THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: MadassAlex on 22 Jun 2007, 07:18
-
So over the years rokk music has changed one hell of a lot pretty obviously.
So what do we think of the current state of rock music? What do you think it says about rock music that there are truely very few good bands that can be generally described as "rock" without branching into some subgenre? Why do Wolfmother get more airplay than Queen?
Branching from that, what do you think about the state of subgenres of rock now that they have so many sub-subgenres? What aspects of rock do you like that are missing from many bands today and/or what aspects do you think modern rock bands could lose?
To start this off, I will talk about metal. One thing that I've found really annoying recently is the need for every new metal band to have to growl into the microphone. I mean that's great if you want to do that, but surely SOME of you realise that metal isn't based on vocals alone, right? Right? Guys? No?
Damn.
This is a lot of the reason why recent mainstream metal bands are pretty much failures in my opinion. For example, Trivium. Trying to hard to be thrash. On the other hand, Avenged Sevenfold, not trying hard enough to be gritty and metal more or less. Bands like Mastodon, SYL and Outworld are waaaay better examples of good metal bands that bring new appeal yet keep aspects from classic metal bands.
Basically what I'm saying is that metal should take a collective step backwards, and think: "What direction could we go in now that we haven't taken before? How can we be more aggressive without taking a direction wherein there's a strong possibility of becoming stale?"
I also think that the genre defined merely as "rock" without any subgenres should do this, too. Wolfmother was a good attempt at bringing back some kind of classic rock, but overly repetative and unprogressive. Rock, collectively, should ask itself "How can we be the genre that inspired punk and metal again while bringing something new into the mix?".
Of course, I could go into all sorts of subgenres.
My general question is: What are your regrets about contemporary rock music? What are the aspects that you really enjoy?
-
I know we built this city on rock and roll
-
Man are we ever knee-deep in the hoopla right now.
-
Rock and Roll has been around a long time now; it is probably the longest lived "popular" genre of music, and when something's been around a long time, it grows, evolves, and subdivides. (Kinda like a multicellular organism.) Back in the old days, there were only one or maybe two radio stations in each town. Smaller towns didn't even have their own radio stations; you had to tune in something from the nearest big city. So people all ended up listening to the same thing, and the same things were popular.
Nowadays you have 1000 different subgenres of "Rock" because there is both demand for it and a means to supply it. When everyone listened to the same station, bands like The Beatles could have several singles out at the same time, and they'd all be hot. Heck, there was a point when the top 5 songs in the US were all by the same band, The Beatles. There's no way that could ever happen today. Most bands or singers only have one song out at a time, and if there's a second one climbing the charts, it's because the last one's already on its way down. Why? Because the market is so fractured. There is never a large enough percentage of the population that all listens to the same thing.
But that's not a bad thing. Everyone has different tastes, and everyone can find stuff to listen to that they like.
-
(http://www.elalmacendelrock.com/images/ChuckBerryPromo1.jpg)
Just let me hear some of that rock'n'roll music
Any old way you choose it
-
I have a seething hatred for the constant bullshitting about how so and so new metal act is an innovating new step forward for the genre, when like any genre of music, the vast majority is derivative shit.
Other genres have this issue, but metal seems to cop it more than anything else.
Also, fuck you emilio for saying that before I had a chance
-
Rock and Roll has been around a long time now; it is probably the longest lived "popular" genre of music, and when something's been around a long time, it grows, evolves, and subdivides. (Kinda like a multicellular organism.) Back in the old days, there were only one or maybe two radio stations in each town. Smaller towns didn't even have their own radio stations; you had to tune in something from the nearest big city. So people all ended up listening to the same thing, and the same things were popular.
Nowadays you have 1000 different subgenres of "Rock" because there is both demand for it and a means to supply it. When everyone listened to the same station, bands like The Beatles could have several singles out at the same time, and they'd all be hot. Heck, there was a point when the top 5 songs in the US were all by the same band, The Beatles. There's no way that could ever happen today. Most bands or singers only have one song out at a time, and if there's a second one climbing the charts, it's because the last one's already on its way down. Why? Because the market is so fractured. There is never a large enough percentage of the population that all listens to the same thing.
But that's not a bad thing. Everyone has different tastes, and everyone can find stuff to listen to that they like.
