Continuing on from my rant that ended quite abruptly in the previous post ( i tend to experience periods of intense rage that cloud my judgement and render me unable to speak, the mental equivalent of what artic explorers would call a 'whiteout' when coming across an incapacitating snowstorm ) i'll try and get to the point, if i even have one. Music critics and reviewers refer to alot of the music they listen to as sounding like, or being a version of or having that "insert band name here" sound. They're not usually suggesting that the music is a copy of or just another version of a previous band. they're just using another band as a reference point as you may not have heard the band before. But what happens when an influence becomes the defining point for a band. When does a band stray from sounding like, to just being a blatant ripoff?
Because a band came first does that make their sound more original than a band that started later with a similar sound? Or can we only make judgements if the musician has heard the other bands music? Are two people on opposite sides of the world capable of coming up with the same song without hearing the other? If a tree falls in the woods, and i stop writing this blog would anyone care? so many questions....
I downloaded this album after hearing Gui Boratto's latest song on the radio. It was quite sensational, this is his previous album, and it's not quite so sensational. Apparently his new album is more ambient, and laid back, minimalist house, whilst this album is more your, chillout room at a night club, still enough beats to keep your drug riddled heart pumping, bleeps and blips, electro. Whilst in the past i may have preferred the later i'm now very much more jean michel jarre, than armand van helden. So rewind 10 years and this album would've been a regular on my post night out playlist, but now i think i'll wait for the more lamo friendly recent release to come out for my electronica hit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment