Originality
There's no truly original music anymore, but it's not a big deal. It was a big deal to me at first when the realization first sunk in. Then I realized that it's been this way for a long time, and most of us didn't even really notice. It doesn't mean music is dead at all. It just means no more music is being created that sounds nothing like anything that already has been created. It's not a big deal because this originality is not the prized diamond that you get from pouring hard work into writing music. The prized diamond is the feeling you get when a combination of notes and rhythms hits you just so. Musical style that is created with no 'predecessor' is not the exclusive proprietor of those just-so moments.
I'm going to copy and paste someone's comment about a band's alleged unoriginality (whom I have yet to listen to myself), which spurred this post, and my response, because I think that it sums up my thoughts on the topic better than I can re-tell them. Also, a little pat on the back, why not?
Posted by someone who isn't a loser like most of the others leaving comments
(Not my doing, that was really the name they put)
The people posting negative comments on here are probably in inferior bands. Anyone with even the most basic musical skills would know that Cat's Eyes aren't copying anyone. And I don't remember Lee and Nancy, or Joe Meek ever performing at the Vatican. Now let's see who can copy Cat's Eyes...
Posted by Evan
"Anyone with even the most basic musical skills would know that Cat's Eyes aren't copying anyone."
Except for every band that recorded anything before 1960. Musical skills, nah, check your grandmother's record collection instead.
Not sure what it is, I think the "economic crisis" has people running scared for the 80s, 70s, and now the 1940s. As if those were the Good Old Days, with Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, WW2, etc.
In short, this is nostalgia for a life never experienced - the American myth in full effect.
Posted by Andrea
I don't get what's with the negative comments, either. I haven't listened to the band yet, but for the people swearing them off without listening first - what the hell? What are you about, judging like that with only an interview to go on? You're missing the entire point.
To Evan - Retro-styled music of any kind often has little to do with "nostalgia for a life never lived" or "running scared" because of the economy. Seriously, what? It's as simple as some people just enjoying a particular sound and wishing to create songs with that sound. Nothing wrong with that at all. There's nothing wrong with looking backward and drawing upon music's history and presenting it with a fresh finish. (Besides, I should point out that musical trends will cycle, much like fashion.) After all, there will come a day sooner than you think when all combinations of music notes and rhythms will have been done. The quest for originality is a moot one. If you're making music and your goal is to produce something that someone's never heard before, I will state strongly that you're doing it for the wrong reasons. I used to struggle with that, then I slapped myself with some common sense. Music is about expression and getting your audience to dance, cry, laugh, or what have you. Introducing original ideas and sounds is really great and amazing when it happens, but it shouldn't be the primary focus (and it's practically impossible to boot - just try to come up with something original that was not influenced by having heard another artist. It is not very easy at all when you actually try. You'll find your influences entangled with their respective influences, etc. "Originality is the art of concealing your sources"). So what if Band A sounds a lot like Band B? They're not the same, and they each have their own great songs. Let's quit judging artists on their 'failure' to jump through such an unnecessary hoop and just sit back and appreciate what people can make of their influences.
I'm going to copy and paste someone's comment about a band's alleged unoriginality (whom I have yet to listen to myself), which spurred this post, and my response, because I think that it sums up my thoughts on the topic better than I can re-tell them. Also, a little pat on the back, why not?
Posted by someone who isn't a loser like most of the others leaving comments
(Not my doing, that was really the name they put)
The people posting negative comments on here are probably in inferior bands. Anyone with even the most basic musical skills would know that Cat's Eyes aren't copying anyone. And I don't remember Lee and Nancy, or Joe Meek ever performing at the Vatican. Now let's see who can copy Cat's Eyes...
Posted by Evan
"Anyone with even the most basic musical skills would know that Cat's Eyes aren't copying anyone."
Except for every band that recorded anything before 1960. Musical skills, nah, check your grandmother's record collection instead.
Not sure what it is, I think the "economic crisis" has people running scared for the 80s, 70s, and now the 1940s. As if those were the Good Old Days, with Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, WW2, etc.
In short, this is nostalgia for a life never experienced - the American myth in full effect.
Posted by Andrea
I don't get what's with the negative comments, either. I haven't listened to the band yet, but for the people swearing them off without listening first - what the hell? What are you about, judging like that with only an interview to go on? You're missing the entire point.
To Evan - Retro-styled music of any kind often has little to do with "nostalgia for a life never lived" or "running scared" because of the economy. Seriously, what? It's as simple as some people just enjoying a particular sound and wishing to create songs with that sound. Nothing wrong with that at all. There's nothing wrong with looking backward and drawing upon music's history and presenting it with a fresh finish. (Besides, I should point out that musical trends will cycle, much like fashion.) After all, there will come a day sooner than you think when all combinations of music notes and rhythms will have been done. The quest for originality is a moot one. If you're making music and your goal is to produce something that someone's never heard before, I will state strongly that you're doing it for the wrong reasons. I used to struggle with that, then I slapped myself with some common sense. Music is about expression and getting your audience to dance, cry, laugh, or what have you. Introducing original ideas and sounds is really great and amazing when it happens, but it shouldn't be the primary focus (and it's practically impossible to boot - just try to come up with something original that was not influenced by having heard another artist. It is not very easy at all when you actually try. You'll find your influences entangled with their respective influences, etc. "Originality is the art of concealing your sources"). So what if Band A sounds a lot like Band B? They're not the same, and they each have their own great songs. Let's quit judging artists on their 'failure' to jump through such an unnecessary hoop and just sit back and appreciate what people can make of their influences.