I don't know if so many subgenres is THAT good. I mean, with the Beatles, people had an incentive to play music - there was a chance they could really connect to a lot of people. And the market allowed bands to grow and develop with a label. Not too many people remember that the Beatles' first single bombed in America.
Nowadays, with so many selections out there, and with so much stuff that just gets missed due to the massive amount of product available, it's remarkably easy for extremely talented artists to go unnoticed. And the pressure to succeed RIGHT NOW is enormous. I've bought a few albums from bands that I wanted to hear more from, but never heard from again because they got cut from their label. Some bands need an album or two to grow into their sound and develop their songwriting. You just don't see that anymore.
Add to that the only artists that seem to make it HUGE anymore are the test-market bullshit - Creed, Limp Bizkit, Nickelback. I doubt there'll ever be another artist along the lines of Nirvana that's both hugely popular AND talented. And don't get me started terrestrial radio. Now if something isn't instantly recognizable by 75% of the population, it doesn't get played. Which leads to a lot of Jack-FM stations with no creativity in their playlists. Yeah, it's fun to listen to 80's music once in a while, but take a chance to introduce something to me, you know? I can find new stuff on Sirius, but it does kind of piss me off that I have to PAY to get some adventurous radio selection.
Sometimes I feel like with all the variety in rock, there's just too much of a good thing.
-
It's not necessarily a good thing, either. There are certainly downsides to it, as you've pointed out. I guess I was responding to the idea that fracturing genres is automatically bad, which seems to be a common attitude. There's both good and bad to it.
-
The notion of subgenres isn't something that is decided by the musicians, it's decided by the fans as a useful shorthand for finding out about new music.
EXAMPLE:
Let's say you really like Slowdive and JAMC. Would you ask a friend of yours "Hey, what's some good rock music?" or would you ask him/her "Hey, what's some good shoegazer?"
In general 99% of everything discussed here is rock music. The subgenres exist to make it easier to get into specific flavors of rock music.
And in summation, I think rock music is doing just fine.
-
The hellacopters are THE band to listen to if you dont beleive good rock music is still being brought out. Not flashy, not ground breaking, just plain, fun and solid rock!
-
Tommy's story (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30646).
-
Rock music is one of those things that is just gonna keep going. something that has been at least substantially popular for a good 50 years has got staying power. but what you people need to understand is that music is very cyclic. lets take a few examples
Grunge is basically 70's punk in different clothes
bands like Wolfmother and Jet are doing things that worked in the 60's and 70's
Classic songs are nearly always re released as covers, becoming successful again
why?
well, there is no one answer, but i like to think it's because sounds that Led Zepplin and The Sex Pistols made have begun to fade in today's culture, so we have artists who raised themselves on those sounds reproducing them, which is good, or combining them with todays sound, also good.
my point here is the reason we have subgenres is because you can't sell something that doesnt have a name.
-
To start this off, I will talk about metal. One thing that I've found really annoying recently is the need for every new metal band to have to growl into the microphone. I mean that's great if you want to do that, but surely SOME of you realise that metal isn't based on vocals alone, right? Right? Guys? No?
Damn.
This is a lot of the reason why recent mainstream metal bands are pretty much failures in my opinion. For example, Trivium. Trying to hard to be thrash. On the other hand, Avenged Sevenfold, not trying hard enough to be gritty and metal more or less. Bands like Mastodon, SYL and Outworld are waaaay better examples of good metal bands that bring new appeal yet keep aspects from classic metal bands.
Basically what I'm saying is that metal should take a collective step backwards, and think: "What direction could we go in now that we haven't taken before? How can we be more aggressive without taking a direction wherein there's a strong possibility of becoming stale?"
I wasn't going to raise to the bait but I will
There is absolutely nothing wrong with death/black vocals when they are used appropriately, the problem is all these shitty "nu metal" bands that don't have an ounce of talent and use the vocals as a cheap gimmick to sell records to stupid mall kids. Same thing with corpse paint and a lot of the other things that make people go "lol metal".
Otherwise the 'growled' vocals fit with the style of music being played very well. You listen to the music being played by most death metal bands and tell me whether it would be suited to a nice tenor accopanying it (It could work http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc-V3NYckOI ...).
It really annoys me when hipsters come along and say things like "Opeth/Agalloch/(whatever band is trendy these days) would be great if they got rid of the growled vocals". Too me it just displays ignorance and narrow mindedness it as if there's some sort of stigma associated with the vocals "oh with vocals like that this band can't be any good". It's so retarded.
