Do clone bands have any value?

[JayKeeley]

I think we've discussed this before, but anyway, I'm intrigued.

Am I correct in thinking that a clone band offers value only if the original band they're cloning is someone worthwhile? I'm not sure if this is always the case. E.g. most people tend to like "Painkiller" but how many people would give Primal Fear the time of day?

Or are clone bands redundant simply because they're just rehashing somebody else's blueprint?

Can you think of a clone band that you like?

Can you think of a clone band that you like more than the originator?

Isn't approx 98% of "heavy metal" made up of clone bands anyway? Surely only 2% of what you listen to has genuinely pushed the envelope?

 

[NAD]

Surely only 2% of what you listen to has genuinely pushed the envelope?

It's at least 28.67% for a dude like me.

Generally I find it hard to enjoy clone bands if I already like the original, but sometimes if you discover the clone first it might not anger up the blood like they normally would.

Then again there are bands like Hammers of Misfortune and Colour Haze that really aren't doing anything innovative but they are just SO FUCKING AWESOME with what they do it doesn't matter.

In closing, I dunno.

 

[skeptik]

Clone bands that are actually good are obviously worthwhile.

 

[J.]

Can you think of a clone band that you like more than the originator?

This applies to any moron who likes ANY viking metal band more than Bathory.

And yes, I love Morrigan, Nachtfalke, Falkenbach...

Do they come close to the Godhead of Quorthon? yeah right...

 

[Chromatose]

Anekdoten rules damn hard even though they are King Crimson ripoffs

 

[Krilons Resa]

Yeah, there are defintely tiers here. I'd just say if they RULE, they RULE...if they suck, well...they SUCK.

 

[AsModEe]

they have a value, by which they have potential to become something more than just a clone band

 

[Krilons Resa]

they have a value, by which they have potential to become something more than just a clone band

Also, VEEERRRYYY true!

Look at Fates Warning. They started off as a Maiden clone band and then released two jaw-dropping, original, RIDICULOUS albums afterwards. I never go into the post-Arch albums though.

 

[Thanatopsis123]

I think of lot of bands seen as simple, worthless, clones have actually refined a once original sound and improved upon it. I don't give a flying fuck which came first, I'll listen to the one I think sounds better.

 

[Henrik Main]

I think of lot of bands seen as simple, worthless, clones have actually refined a once original sound and improved upon it. I don't give a flying fuck which came first, I'll listen to the one I think sounds better.

AMEN TO THAT MY METAL BRUVVA

 

[Crimson Velvet]

I find it extremely difficult to listen to anything but the originals. The originals just emits some sort of special energy or something, I dunno. It just sounds more sincere.

The only reason I feel this way, may very well be because I have more respect for the innovators than for the followers, of course.

 

[lizard]

there is no right or wrong here. some bands are inspired by a style, while some others are simple rip-offs simply out for a paycheck. It's all about the inspiration. If bands are sincere about what they do, it shows.

 

[Nico]

Yes, clones have value. Best example I can think of is Abyssic Hate, whom, musically speaking, owe more than a riff or two to Burzum, yet still do something that Burzum never came close to doing.

So I'm wondering, is Abyssic Hate really a Burzum clone if the musical intentions are totally different? The style of music is very, very similar, but where does one draw the line at "clone"?

 

[General Zod]

Am I correct in thinking that a clone band offers value only if the original band they're cloning is someone worthwhile?

To me, music is about good songs. If a clone band writes good songs, they have value.

I'm not sure if this is always the case. E.g. most people tend to like "Painkiller" but how many people would give Primal Fear the time of day?

I've heard it argued, that Primal Fear did not follow Judas Priest's lead. The "Painkiller" sound was a sound the Ralf Scheepers' had been using in a band called Tyran Pace, whose CDs predate "Painkiller". Therefore, Primal Fear's (who have some pretty cool songs) sound is a natural progression of Scheepers earlier work.

Or are clone bands redundant simply because they're just rehashing somebody else's blueprint?

Yep.

Can you think of a clone band that you like?

At least half a dozen.

Can you think of a clone band that you like more than the originator?

Yes... I like Kingdom Come more than Led Zepplin, the last two Persuader CDs more than anything by Blind Guardian, and all Viking Metal more than Bathory.

Isn't approx 98% of "heavy metal" made up of clone bands anyway? Surely only 2% of what you listen to has genuinely pushed the envelope?

For starters, originality is completely subjective. Irregardless, how can you be certain, when you hear an "original" band, they're not completely ripping off someone you've never heard of?

Zod

 

[BenMech]

Am I correct in thinking that a clone band offers value only if the original band they're cloning is someone worthwhile? I'm not sure if this is always the case. E.g. most people tend to like "Painkiller" but how many people would give Primal Fear the time of day?

I'm not crazy about Painkiller, but I follow your logic. There's NO value in clone bands. NONE. End of discussion.

Or are clone bands redundant simply because they're just rehashing somebody else's blueprint?

yes

Can you think of a clone band that you like?

No.

Can you think of a clone band that you like more than the originator?

If Beatallica does not count, then no.

Isn't approx 98% of "heavy metal" made up of clone bands anyway?

87 % of all statistics are pulled out of somebody's ass.

 

[Krilons Resa]

87 % of all statistics are pulled out of somebody's ass.

 

[Demonspell]

there is no right or wrong here. some bands are inspired by a style, while some others are simple rip-offs simply out for a paycheck. It's all about the inspiration. If bands are sincere about what they do, it shows.

I have to agree here, sincerity and above average songwriting are more than enough to overcome lack of originality, and there are very few options remaining to be innovative in the strictest sense, even the most avant-garde bands out there often have obvious influences. As for whether "clones" (I reserve this term for blatant bandwagon jumpers, the word has recently come to mean "anyone whose debut came out after 2000") can surpass the originals, usually not, but I don't discount quality albums (especially when they're the result of a band expanding beyond clone status) just because someone else arrived at the idea first.

 

[J.]

I think of lot of bands seen as simple, worthless, clones have actually refined a once original sound and improved upon it. I don't give a flying fuck which came first, I'll listen to the one I think sounds better.

So by "improving upon it", you mean slicker production, better equipment, and more budget dollars?

How can a clone improve upon perfection?

 

[En Vind Av Sorg]

Subjective personal tastes. A clone band can utilize a tried and true formula while incorporating better songwriting to surpass its inspirations.

 

[Demilich]

if a band like Witchcraft counts as a clone then YES they do have a lot of value!