Does original always mean good?

[Thanatopsis123]

More often than not I see bands (although this goes for more than music) hailed as originators being e-fellated (and again, this goes for more than just the internet) almost constantly.

There really seems to be some connection in most minds that the roots of something are inherently better than what sprouts from it later. Why? I used to just chalk this one up to trend-fagginess but not anymore. Whether people have needed to convince themselves of this superiority or not, I'm not sure but I do believe it is (or becomes) more than simple trendiness.

I tend to like later things because they've improved upon earlier designs. I find that a lot of originators may have had good ideas but didn't really know what to do with them, whereas their modern descendants have learned from the past and done better with it.

Disclaimer: IMHO, there are exceptions, , etc.

 

[Henrik Main]

No. A good example: Lykathea Aflame.

 

[J.]

Not necessarily. But a lot of times it feels more genuine from the originators. I mean lets face it, most, if not all, bands today are borrowing (stealing) others' ideas and just adding their own little ingredient.

THat's not saying I don't like any music released today, because I love a lot of it.

 

[Thanatopsis123]

I mean lets face it, most, if not all, bands today are borrowing (stealing) others' ideas and just adding their own little ingredient.

This is something else I don't understand. Is there ever really a major watershed in any branch of musical evolution? I don't get why some are considered originators when they themselves are only borrowing from others. This is like biological evolution I suppose. Where is the cutoff point between apes and humans? Is this an arbitrary distinction?

 

[J.]

That's probably something that cannot be defined. I guess genre-creating bands could be seen as originators, such as Sabbath. But then the anal retentive people will just say shit like "they borrowed from blues rock".

Look at Graveland's "Thousand Swords". It's constantly seen as an original piece of work which spawned countles clones, but is it, in itself wholly original? Of course not. Is it better than 99% of the clones it spawned? Yes.

 

[spaffe]

To answer the title question: of course not.

I don't really feel any need to explore the deepest roots of black metal (Actually I don't think I've heard any first wave black metal album) from a musical perspective; perhaps out of historical curiosity but then I might as well read about it I guess, which feels pretty pointless on the other hand.

Early bands can have somehting interesting to offer in that it's often so devoted to the music in question, but it's often quite crude both musically (which is not necessarily negative) and lyricall/ideologically which can is generally a big turn off for me, even if the instrumental bit is ever so good :|

 

[circus_brimstone]

Not necessarily. But a lot of times it feels more genuine from the originators. I mean lets face it, most, if not all, bands today are borrowing (stealing) others' ideas and just adding their own little ingredient.

THat's not saying I don't like any music released today, because I love a lot of it.

I agree with ^. I enjoy hearing bands take an idea, improve/change it, and present it as their own, somewhat-original work. In essence, a lot of music revolves around making ideas "new." There's always a new spin just waiting to be discovered.

 

[Thanatopsis123]

What about this original/superior thing's by-product? I see people arguing over which band happens to be an originator of something and a lot of times I think it's less to protect the band's reputation (or to define a so-called watershed) as that of the listener.

I won't name names but I've noticed even some around here that confer more respect to fans of originators than otherwise.

 

[JayKeeley]

I started a thread here 2 days ago discussing that, in theory, all metal today can be looked upon as "old school". Nobody responded after 36 views, it sunk, so I deleted it figuring there was no interest.

Nevertheless, bands like Darkthrone and even Opeth are 10 years + old now, and 10 years prior, bands like Maiden and Metallica were ruling and already considered old school even at that point. I'm not sure if we've progressed that much since the mid-90s.

I find that a lot of originators may have had good ideas but didn't really know what to do with them, whereas their modern descendants have learned from the past and done better with it.

That could be true, there is no denying that bands of today basically 'tweak' the blueprint to something that already exists.

I will say this: that "good idea" concept you refer to holds a LOT of weight. Sometimes a good idea can generate a 'buzz' or an exciting 'vibe' because it feels fresh. There is a lot to be said about that in an underground scene.

Just imagine when NWOBHM exploded, and prior to that, people were saturated with watered down classic rock/metal and a quick fad of punk. Zeppelin were gone, Sabbath were washed up, etc. Sure, those NWOBHM bands might sound crude today, but their new ideas generated lots of enthusiasm.

Apply this also to Bathory, Celtic Frost, Death, Slayer, Mercyful Fate, Darkthrone, etc. After that, nothing much [within the confines of metal].

Today's music is pretty stale in comparison - it's hard to deny when you look at it compared to the 50's. Think about how music evolved over the decade turning points:

1959-61 (advent of rock n' roll to flower power)
1969-71 (hippy to Sabbath)
1979-81 (punk to NWOBHM)
1989-91 (massive decline, one final burst of eccentricity in Norway)
1999-01 (wtf)

Just some food for thought.

 

[circus_brimstone]

1989-91 (massive decline

Grunge?

 

[spaffe]

Well I think nu metal has to be counted as a new branch within metal, however horrible and ridiculous it may be. If that counts then the genre it not entirly stagnant, allthough the new branches growing out of the great metal tree are not very nice and should perhaps rather be regarded as parasites

 

[Ayeka]

I say no. I think I said something silly one time, like...if I created a new form of music by recording myself throwing TVs out of a window while shouting Welsh backwards, it might be original but it sure wouldn't be good. It does bug me sometimes when peoples' sole justification for plugging a band is simply because "they were the originators of..."...for all we know they could still be crap.

 

[JayKeeley]

Grunge?

Yeah, well that was the CAUSE of the decline in metal civilization. 'Hair Metal' took over "metal" in the mainstream, became a parody of itself, and then imploded. Meanwhile, a new sound emerged out of Seattle...kids could relate to Nirvana and Alice in Chains much more so than Poison and Warrant.

Grunge didn't kill metal, metal killed metal.

 

[Mormagil]

Hair metal is what kept me away from metal for so long, and old-school metal for even longer. I'm an idiot.

 

[JayKeeley]

I refuse to call hair rock metal at all, just like I refuse to call mallcore metal. Metallica killed metal.

I admit that "hair metal" turned into blues-rock with grown men in clown makeup, but some of the earlier trends of that scene were definitely 'metal'. Motley Crue, Ozzy Osbourne, WASP, etc. Kinda interesting that Motley Crue debuted in 1982. "Live Wire" is definitely metal IMO.

The 80's were fucking miraculous if you think about it. Every 12 months added a new milestone. You just couldn't keep up, which is often why so many fans were swept away by it all and seeing Slayer back to back with Motley Crue, and so forth.

 

[Demonspell]

I'm not sure if I agree with that "everything's old school" theory, even if it's a more cynical variation on the idea that nothing is 100% original. As for hair metal and mallcore, I don't consider them metal because they actively reject some of the genre's core values (they exist, regardless of my insistence against a set definition) and usually embrace commercialism.