The other thing you touched upon that annoys me is this seemingly modern obsession of wanting to push the boundaries all the time, all these people who "Oh I only listen to post-post-post whatever genre, everything else is too generic and inspid" are also retarded. There's a lot of good original fresh sounding music being released today most people just realise its stupid to advertise yourself based on how much you can "push the boundaries of peoples pre-concieved notions of accepted music" or whatever bs these fanboys are always spouting. Yes albums get released from time to time that push genreX in an entirely new directions but plese remeber it's about the music not about how "innovative" you can be, no matter what spin you put on your music if it's still music at the end of the day, if it's crap it'll disappear if its good 10^7 clone bands will all spring up end of story.
-
Dude I love me some deathy/black vocals, I just hate it how every new metal band seems to want to do this. Necrophagist FTW.
That said, I'm not too hitched on bands always pushing the boundaries, but it'd be cool if they could say "Well okay this sounds great, how can I use it to express myself without losing anything?". The answer, of course, would be to become a competant musician. I dunno about you guys, but as I learn more and more about the building blocks of music, I see how few well-known bands are actually savvy to it.
What would be GREAT is more bands like SuidAkrA, who use influences from old celtic music. It's not pushing boundaries, but it's not often done and sounds great. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about - for more bands to really nail a good sound. You can always tell when Iron Maiden or Opeth are being played, right? You can't tell when Trivium are fucking playing though, because it's bullshit, half-assed imitation growls and guitar harmonies that have been done before.
-
I have heard that this rock you speak of is not noise pollution, am i right about this assumption?
-
Dude I love me some deathy/black vocals, I just hate it how every new metal band seems to want to do this. Necrophagist FTW.
That said, I'm not too hitched on bands always pushing the boundaries, but it'd be cool if they could say "Well okay this sounds great, how can I use it to express myself without losing anything?". The answer, of course, would be to become a competant musician. I dunno about you guys, but as I learn more and more about the building blocks of music, I see how few well-known bands are actually savvy to it.
What would be GREAT is more bands like SuidAkrA, who use influences from old celtic music. It's not pushing boundaries, but it's not often done and sounds great. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about - for more bands to really nail a good sound. You can always tell when Iron Maiden or Opeth are being played, right? You can't tell when Trivium are fucking playing though, because it's bullshit, half-assed imitation growls and guitar harmonies that have been done before.
That rant I posted wasn't directed squarely at you, my applogies if it was percieved that way :( it was merely addressed at that whole attidute that seems to prevail. To be honest I've never heard Trivium, so I can't comment on them.
Re Suidarkra there are quite a few metal bands out there with varying degrees of Folk influences, some of my favorites are Melechesh (Middle Eastern), Windir (Norwegian) and Drudkh (Ukranian). I agree with you it great to see them using those influences.
Recently (last year or so). I've been getting really into sort of spacey black metal, stuff with really mechanical drums plenty of keys, like Limbonic Art, Odium, later Abigor, Samael that sort of thing, it's really interesting just how diverse metal can be.
-
Not to come off like a deconstructionist, but isn't rock music a nebulous term?? I mean, so much shit falls under that broad category. It's one of those "I know it when I hear it" things, but it's only gotten worse with time. Do we consider metal, itself a ridiculous broad category of music, as part of rock?? Do we consider 'pop' music like The New Pornographers and Belle & Sebastian rock, or is 'pop' its own category??
I'm not saying we need to sit down and make distinctions for ever band, because that's what got us in trouble in the first place, but if we're going to talk about the health of rock music, it's going to be completely different for each person. I would argue that rock music is just as healthy and alive as ever, but I don't have the same perspective as Tommy or even Khar.
-
I kind of understand what Tommy means. I check review sites only when I remember it now and don't keep up with release dates anymore because my policy for listening to music is essentially that I think of an older record I haven't heard and then go seek it out. The last time I went to the library to borrow a CD it was Wire's Pink Flag, and while there instead of picking up any of the new releases I grabbed Black Flag's Damaged.
However I also think there were some great rock albums released last year and this year that Tommy's completely missing. I have faith that the genre is still alive, though maybe there is a lot of regurgitation - at the moment though I think you'd be hard-pressed to single out a genre where there isn't a lot of that going on right now. If you think music is stale at a given point you just need to give it time really. Something big is probably happening somewhere and just hasn't spread to the national consciousness yet.
