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

[Phantasmagoria]

I like copycat bands...'originality' is something that is more often bad than good to me. Most bands do ridiculous/tacky things in the name of being 'original' ... musically & otherwise. I'm more than happy with a zillion thrash, power, death or whatever metal bands sounding pretty much the same, as a discerning listener I can always tell the difference.

I'm actually also drawn to 'clone' vocalists/guitar players etc. As LG said up there imitation is often the sincerest form of flattery... and for some of these guys it sounds like it's a labour of love lol. It's also pretty interesting to see how close the imitators get to the real thing...at best, it's so close it's like a new/lost album from the original singer/band.

For instance:

Dickinson...




more Dickinson...






The King...




More King/Mercyful Fate...






Coverdale...




More Coverdale...






and so on...




Then You have the Tate/Halford imitators who sound like those guys did back in their heyday. Again...that can only be a good thing

 

[METALPRIEST]

^^^ All great stuff, but that was my point. The Attic track is GREAT and I'm a KING fan, but that's sooo apparent there, and why a great band like that will be left behind and KING is where he is at. Ya know?? Doesn't make the band bad or anything. I think it sounds great!

 

[Phantasmagoria]

I hear what your saying & totally get your point, but hey, as you said yourself, bands like ^ that are fun to listen to.

As for Attic ...they do sound awesome in their own right, and sure... they're where they are /King's where he is etc... but ironically the thing that actually puts them on the map at all is the fact that the vocalist is a dead ringer for KD.

 

[Sunny]

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.

I go to see many live bands (newer bands) and am rarely disappointed. Rock music is alive and well in the Sydney area. Sure, some of them remind me of better known rock bands but that's OK with me

 

[Soot and Stars]

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!

If someone breaks the doors down for a genre how do we go from thinking it's an opportunity for bands that play the genre to get heard rather than the ridiculous idea that a record company dresses up a band out of the blue in a costume and tells them to play a style of music. We really think everything is some big conspiracy rather than a natural evolution of styles and bands that are lucky enough to get an opportunity to succeed due to timing and luck.

 

[Sox]

Even some of our local pub bands that concentrate on covers play to such a high standard it's mindblowing. Four signed bands from the last ten years I can name straight off have their sound rooted in classic rock with various ingredients making up the overall vibe, hard rock/metal, blues/rock and progressive. These bands I would have no hesitation in saying have provided me with some of my very best live experiences. They have also managed to put out some really great albums. Gentlmans Pistols, Graveyard, Big Elf and Electric Mary each one has bowled me over, yeah I would say music is live and kicking and I agree Sunny if they have elements that remind me of other older bands that's fine with me.

 

[METALPRIEST]

I just remember the good old days when you would get that HEAVY Deja Vu from someone singing..and then after hours of aggravation...you'd be all....THIS GUY!!

Nowadays it's THIS GUY...NO THIS GUY....NO MAYBE THIS GUY??...



At the end of it all though it doesn't REALLY matter. If I like the sound and the songs I'm all over it anyway. As was pointed out....when you really like something, you yourself will know the difference.

I was ONLY speaking of first listen/impressions.

 

[Powerage]

I like a few AC/DC copy cats, Airbourne, The Casanovas for example.

As for most of the recent rock bands, The Answer, The Datsuns, Tokyo Dragons, Hurricane Party / Roadstar and now The Treatment all borrow massively from bands that came before them. I love it.

 

[Riff Raff]

I don't really consider Airbourne to be a complete AC/DC copycat, they do sound a lot alike but they were influenced by the likes of Motorhead and Judas Priest as well and is evident in their sound. The Treatment are another band I like but they are a nice hybrid of several bands as opposed to just sounding like one other band.
Good music is good music but in variety its just as good too. Its why I like those bands, they have bits and pieces from other bands as well as their own ideas.

 

[stepcousin]

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.

back in 1985 I got a friend of mine into bands like Metallica and Slayer and such. While I loved those bands and had a few thrash metal albums, I couldnt really afford to really buy tons of music. Well after turning my frind on to thrash and we both started making good money, we started buying EVERYTHING thrash and death metal. There were alot of copycat bands but they were good. The San Fran scene and the Germany scene (Noise Records) and the Florida death metal scene were signing bands left and right because they wanted to find the next "big Four". Well, needless to say it got very diluted and alot of the bands only put out one or two releases and faded into obscurity but alot of those late 80's/early 90's releases are classics.
So to answer the question of copycat bands, I dont mind them at all if they are talented and even though the genre usually doesnt last very long, it's a place in time that has alot of great memories and when listening to these classics they bring back some of those special memories for me.