If A Triangle Could Speak, It Would Say That God Is Eminently A High-Pitched Percussive Instrument
Fact #1: Every artist creates a genre unto himself.
Fact #2: Art is seldom created in a vacuum.
It's a common complaint among modern artists working in a field that has been well-mined (including, at times, myself) that "everything has been done before"; there is often a palpable resentment towards the past because the artist wasn't lucky enough to have been born in a time when all the innovations of their chosen genre had yet to be unlocked. It's a frustrating cul de sac - the artist expends more and more effort trying to hit upon his own personal style within a genre that has been shaped by its very effortlessness. This is where all the pretentious postmodern codswallop and self-referential masturbation comes into play - frustrated artists who don't realize that, to create something lasting and meaningful, they need to stop trying so hard.
There's also a common misconception among (usually musical) critics that pastiches are not as good as the original works they emulate. Such critics would claim that, as pastiches don't chronologically come first, they must not be as original or creative. (These authenticity junkies are the same types who will magically transform into The Boy Who Cried Sell-Out at every chance they can get.) While derivative works may not be as creative since they did not require the same "unlocking of the door" moment of inspiration (to borrow an image from "Donald Duck In Mathemagic Land"), it in no way diminishes the integrity of the art. If a band has enough affection for a certain genre of music, their affection for it will come out in their joy at playing the music that they love. When pastiche artists (and no, that's not an oxymoron, smartass) hear the music they wish to emulate, they listen between the grooves; they don't hear the notes so much as the potential behind them.
For example, take North Carolina power popsters The Spongetones. Their 1982 album Beat Music is chock full of songs that, stylistically, would not have been out of place on The Beatles' 1964 album A Hard Day's Night. The style of that album is unique; yes, it fits into a multitude of genres like a Matryoshka doll, going from extremely general (pop music) to extremely specific (Merseybeat). But that particular album has a style that nobody has quite replicated like since then...not even The Beatles on subsequent albums. By the end of 1964, the Fab Four sounded very different; they were folkier and more introspective, with a noticable new country influence. They would not have progressed as artists and songwriters if they continued to mine their old sound. However, The Spongetones saw the genre created in A Hard Day's Night and loved it, for all of its youthful energy, jubilant singing and chiming Rickenbacker 12-string guitar parts. Thus, their approximation of this style not only inspired the songwriting, but it created an atmosphere that can only be made by people doing something that they genuinely love. The Spongetones saw an alternate universe: one where The Beatles continued writing songs trapped in suspended animation in early 1964. Although we can all be glad that The Beatles continued to grow as artists, you'd probably shit your pants if you came into posession of a completely unreleased Beatles album from 1964. It doesn't exist, but Beat Music does, and that's just as good. (To these ears at least.)
Of course, I added that last sentence because stating The Spongetones are as good as The Beatles is outrageous sacrilege to most music fans. The context behind a piece of art inevitably informs how it is created and perceived. 1982 was a much different time from 1964, and The Spongetones were not Liverpudlian children of World War II who became arguably the most famous faces of the 20th century. The Spongetones' anonymity and lack of major label hype means that Beat Music never has been and never will be considered on a par with A Hard Day's Night. But if we conducted a controlled experiment involving a human grown in a test tube to be genetically predisposed to liking pop music who heard both albums unaware of the image of (or outside opinions about) either group, who knows what conclusion it would reach?
Fact #2: Art is seldom created in a vacuum.
It's a common complaint among modern artists working in a field that has been well-mined (including, at times, myself) that "everything has been done before"; there is often a palpable resentment towards the past because the artist wasn't lucky enough to have been born in a time when all the innovations of their chosen genre had yet to be unlocked. It's a frustrating cul de sac - the artist expends more and more effort trying to hit upon his own personal style within a genre that has been shaped by its very effortlessness. This is where all the pretentious postmodern codswallop and self-referential masturbation comes into play - frustrated artists who don't realize that, to create something lasting and meaningful, they need to stop trying so hard.
There's also a common misconception among (usually musical) critics that pastiches are not as good as the original works they emulate. Such critics would claim that, as pastiches don't chronologically come first, they must not be as original or creative. (These authenticity junkies are the same types who will magically transform into The Boy Who Cried Sell-Out at every chance they can get.) While derivative works may not be as creative since they did not require the same "unlocking of the door" moment of inspiration (to borrow an image from "Donald Duck In Mathemagic Land"), it in no way diminishes the integrity of the art. If a band has enough affection for a certain genre of music, their affection for it will come out in their joy at playing the music that they love. When pastiche artists (and no, that's not an oxymoron, smartass) hear the music they wish to emulate, they listen between the grooves; they don't hear the notes so much as the potential behind them.
For example, take North Carolina power popsters The Spongetones. Their 1982 album Beat Music is chock full of songs that, stylistically, would not have been out of place on The Beatles' 1964 album A Hard Day's Night. The style of that album is unique; yes, it fits into a multitude of genres like a Matryoshka doll, going from extremely general (pop music) to extremely specific (Merseybeat). But that particular album has a style that nobody has quite replicated like since then...not even The Beatles on subsequent albums. By the end of 1964, the Fab Four sounded very different; they were folkier and more introspective, with a noticable new country influence. They would not have progressed as artists and songwriters if they continued to mine their old sound. However, The Spongetones saw the genre created in A Hard Day's Night and loved it, for all of its youthful energy, jubilant singing and chiming Rickenbacker 12-string guitar parts. Thus, their approximation of this style not only inspired the songwriting, but it created an atmosphere that can only be made by people doing something that they genuinely love. The Spongetones saw an alternate universe: one where The Beatles continued writing songs trapped in suspended animation in early 1964. Although we can all be glad that The Beatles continued to grow as artists, you'd probably shit your pants if you came into posession of a completely unreleased Beatles album from 1964. It doesn't exist, but Beat Music does, and that's just as good. (To these ears at least.)
Of course, I added that last sentence because stating The Spongetones are as good as The Beatles is outrageous sacrilege to most music fans. The context behind a piece of art inevitably informs how it is created and perceived. 1982 was a much different time from 1964, and The Spongetones were not Liverpudlian children of World War II who became arguably the most famous faces of the 20th century. The Spongetones' anonymity and lack of major label hype means that Beat Music never has been and never will be considered on a par with A Hard Day's Night. But if we conducted a controlled experiment involving a human grown in a test tube to be genetically predisposed to liking pop music who heard both albums unaware of the image of (or outside opinions about) either group, who knows what conclusion it would reach?