-
It really annoys me when hipsters come along and say things like "Opeth/Agalloch/(whatever band is trendy these days) would be great if they got rid of the growled vocals". Too me it just displays ignorance and narrow mindedness it as if there's some sort of stigma associated with the vocals "oh with vocals like that this band can't be any good". It's so retarded.
Or maybe it just displays people not liking guttural vocals. They usually put me off a band, which is why there are only a few death metal bands I like. It's not narrow-mindedness, it's personal taste.
-
Jeez. You guys are like, 8-10 years younger than me and you're already at the "Gee whizbang, there just ain't none of that there good musics comin' out no more like there was in them old days!" That makes me sad.
The past two years I've heard more new good rock albums than the couple years before. Boris, Ghost, Maserati, Interpol, Liars, Do Make Say Think, Jesu, Trans Am, Mono, Arcade Fire, Broken Social Scene, The Legendary Pink Dots, The Twilight Sad, Yo La Tengo, Silver Mt. Zion, Acid Mothers Temple, British Sea Power, Los Alamos... just off the top of my head, those are bands that all put out absolutely incredible albums in the past two years. And that's just off the top of my head, AND I don't really go far out of my way to investigate new bands!
-
Or maybe it just displays people not liking guttural vocals. They usually put me off a band, which is why there are only a few death metal bands I like. It's not narrow-mindedness, it's personal taste.
Very few people start out liking growled vocals - it is kind of aquired as you listen to certain types of music and think "well I could go for something heavier". Which is why fans of music with growled vocals often get annoyed - they aquired the taste through time and a definate direction of music they wanted, whereas people who just ssay "no, lulz" probably never gave the vocal style a second chance.
What I'm saying is that just about very death metal fan has had the same opinion as you at some point. Even if you don't like it, it would be cool if more people could go "Okay well I don't think the vocals are very good, but I am willing to listen because I am an open-minded individual and other aspects of the music might appeal to me". That would rock so hard.
-
The idea of an "acquired taste" always puzzled me.
Take escargot, for example. Why would I spend my time and money eating snails if I don't enjoy the way they taste? I may not even wind up liking them anyways! Then my money and time are gone and also I've eaten a bunch of food I just don't like! It is not so great an idea.
I don't mind growled vocals but just because I don't have an urge to listen to an album of them doesn't mean I'm not open-minded. It means I've given the vocals a shot and they just aren't my thing.
-
I don't mind growled vocals but just because I don't have an urge to listen to an album of them doesn't mean I'm not open-minded. It means I've given the vocals a shot and they just aren't my thing.
That's cool, what I was getting at is people who are completely closed to something that may not appeal to them instantly. Anyway it's not like I, personally, "tried" to enjoy growled vocals, it just kind of happened over time without me noticing.
-
I think that's the key - if there's enough to like in the music you probably have a feeling that you could grow to love something, it's not something you have to try to develop. If I love, say, the taste and texture of garlic-fried car tyres, then maybe I'll give those escargot another shot from time to time to see if I might enjoy them more this time around.
Lots of interesting points in this thread, I reckon. Nothing much I have to add to it, though.
-
yeah i hate ni9gfgers so i guess i;lll never like hip hip
-
I don't see why there should be a problem with acquired tastes. I fucking hated the taste of whiskey when I was fifteen. I drank it anyway because it got me shitfaced. Now I've come to really appriciate it.
The thing about acquired tastes is they need to offer something apart from the jarring sensation you're attempting to "acquire" otherwise there is no point. Think of some fifteen year old kid listing to whatever godawful heavy metal music is loud and aggressive and has growled vocals. They just want to listen to something angry and aggressive until they acquired that taste. If you haven't done that, you probably don't like them, which is why I had to get into Opeth to be able to stand death vocals at all.
Hell, I had to listen to post-rock stoned out of my mind for months until I was able to enjoy it sober.
-
I actually can't think of any music that I have personally experienced as an acquired taste. Most of the time it's either "this sucks, I never want to hear this again" or "I like this, I'll listen to it again."
Also, I think vocalists can make a band far more interesting if they're an "acquired taste." I finally got around to listening to Bikini Kill, and while I'm sure somebody will come out of the woodwork to castrate me for saying this, the band would be boring as fuck if not for Kathleen Hanna.
