Derivative....so what?

I see this used to dismiss new music all the time...it's "derivative". In the ongoing threads on this forum about how rock is supposedly dead, this gets trotted out all the time. My question is this: so what? For example, if someone hears Ty Segall before they hear T Rex, does it matter if Ty is influenced by Bolan?

My basic point it this: good music is good music.

 

Of course, but those who have closed their minds will never agree. Their loss, not mine.

 

I agree. There was a recent thread on how Jet is hated and one reason is they're derivative. I'm totally fine with that.

 

Is there even an audience for new rock anymore?

 

I guess it has to do with the quality of the songwriting, playing and singing and how well the influences are digested.

 

Good point, but all those genres do have a 'high level of play' barrier to entry.

 

And if they weren't derivative in some manner they wouldn't even be Blues, Bluegrass, Jazz or whatever.

All music is derivative except for The Shaggs.

 

It doesn't matter as long as the music is good and interesting on its own terms. Guess the term is often used when that's found to not be the case. But the 'source' isn't always that captivating.

 

Absolutely. All music is derivative of what came before. The last thing I care about personally is originality. Give me great music!

 

The same is said for Greta Van Fleet. It's baby Zeppelin but I like it.

 

Agreed. I like Blackberry Smoke and they are very derivative of Allmans Skynyrd, Black Crowes,... that's why I like 'em!

 

Childish Gambino's last album Awaken, My Love! is one of the most derivative albums I've heard in a long time. But it just so happens that he took elements from all the music I love most and mixed them into his own unique thing. I love it possibly because it's derivative.

Anyway, you can't get more derivative than With The Beatles and I don't hear anyone complaining about that.

EDIT: Ha ha! Beat by Purple Jim.

 

I've noticed a general pattern with new music haters (and let's face it...you know who you are and you are a hater).

- It's derivative (and always worse than the original. Except if it's the same time period and then the music gets a pass)
- "You had to be there". I still haven't figured out what that means....music was better because of the drugs you were taking at the time or because your buddies hadn't closed their minds to music like they do today? Well, who's fault is that then?
- Compare the charts from then and now. Well duh, it was made for the 18-25 crowd 50 years ago, what makes you think it would necessarily be relevant for your 50 or 60 something self today?
- Older artists are better. That's called confirmation bias. You're a fan, so of course you want everything they do to be great.
- Look at all the young people who go back to the classics. Sure, there's some people like that but it's not everyone. If it was then the charts would be filled with classic tunes being sold, and that rarely occurs outside of LP sales (which is a small % of music sold)

So you're old, or a young person who has "old tastes" in a few cases. And that's fine, to each his own...but it's just opinion. There's is no objectivity here.

 

Example: Teenage Fanclub "Songs From Northern Britain" LP (1997)
Derivative of: The Byrds, Buddy Holly, Big Star, The Who, Neil Young & Crazy Horse; Echo & The Bunnymen
Succeeds because: Quality songwriting, playing & singing that fully assimilate these influences for the late 1990s
The result: Their most successful 'later' album, containing a U.K. top-ten chart single that actually deserved to be.

 

good post, but highly derivative

 

Most likely I've written this before....and probably better.

2014 Gaslight posts. You just had to be there.

 

Sometimes when we hear music that sounds fresh, unique and non-derivative it's because it's derivative of an obscure artist we've never heard of.

 

Derivative.
Term that "wanna be" music critics use that thx. to the Interwebs ,now that anyone "can be" a music critic and become an "important"voice will now parrot and use.
I think this term is the prime candidate to replace "Pretentious" as music critics favorite Word.
But the first thing that comes to mind when the word is used is that a group or singer somehow becomes a slope to a tangent line on a curve, which is a pretty mean, and cool, trick.

 

Derivative isnt necessarily a bad thing, lack of creativity might be though.

 

Not true. There has always been terrible music.

NJB

 

This kind of comment always gets to me because in almost every case I was there, unless we're talking about J.S. Bach.

 

Yes there has always been terrible music. What has this got to do with The Shaggs?

 

Agree 100%!

Almost everything is derivative of something else. Taking a strictly critical approach will reveal that the truth is, there’s really only a few dozen true “originals” in the entire history of music!

Judge the music on it’s own merits! Someone mentioned Ty Segall, who is a great example; if you hear him through music snob ears you might be dismissive, but that would be your loss. (Then you’d come here and create a “No good music anymore” topic and end up spending more time ruminating on music than listening!)

 

Tell this to Lana Del Rey and Radiohead.