Are "copycat" bands and music trends really a bad thing?

[Soot and Stars]

I guess this is more a perspective thing or a glass half/empty vs. half/full thing. Personally I love when a band catapults a genre particularly when I already like the genre. The newest one is the folk which has been growing for quite a while from my observation with artist past 2,000 that gained quite a following were Damien Rice, City and Colour and Bon Iver. Now with Mumford and Sons success they are credited with a major folk influx with groups like the Lumineers, The Tallest Man on Earth, The Civil Wars and Of Monsters and Men all finding success. A lot of people are cynical and make constant comparisons and so easily create a blanket of comparisons between them all plus find it to be an evil record company scheme every time a genre gets an uprising after a success. I have been thriving with these new groups and the great harmonies that I don't want it to stop. Why? Because it's a great genre and I think it's as much of an opportunity for actual folk artist to step out rather than the bullshit theories of the groups being created out of the blue to fit the trend. When I like a genre I don't have a limit to what quality music I find from it. Why do people buck these trends solely based on it being a trend. Who cares what the motivation is. It's a resurgence and breath of life into a genre and gives lots of options between groups in a genre. I know I can describe and break down the differences in any trend I like and the groups that came out around the same time. Any, why is a lot of a good thing such a burden and always considered too much? If the qualities are good then it makes no sense why that would change based on having a wider base of groups or bands!

 

[Riff Raff]

I think bands should always try to do something to develop somewhat of an identity, I do not want to hear 10 of the same band trying to do the same exact thing. I don't like trends most of the time, I enjoy musicians or bands willing to try something a bit different even if its not that much different but enough for me to at least tell the difference between bands.
I am strongly against bands following a trend simply because its a trend, that just makes me not want to listen to them because I will know they will sound like the next band or the previous one.

I listen to Death Metal and whilst most people who don't listen to it probably can't tell much of a difference, I certainly can and I know which band is who from their own little things that make them easy to identify, whereas if they had been 'copycat' type bands I wouldn't have a clue who Death were or Morbid Angel, it would have all sounded the same. Its the individual aspects of a band that I am after even if it all falls under the same genre.

 

[runtfan]

I think bands should always try to do something to develop somewhat of an identity, I do not want to hear 10 of the same band trying to do the same exact thing. I don't like trends most of the time, I enjoy musicians or bands willing to try something a bit different even if its not that much different but enough for me to at least tell the difference between bands.
I am strongly against bands following a trend simply because its a trend, that just makes me not want to listen to them because I will know they will sound like the next band or the previous one.

I listen to Death Metal and whilst most people who don't listen to it probably can't tell much of a difference, I certainly can and I know which band is who from their own little things that make them easy to identify, whereas if they had been 'copycat' type bands I wouldn't have a clue who Death were or Morbid Angel, it would have all sounded the same. Its the individual aspects of a band that I am after even if it all falls under the same genre.

Well, the thing is many bands that may sound like they're following trends are the same bands that are trying to be a little bit different and bring their own flavor or some kind of new aspect to it. Whether or not you can tell any difference might be a result of them not actually having anything new to bring to the genre ( but not being perceptive or self-aware enough to realize it), or the slight differences could get lost in a poor mix, or maybe the differences are too slight or esoteric for you to pick up on them. It's subjective from both sides of the equation. It could be that the listener doesn't CARE about the "identifiable" characteristic of a given band so their "identifiable" characteristic goes unheard or unappreciated. Like I said, that could be because the band is not as unique as they wish they were, and try to be, or it could be that the listener is not as perceptive as they think they are. Bottom line is that the band gets to determine whether the trend has been followed, and to what extent, and the listener gets to determine, for him or herself, whether that helps, hurts, or matters at all. A crappy band that bucks a trend and brings some new aspect to a genre is still a crappy band.

 

[Riff Raff]

Well, the thing is many bands that may sound like they're following trends are the same bands that are trying to be a little bit different and bring their own flavor or some kind of new aspect to it. Whether or not you can tell any difference might be a result of them not actually having anything new to bring to the genre ( but not being perceptive or self-aware enough to realize it), or the slight differences could get lost in a poor mix, or maybe the differences are too slight or esoteric for you to pick up on them. It's subjective from both sides of the equation. It could be that the listener doesn't CARE about the "identifiable" characteristic of a given band so their "identifiable" characteristic goes unheard or unappreciated. Like I said, that could be because the band is not as unique as they wish they were, and try to be, or it could be that the listener is not as perceptive as they think they are. Bottom line is that the band gets to determine whether the trend has been followed, and to what extent, and the listener gets to determine, for him or herself, whether that helps, hurts, or matters at all. A crappy band that bucks a trend and brings some new aspect to a genre is still a crappy band.

This is true too, does depend on mixing and producing as well I agree.Whether a band is crappy as said there is more just quality rather than if it is different or trend following. Originality is not something anyone can expect 100% of in a band, every band has their influences and want to make their own mark. Guess it depends on the fan too, whilst I enjoy genres that produce many similar bands, the key word is similar but not the same, I like bands that have their own thing that is identifiable. There is nothing really wrong with following a trend but there is if its for the pure sake of being trendy. I enjoy the little individual things I can pick apart of bands whether it be a vocalist, particular guitar riffs, anything I can tell that it is a certain band and it is just not some knock off of another group I like. Having your own identity as a band is never a bad thing, I would tire of a style if every band in it literally did the same shit as each other without at least some room to take adventures with that sound. It is why I love numerous different styles of metal because I love how much metal has branched out and same with rock.

 

[Big Ears]

In the seventies, folk groups like Pentangle, Fairport Convention and Lindisfarne shared similarities with the rock bands, so I think any attempt to resurrect the genre can only be a good thing. I'm not bothered by trends in music, as they existed before I was born.

