In either case, the first onto the scene becomes the base point of comparison for all that follow. Sometimes it's the originator (because they're getting the immediate attention), but not always. While the underground is closer to the originators, a similar idea plays out where the first onto the scene becomes the comparison point. Those sounds may have originated with someone else, but since that act didn't get popular first, it's a non-issue to them. While this is true to a degree, I'm going to echo some of the other sentiments that mainstream fans are comparing these acts with other mainstream artists, which means the sounds are new in comparison to those other artists. It was basically a sellout move rather than a band succeeding on their own innovation. Not really an issue of being derivative in general as much as being derivative of the wrong thing. There's even terms like "Indie Landfill" or "Butt Rock" to describe stale and derivative music scenes but we're always sure to separate the "real" artists from them to highlight that the problem is with the player and not the game.Īre there any artists you think have unfairly been labeled derivative and are there any that you think are unwarranted in their acclaim because the ground they broke wasn't worth the soil?Īs far as Kings of Leon goes, I got it more as it was a band that was fairly well-known in underground circles (and got a decent bit of acclaim, if not excessively so), who then got big by basically becoming a Nickelback-esque band. There's some extremes like GVF from Led Zeppelin on one end and then others that use inspiration as a jumping off point to completely new ground (LCD Soundsystem from Talking Heads). Most of the biggest artists of all time are beloved by critics (Beatles, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Prince, Pink Floyd).īut more importantly, the derivative artists have copy cat tendencies seemingly baked into their DNA. Now I lean towards the critical side of this schism because there's certainly a load of artists that have bridged the gap of being popular and acclaimed. Some artists have found a formula (Drake, Coldplay, Maroon 5) that they never have to change and will always move units despite being derivatives of themselves or others.Ī casual listener doesn't get bothered by this because they lack a frame of reference (ignorance is bliss type way) to compare and contrast the who's who of certain styles of music. You can make perfectly serviceable tunes that sell and chart but you won't get the acclaim without breaking new ground. I posit that the biggest difference between criticism and the marketplace is caring about originality. So why did this album sell so well and give us a true crossover success story? ".turning themselves from Southern Strokes to Southern U2" - Pitchfork. Kings of Leon were never hated as much as other derivative bands (see Mumford and Sons, Creed, Great Van Fleet), but their borrowing of styles was definitely a main complaint amongst reviewers
In 2009, Kings of Leon had numerous hits on Pop Radio despite being a rock band that wasn't exactly raved about by critics. The artist is among the "most acclaimed" of its particular sound.įor example. The artist is the first of its particular sound. When a new style bubbles onto the radio, is it possible to discern patterns as to whether:
Lately I've been thinking about the disconnect from best selling artists and critically acclaimed and where these two intersect.
0 kommentar(er)