-
Music videos encourage people to acquire tastes. A lot of times, the song isn't something you'd normally listen to, if you heard it on the radio, you'd change the station, but the video is interesting enough to keep you watching. Before you realize it, you've actually listened to the song. Next time you hear it on the radio, you've heard it before, so you maybe give it a chance.
Doesn't happen all the time by any means, but a certain percentage of the time, people will end up listening to stuff they would have rejected before. Maybe even like it and buy more. The taste has been acquired.
-
Why do Wolfmother get more airplay than Queen?
Because Queen Fucking suck.
-
HAHA YOU MAKE FUNNY JOKE
-
Because Queen Fucking suck.
HAHA YOU MAKE FUNNY JOKE
-
Kieffer, have you even heard Wolfmother? "Because (x) band sucks" is not an argument that can be used to support Wolfmother of all bands.
-
they are not that bad, its cool to hear modern acid-washed rock.
-
If that's what you want then listen to Black Mountain.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIzYrAlq-hY
-
they are not that bad, its cool to hear modern acid-washed rock.
I maintain that in an era where more old recordings are available to buy and to listen to than ever before, why would I listen to a modern rehash of an old band or style when I could just as easily listen to the original albums of that band and/or style?
This applies as much to Wolfmother as to any other crappy retro band out there.
-
I do like retro rock bands, its cool to hear a new take on acid-rock muisc with modern bands, like retro rockabilly.
-
If acid-rock music with modern bands what you want then listen to Black Mountain, for Christ's sake.
-
I have listen to Black Mountain and they are awesome, so I still like Wolfmother and now I like Black Mountain.
-
I maintain that in an era where more old recordings are available to buy and to listen to than ever before, why would I listen to a modern rehash of an old band or style when I could just as easily listen to the original albums of that band and/or style?
This applies as much to Wolfmother as to any other crappy retro band out there.
Well, there are a few reasons to do that. For one thing, original doesn't mean best. The first hardcore record ever released was Pay To Cum by Bad Brains. Bad Brains were woeful. The first hardcore album was Land Speed Record by Husker Du. This is a decent slab of wax, but it's been surpassed many many times over the years.
Another reason is that some genres work best live. I almost never listen to noise on record but I do enjoy it when performed (especially since the dividing line between noise and performance art is often very blurred), so if you take any genre that's been going longer than, say, dubstep you'll always need new bands to replace the ones who've split.
And finally, having a really original sound isn't all that important. I like fast songs with people yelling. Yesterday I heard Graf Orlock for the first time and I now really want some records by them. I have vast amounts of fast songs with people yelling already, but I want more because I enjoy them and I always like to hear good new ones.
Sorry none of these examples have anything to do with Wolfmother, I heard that band once and decided I wasn't bothered, but I do feel the need to defend the principle of new bands that aren't really that new but are damn good anyway.
-
I have listen to Black Mountain and they are awesome, so I still like Wolfmother and now I like Black Mountain.
My work here is done.
-
The best part about the film American Hardcore is how they deal with Bad Brains' turn into a full-on reggae band.
-
I have nothing of value to add. @ "original =/= best"
Black Sabbath are a pretty cool heavy metal band but Judas Priest are better.
That said, Black Sabbath >>>>> Wolfmother, also Led Zeppelin >>>>> Wolfmother
I have nothing of value to add.
Oh-ho-ho, very funny.
No really, I had a good chuckle.
-
where does Emerson lake and Palmer fit into that equation?
-
where does Emerson lake and Palmer fit into that equation?
I like to think they occupy the space between ">>" and ">>".
-
Personally I feel that "doing something similar, only being good instead of being crap" can be filed under the category of "taking an old musical style and doing something new with it", which makes it permissible. At which point, of course, I become ensnared in a logic trap made out of pure subjectivity, from whence there is no escape.
Remember me to my family, guys. Don't forget about me!
-
Personally I feel that "doing something similar, only being good instead of being crap" can be filed under the category of "taking an old musical style and doing something new with it", which makes it permissible. At which point, of course, I become ensnared in a logic trap made out of pure subjectivity, from whence there is no escape.
Remember me to my family, guys. Don't forget about me!
so you dont like cover songs then? because Johnny Cash's cover of the song "Hurt" sounds better to me than NIN's original song "Hurt", but as you say its pure subjectivity.
