ilovefuzz.com

I was just listening to this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7idQHD4Z7GQ[/youtube]

And as great a singer as Delroy Wilson was, he wasn't a dreadlock. So, what's he doing covering this song?

(Perhaps not the best example, but it's the inspiration for this thread.)

When does an artist decide it's a good idea to cross the line, taking something from their musical influences and attempting to integrate it into a part of their musical identity?

I was just recently watching a Lou Reed documentary where he was talking about his experiences as a staff songwriter for Pickwick Records. Funny stuff.

Yeah, it's nothing new to wanna be "popular" or make music that "sells". People often wanna be something they're not and all of this is highly theoretical anyway.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH

(Just so you know, I enjoy listening to fake Psych. I mean, I like real Psych better, but sometimes fake psych is better than no Psych at all.)

What do you people think?

I'm not sure because as musicians a lot of us like all kind's of crap and will also learn that crap too, some times because we like it sometimes it just happens.. and if you think about it for a long time it was the THING for someone to do a cover to help them be more accessible to the filthy howling masses Jazz is a perfect example… those fuckers will take ANY song and turn it into a attempt at 50's Miles Davis what's funny… is they will get offend if you suggest a punk band covering a "holy" jazz standard The same goes for writing, a lot of people write music that is not what you would expect from them because not everyone has a fixed point of interest of style, and a lot of times that get changed to "their sound" later so it is sellable and safe What is funny is when it is done and makes people that have never bother to listen to a style suddenly think something is cool and groovy because of star power like when Clapton attempted to cover I shot the serif… suddenly ja reggae mon was in da sumbherbs and all ja yuppies were groov'n to ja island sounds in a safe whitebread kind'a way mon

I get what you're saying, Muddy, nowadays we as music listeners have much greater access to many more styles of music than people did previously.

People, for the most part, like music they're familiar with.

I guess in the example I cited above, it's not so much the style (because Delroy Wilson was already a valid "Reggae" singer), but the appropriation of a sub-culture that he wasn't a part of. I think the same argument can be extended to both lyrical subject and blatant musical borrowings.

I'm not sure using jazz (or blues for that matter) is a good example either, as those genres are pretty much traditionally based on interpreting a common stock of themes.

Yeah, star power can mean a lot when it comes to popularization of previously un-listened to genres.

Led Zeppelin anyone? Also The Clash.
And Beck.

Whatever, whenever. Just do what you like as a music maker; after finding what you like as a listener.


Edit: THE BEATLES A-DURRRRR

Chankgeez wrote:I'm not sure using jazz (or blues for that matter) is a good example either, as those genres are pretty much traditionally based on interpreting a common stock of themes.

no, I mean this backwards, I mean jazz appropriates anything they want but has a problem when others that are not of jazzdudeness use jazz type things I'm talking about the acceptance of things attitude of how people are for no really good reason. WHich to me means you don't have a very firm grasp on your "identity" if you can't see that both things are the same thing.

I think I know what you mean, you hear artists sometimes and their interpretation of another style just doesn't seem right? And in a way where it's odd they tried to appropriate that style. I find it a tricky one.

I think a good example of someone who makes different styles work for them is David Byrne. He started with rock/post punk and since has made african influenced music, latin american music, and the whole time sounded authentically HIM rather than ever sounding like he's putting it on.

Unless you're ignoring the music side and solely talking about the cultural appropriation in which case it gets a lot messier.

rustywire wrote:Whatever, whenever. Just do what you like as a music maker; after finding what you like as a listener.

I think there's a difference between taking something from your influences and making it your own and just mindlessly copying something though.

Mudfuzz wrote: no, I mean this backwards, I mean jazz appropriates anything they want but has a problem when others that are not of jazzdudeness use jazz type things...

That's because jazz dudes are snobs.

monkeydancer wrote:I think I know what you mean, you hear artists sometimes and their interpretation of another style just doesn't seem right? And in a way where it's odd they tried to appropriate that style. I find it a tricky one...

Yeah, often when I hear someone copping a style, there's just something that doesn't ring true about their sound. Like they're not being completely honest.

David Byrne has a strong enough musical identity of his own that he's able to incorporate elements of other musics and still sound like himself. There's no pretense that he's part of a culture (whether musical or not) that he isn't really involved in.

Identity is something i'Ve thought about a lot in the past...

with the main band, we play a wide range of genres, but that comes from being proggy and experimental. We like to keep it listenable and soemtimes catchy, but we also like to have fun with different stuff and surprising people. We like to think of ourselves as one of the bands not everyone will enjoy, because the main criterion for liking us would probably be an open mind - and some people are more focused on certain stuff

it might sound a bit pretentious, but i don't mean it like that...

We thought about focusing on certain style or sound and sicne the beginning, it kind of formed, but it's still pretty wide, because we like that diversity. I guess for a devout fan, the surprise element would not be as strong now, i still wouldn't say we have a clear identity

with the new, side-band - we are a rock trio focusing on stuff that is fun to play and to listen to. It's not as diverse or intricate, it's much more riff oriented, so the identity is a bit clearer. I don't mind though, i see it as a way to relax and get some rest from the more complicated music i usually play

when i listen to music though, i like both. I'm not one of the people who'd talk shit about a band trying out new things, i like diversity and experimenting and discovering new possibilities. I'm usually much more bummed about people clinging to the same shit over and over again. However, some bands know how to keep a pretty clear identity and it's still fun - like Every Time I Die for example. Love them big time despite their albums usually sound pretty similar music-wise

For your main band, DarkAxel, you can get away with a lot under the prog banner. I think that's pretty much the spirit of progressive music. The longer you play together, the sharper the clarity of your identity will become.

With the side project, I think it's good to have a musical outlet that allows you to do things outside of your main focus. Musical ideas that fall outside the scope of concentration of the primary outlet, but are still worth investigating.

That!s exactly what it is i also really click with the guitarist, writing-wise, we're friends as well, so it's a really nice scenario... hopefully we'll hit the stage soon!

I dunno, I think a well-rounded musician is obviously going to have a ton of influences from different genres of music.
Any one particular artist you like, and have a perception of their "sound", has a ton more behind it than that.
So while you might perceive their identity off of the records you hear, it could very well be far from that.
I like to think that musicians in general just play what they're interested in at the time, and not necessarily just because it's part of who they are perceived to be.
Everything we listen to is part of who we are, but we don't always expose all of that in our playing.

Chankgeez wrote: David Byrne has a strong enough musical identity of his own that he's able to incorporate elements of other musics and still sound like himself. There's no pretense that he's part of a culture (whether musical or not) that he isn't really involved in.

And he was strong enough to invite Bernie Worrell into the mix and having it make fucking sense…honestly, take it and make it better.

Gah I don't think I have a musical "identity"
There are too many things I like and want to do, with too few ways of combining them nicely. Basically I feel as though I need to be in like 4 different bands.
...and that's probably part of why I never get songs/albums done

edit: I don't know what happened to the rest of my post, this is why posting in the morrning is bad.

I don't know if Identity in music is a good thing, although it is unacceptable to not have one for some reason.