Statements that one bands sounds like another more famous one are usually only given to offer an indication of the type of music you can expect to hear. It's a bit like describing someone by comparing their looks to a famous actor or actress (in my case George Clooney!).

 

And the question is: in their early years, those groups must have been compare to others? To what groups the critics compare The Beatles, Yes, Mike Oldfield?

 

Personally,  it would be refreshing if people listened to music with an open mind, enjoying all that the new artists had to offer, instead of saying things like "heard it all before" or "it sounds just like....". The fact is that all artists (except possibly tribute bands) have something new to offer - if only people would listen.

 

 

Hmmm - is that so?

 

Mike

 

Isn't that how we ended up with Captain Beefheart? Or Tom Waits etc. Two artists that are just a bit too unique for my tastes.

 

(I always, somehow, get on Mike's nerves with my posts - I wonder if this will have the same effect?)

 

But it seems to me the rule "no unique sound = no great band (artist)" works always.

 

intersting that people concider mike oldfield to be totally origional. when tubular bell first came out the critics slated it for copying Steve Reich, Terry Riley and Phillip Glass. Reich's far better than Oldfield in my opinion and, though i wouldnt say Tubular Bells completely copies those guys, it was still far from unique. 

 

Wolfmother. My little brother loves them, he thinks they embody all the great things about Zeppelin & AC/DC... Yeah, that sort of thing. I, on the other hand, just constantly think when I hear it, "That just sounds too familiar... I've heard this before!"

 

Then there's a band like the Animal Collective. Their music is unlike anything I've heard... It's primal, fun, insane, and powerful. But then again, when I let someone listen to it, he said, "Hey! These guys sound like the Bealtes." I just chuckled to myself.

 

People are bound to make connections, no matter what you do. I don't think it's a testament to the lack of originality currently (every generation has their sound-a-likes and rehashes, right?).

 

7 notes?

 

In western music there are 12 notes, sir.

 

If you add eastern music, you get more because instruments like sitars are tuned to have something like 18 notes (not sure of the exact number).

 

 it's lyrics from captain. Got me?

 

Ooooooooooooooooooh. All becomes clear! I should have worked it out - it was meaningless (to me).........therefore, must have come from Beefheart! Duh!

 

Exactly. If people wrote reviews and stated that it "was unique" - what would that indicate to a prespective listener? Nothing - no help at all. Now, of course, this would be somewhat remakable - anything that REALLY was unique - unlikely. So then we have... "it is quite unique" or "partially unique" which is ridiculous as both statements are oxymorons. So, we are left with using other artists to try and give a feel for the piece. The trouble with that is that two people will hear different things. Some will hear Genesis influence, some will hear Marillion influence etc etc. An example could be a keyboard trio - often compared to ELP - especially if min-moog and Hammond proliferate. I often do NOT hear what other people cite as being a similarity. So what - does it matter? Ultimately we all have to make our own minds up.

 

It's just a guide - that must be taken with every other pinch of salt that we take when reading any critic's work.

 

In an "ideal world" - yes. Sadly, most people do not have a strong vocabulary or the power of descriptive writing. Reading some of the reviews some are barely literate!

There are also reviewers on here for whom English is not their native tongue. A grand example being Mandrakeroot. (I thought language translators were supposed to be vetoed? Does anyone understand a word of his reviews?). It is far easier to cite comparisons to existing artists than to describe accurately what is being heard. Besides, as I have stated before, no two people hear things in the same way.

 

Both arguments have their merits.

 

I rarely give any creedence to another listener's review . To do so implies an understanding or empathy of the other's taste - plainly unrealistic. Even someone like Dag Erik Asbjornsen, whose opinion coincides with mine frequently, can lead me up the proverbial garden path if I'm not careful. In his book "Scented Gardens Of The Mind" he describes Saint Just's Jenny Sorrenti thus......."...highlighting Jenny Sorrenti's beautiful voice (comparible to Annie Haslam..)".  That's what he hears. I hear this awful wailing woman who can barely hit a note, whose range is, perhaps, one and a half octaves. Her voice has prevented me from ever playing the album since purchase!

 

This is partly why I am reluctant to post a review of an album. I feel that I can rarely do it justice anyway, certainly at my first bash. It generally takes a stinker for me to put pen to paper and that's not exactly constructive. Although it is healthy to hear all differing opinions. If that were not so, then all reviews would be of praise and that would hardly paint an accurate picture.

 

I'm not entirely sure what compels me to buy any particular new album. I would surmise that half of the CDs I buy are of new artists (to me). I know a lot of my purchases are serendipitous in nature and some are based on hearing a soundfile on the artist's site. A lot have been chosen from the book previously mentioned ("Scented Gardens Of The Mind" ). Some even, have been selected on the basis that they either use a lot of Hammond or Mellotron!

 

It's all pot luck when it comes down to it.

 

 

 

It's very rare for me to hear something that doesn't remind me of something else but, as the saying goes, if you copy one person, that's plagiarism; if you copy more than one, they're influences.

 

Also, it depends on how wide your musical experience is. the more you know, the more likely it is for "new" music to sound like something you've already heard.