-
Originality is impossible. No one should be making music anymore by this logic. There is a pre-cursor for everything.
-
Having Johnny Cash, who is less CRAP than Trent Reznor, make a song marginally less CRAP is not much of an improvement.
(In my opinion).
Seriously. If he was going to improve a Nine Inch Nails song he could've picked one that was all industrial-rocky so that the cover sounded original. He just took a whiny acoustic piece of shit and turned it into a whiny acoustic piece of shit as performed by Johnny Cash.
Johnny Cash's reputation did nothing to improve that turgid sack of crap on a musical level, funnily enough.
-
Johnny Cash loved "Hurt", and said it was one of the best anti-drug songs ever written.
He wasn't trying to improve it, just play a favorite song in his style.
-
I remember the NIN version of 'Hurt' being an emotionless lump of static with Reznor hissing over it. I rather like the cover.
You're all being rockists.
-
Originality is impossible. No one should be making music anymore by this logic. There is a pre-cursor for everything.
I agree. This hopefully not very wide-spread search for uniqueness is doomed to fail. Nowadays when I hear something I haven't heard before, I don't assume it is original(although it perhaps is to me), but that I simply haven't heard that particular artist's influences. There is an apt quote about rock'n'roll from one of the guys in Comets on Fire that goes(slightly shortened):
"Everyone wants to be something brand new, like you go up to a cave and get your God-given instruction on how to make incredible new, original music... Fuck that. Each of our musical accomplishments and the new ground that we can break comes from a musical gift from those who have come before us."
So I don't think it is automatically a bad thing to seek inspiration from the 70's or the 60's. The problem arises when you do little or nothing with that inspiration e.g. that your band is crap as Inlander said. As always you have dig a little to find the good stuff and there is quite a large community dedicated to this stuff. Hell even Denmark has this sort of thing with bands like Baby Woodrose and Causa Sui.
To be honest I think rock'n'roll is sprawling these years and there is a lot of quality out there. I really like the course hardcore has taken, meshing with metal and other things, becoming better in the process. To me at least. Bands like Kylesa, La Quiete and Amanda Woodward have made near-masterpieces. This pollination of different textures is fantastic in my book, I mean even Xasthur could be described as psychedelic. If you want more straight rock'n'roll there is Black Lips, Jay Reatard and The Legendary Shack Shakers. I think that all these different styles make all sorts of mixes and combinations possible. That to me is what progress is made of. I don't know if that makes the 00's special(probably not) but it does make them quite exciting to me.
-
Originality is impossible. No one should be making music anymore by this logic. There is a pre-cursor for everything.
I agree. This hopefully not very wide-spread search for uniqueness is doomed to fail. Nowadays when I hear something I haven't heard before, I don't assume it is original(although it perhaps is to me), but that I simply haven't heard that particular artist's influences.
badabing.
"It's all been done before" - barenaked ladies?
-
I do agree that aiming for complete originality, in any artistic endeavour, is futile and in fact rather infantile; however I do think that an artist should try to build on what has gone before, rather than just excavate it. To get back to the band originally under discussion, Wolfmother are really not trying to do anything new at all within their chosen genre: leaving aside technical issues such as recording quality, there's absolutely nothing in their output that I've heard that wasn't done exactly the same way in the 1970s. They may as well be a covers band.
-
I think 50% of indie bands are just ripping off Pavement. They get away with it because they're not popular enough to be labeled hacks.
-
I think 50% of indie bands are just ripping off Pavement. They get away with it because they're not popular enough to be labeled hacks.
so its ok for them indie bands because they are not the well-know but not for bands like Black Mountain and Wolfmother huh?
-
I think 50% of indie bands are just ripping off Pavement. They get away with it because they're not popular enough to be labeled hacks.
You forgot the part about how Pavement were a giant rip off of The Fall
-
It constantly amazes me how many mainstream British rock bands are just gang of four with dorkier haircuts.
-
The "nothing is original" claim is important for discouraging an "I want to be weird, me!" mindset, but it's a strange view of originality that demands something have absolutely no precedents. I hear plenty of music that I think sounds fresh and distinctive. I think the key is to successfully synthesise something from your influences. Maybe just another way of saying what Inlander wrote about building on what's gone before.
-
I'd say Wolfmother get more airplay than Queen because Wolfmother didn't break up sixteen years back.