious cacophony.

I really wish I didn't know what it meant. I'm regretting taking math instead of psychology, or whatever.

Back on topic: I was actually just having a discussion with a friend about how I don't get what the appeal is in being a cover band. I mean a band who's sole purpose is to cover songs of some other band. I understand if you like playing songs that are good, but you didn't right, ok, but being 'the best eric clapton cover band in the world' just doesn't make sense to me. Why would you want to be a copy of someone else? (No offense to any one who is in one of those cover bands, maybe you can explain why you do it to me).

[Jace]

Back on topic: I was actually just having a discussion with a friend about how I don't get what the appeal is in being a cover band. I mean a band who's sole purpose is to cover songs of some other band. I understand if you like playing songs that are good, but you didn't right, ok, but being 'the best eric clapton cover band in the world' just doesn't make sense to me. Why would you want to be a copy of someone else? (No offense to any one who is in one of those cover bands, maybe you can explain why you do it to me).

Taking the Eric Clapton example, the song "Wonderful Tonight" by him. If you've listened to Eric Clapton, and heard that song, you know how it goes. If Band A comes along and covers that song, because they are a cover band, and it sounds poor compared to the original, you'll know, its much harder to be in a cover band than a regular band. Therefore, Band B, who isn't a cover band makes up their own songs, and their is no 'poor compared to the original' situation happening because their song is the original. Essentially, being in a cover band holds one to a higher standard of production of their music because people already know how it goes, compared to just making it up.

Also, italics

[Johnny C]

I think I have personally gone to great lengths to prove that covering other artists can be worthwhile.

[Inlander]

Johnny, if you actually managed to get me to enjoy a performance of "Wonderful Tonight", I think I would be legally obliged to come to Canada and give you sexual favours. I say this in the knowledge that that song is the most heinous pile of aural dogshit I have ever had the misfortune to hear.

[mediumrare]

Wait, what??

People form cover bands to make money, duh.

[KharBevNor]

make money and have fun. Seriously, imagine how much fun being in a Motorhead cover band would be. It would be lots of fun.

[Johnny C]

especially if it was bass only

[TheFuriousWombat]

Well if you want something like My Bloody Valentine, maybe you should wait for this:
"New MBV album due (for real)
The album will appaarently be material that Kevin and Belinda recorded as a follow up to 'Loveless'. It's similar and not radically different than what they were doing before. Kevin plans to finish up these recording."

tour dates too: http://www.mybloodyvalentine.net/news/index.html

[StaedlerMars]

especially if it was bass only

I'm sure there's some joke here I'm not getting, but I get covers of songs. Covering songs can be great, there are plenty of good songs out there, and giving a new spin to other songs is great.

But I just don't get the appeal of being in 'the best led zeppelin cover band'. Other than making money (but I have yet to see a cover band do a great money making show - except the Australian Pink Floyd I guess), I just don't get why you would want to be a replica of another band?

[Kai]

from what I have seen, it is not uncommon for an average coverband to pull in a pretty good percentage a night in comparison to general bands. You're in a bar, you're not really sharing the bill with everyone, you're playing songs that most people have heard and nod along to... it's easier to make money, or so one would assume.

Are you going to make millions? Not unless you have the money already for LASER LIGHT SHOWS

[tommydski]

What about Mini Kiss?

[ViolentDove]

But I just don't get the appeal of being in 'the best led zeppelin cover band'. Other than making money (but I have yet to see a cover band do a great money making show - except the Australian Pink Floyd I guess), I just don't get why you would want to be a replica of another band?

Being in a band that plays covers is the only way many musicians make money to eat. A lot of them do it in addition to other bands that play originals as well. Besides teaching music and being a session musician, it's one of the few ways you can make a living by being a musician without working a shitty day job.

Plus, it's fun if you like the songs you're playing. Some genres like funk, soul, jazz have a long history of playing covers in addition to originals, because these styles give lee-way to a musician's interpretation of the song, especially with improvisation involved.

[october1983]

Don't forget about Bjorn Again, guys!

[a pack of wolves]

But I just don't get the appeal of being in 'the best led zeppelin cover band'. Other than making money (but I have yet to see a cover band do a great money making show - except the Australian Pink Floyd I guess), I just don't get why you would want to be a replica of another band?

A lot of people like playing music, more than like writing it. Plenty of people are happy to play what somebody else wrote and just don't want to create anything themselves. Not everybody wants to be recognised as a great artistic talent, some just want to kick out some jams and maybe get paid enough to cover the beers at the same time. What's not to understand? Playing songs that make people smile is fun.

[KharBevNor]

Are you going to make millions? Not unless you have the money already for LASER LIGHT SHOWS

I saw the Australian Pink Floyd earlier this year, and they actually had a better lighting rig and other general effects than any band I have seen outside Rammstein.

[tommydski]

I saw a Pink Floyd Tribute called Floydian Slip.

[SleeperCylon]

Usually when I hear 'derivative' I think 'Completely based in other people's work with no original ideas of their own'

But A Place To Bury Strangers I would put more in the category of 'highly influenced'.  They sound like other already existing bands, but they put those sounds together in their own unique way.