 

[runtfan]

This is true too, does depend on mixing and producing as well I agree.Whether a band is crappy as said there is more just quality rather than if it is different or trend following. Originality is not something anyone can expect 100% of in a band, every band has their influences and want to make their own mark. Guess it depends on the fan too, whilst I enjoy genres that produce many similar bands, the key word is similar but not the same, I like bands that have their own thing that is identifiable. There is nothing really wrong with following a trend but there is if its for the pure sake of being trendy. I enjoy the little individual things I can pick apart of bands whether it be a vocalist, particular guitar riffs, anything I can tell that it is a certain band and it is just not some knock off of another group I like. Having your own identity as a band is never a bad thing, I would tire of a style if every band in it literally did the same shit as each other without at least some room to take adventures with that sound. It is why I love numerous different styles of metal because I love how much metal has branched out and same with rock.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying and agree to a large extent. The point I was making is that almost every term we can use to describe music is subjective..."crappy", "different", "trend", "originality", "their own mark","similar","same","identifiable","knock off","adventures","metal","rock"...these are all words or phrases I culled from your post and any of them could mean different things to different people. I don't like or listen to Death Metal so I wouldn't pick up on NEARLY as many "identifiable" characteristics of those bands as you would. Things I might write off as "trendy" or "copycat", you might very easily hear the "originality". I know many guitarists that obsess over guitars and amps and can hear differences that might be imperceptible to me, because I'm focused on melody or harmony or keyboard sounds or lyrics or whatever. So what I'm saying is there's ALWAYS differences...sometimes the listeners won't pick up on them, yet the musicians have obsessed over them. Sometimes a "copycat" band honestly believed they were bringing something original to the table and just weren't very good at it.Likewise, some bands that were just trying to cash in on a "trend", end up actually distinguishing themselves from the norm and have something unique about them - in spite of themselves. Motives don't always align with results and perception doesn't always align with reality.

 

[Riff Raff]

Yeah, I understand what you're saying and agree to a large extent. The point I was making is that almost every term we can use to describe music is subjective..."crappy", "different", "trend", "originality", "their own mark","similar","same","identifiable","knock off","adventures","metal","rock"...these are all words or phrases I culled from your post and any of them could mean different things to different people. I don't like or listen to Death Metal so I wouldn't pick up on NEARLY as many "identifiable" characteristics of those bands as you would. Things I might write off as "trendy" or "copycat", you might very easily hear the "originality". I know many guitarists that obsess over guitars and amps and can hear differences that might be imperceptible to me, because I'm focused on melody or harmony or keyboard sounds or lyrics or whatever. So what I'm saying is there's ALWAYS differences...sometimes the listeners won't pick up on them, yet the musicians have obsessed over them. Sometimes a "copycat" band honestly believed they were bringing something original to the table and just weren't very good at it.Likewise, some bands that were just trying to cash in on a "trend", end up actually distinguishing themselves from the norm and have something unique about them - in spite of themselves. Motives don't always align with results and perception doesn't always align with reality.

Which is a valid point, one I forgot to put across too that it does depend on the listener, as you said most who don't like death metal probably won't pick up on the differences as much as a fan of that music form.
Anyway I agree with your post here.

 

[LG]

What's that old saying...

Ah I've got it: "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

Doesn't bother me to see bands trying to use an established formula/sound to be successful. You see it in all walks of life not just music.

If a new genre comes along that I don't like, I simply don't bother with it. Many older fans don't like a lot of the hard rock metal bands making music in Europe, but for me they are why I am still interested in new music. I also try and keep up with the newer bands Sooty, Cosmic, Sunny and others post but it's a matter of time, there is simply not enough for me to get to everything.

 

[Sox]

I am ok with it, some of the newer bands that have that retro hard rock vibe are actually amongst the best live outfits I've seen. I'm not a fan of tribute bands at all though, I much prefer original songs even if the sound does borrow from elsewhere in time.

 

[METALPRIEST]

IMO, I think bands doing a similar genre is cool, if I like the genre as well.

I think the SINGER should try and sound more original and not too close to a more famous singer...there should be more moments than less that make that person stand out for better or for worse.

Now if I like the band and I like the music...it doesn't matter to me. I'll buy it anyway. So for me...if two singers are identical and I like the music of both bands, then I'm still happy to listen and purchase.

But when bands have really good music you would like them to go a bit further. I sing different with every band I'm in and I have to adapt to genres. For instance when I was in HELLO HELLO I didn't use any vibrato, and I had a bit more nasal and whisky edge to my approach.

In CATALANO...I have elements of Tate, Dickinson, Sammett, Halford.....BUT there is enough ME (I think...I hope) where people would say....."that guy"

One good example I always give is CREED...when they were brand new and Higher came on the radio. I thought it REALLY was Pearl Jam....I remember thinking to myself...Pearl Jam came up with a catchy little tune here....the radio announcer said CREED and I was all....CREED???

CREED did good for a little while there...but Pearl Jam is still a HUGE name historically..and bands that came too close in the vocal department...well...good or not...I think it was bad for business in the long run.

Yeah Eddie Vedder had a Jim Morrison type style and all...but it wasn't soo close to be an exact match or close to an exact match.

If I really love a band...and I hear another band that sounds just like the band I love..I can deal with it. When singer number 3,4,5,6 and 7 all come out of the woodwork as well...it takes a little excitement that I had away from what I originally loved.

I mean KISS was hot right?? But no one tried to sound like Gene or Paul...how could you....but people did tackle the "genre"

The female singers today are doing this a lot too. But so have singers in the 90's, 80's and the 50's were big on this. Unless you are a 50's historian it's tough to decipher unless you can connect a song to a band.

Good topic