:
To be honest Super Munch, it requires more talent and artistic ability to make a good song with the same essense, atmosphere, and continuity of style with another song, but still retain originality. No matter how similar it is to something else, if it still sounds recogniseably different, and is still rockin, then it's still originality and artistic creation, just within different parameters, different borders. Rather than working with a completely blank canvas, it's like painting a paint-by-numbers in a really funky and different way. You've still got the same image, but it's arranged in a totally different and very creative way.
Look at graffiti for example - there are some noticeably prolific styles, but that does not mean that they are copied. Each work tends to be completely original, but it's still very definately graffiti. If it strays too far from what it is, then it loses it's identity, but if it hangs too close to one idea, it becomes repeated.
Basically, there's a difference between being a copycat, and working within a genre. At the end of the day, it's up to you to use your better judgement and disgretion to work out which one of those two things something is.
|
Well, you totally PWNED me.
AND stood up for Alpha. Many musicals sytles can be spawned off one band, mind you. All sounding close to identical. Take some forms of Death Metal. From my point of view (though mabye clouded in ignorance), Death Metal = Low growling voice + heavy guitars = commonly Drop D tuning. But then again, I don't listen to very much of it so I should really just shut up...
Drakan90, please, just shut up. The only response you can think of is, "Ooh, well you're great aren't you?". Illustrated hyere... (Yes, with a 'y'.)
:
|
Oh well arent you amazingly intelligent too?
|
:
|
Ooh well arent you so unique?
|
:
|
Arent you a nice and considerate person?
|
But when people do pick on youngins when they are not one themselves, it is slightly unfair. But sometimes hilarious.