What a crock!

Nov 14, 2004
What is it with these current wave of NEW, OLD ROCK BANDS??? Can't they write music in their own way??

I recently heard a band called Wolfmother, from somewhere in Australia, I believe. Let me tell you, I THOUGHT I was listening to some unreleased track from Ozzy-era Sabbath! This band is a total rip-off. They have the trademark Sabbath fuzzy, groovey guitar riffs, and more (un)importantly, the vocalist is a direct rip-off of Ozzy. This band rips off every single chord, chord progression and scale pioneered in Rock N Roll by guitarists like Tony Iommi and Jimmy Page. What a joke! This bands rips off every British rock n roll band from the 70's - Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Sabbath, you bloody name it, they rip it off!

We already have the tidal wave of rip off bands like Jet (*cough*sorry, Stones and AC/DC*cough*), The Datsuns and Kings of Leon, why do we need more. Is this the sort of music that will define this current decade? Sorry to spoil your glorious fun kiddies, but it's already been defined thirty bloody years ago! And the sad thing is, most of the fans have no musical knowledge of the bands being ripped off.

EVERY SINGLE DECADE since rock 'n' roll was invented, has had it's own definitive bands. Why stop the originality now? There is a difference between being influenced and directly ripping-off you know? The bands now are not about the Rock N Roll spirit, they are about the money, looks and marketing while it is the 'in' thing. Give it five years and these bands will be as useful as grated faeces.

Your opinions on this era of downright disgrace?
Well that would be pretty obvious with most people, wouldn't it? - not to listen to something they don't like?

But, would you rather listen to this 'new' band that is just trying to emulate past glory, as opposed to that classic band who actually made something of their own to start with? These new bands don't sound similar to old bands or anything to that affect because all they are doing is simply ripping off, and taking advantage of some showpony marketing scheme. It is unjust to compare them with old bands. They are not like old bands - they're only rip offs.

Let me ask you this? Do you like recycled toilet paper, that's already been wiped in somebody elses shit? Because that's exactly what these new bands are. They bring nothing of their own to the music they 'create'. It's all just recycled shit (in regards to the old bands, it's good shit, not bad).
Nothing wrong with sounding like one of the best bands of all time. Maybe they love Sabbath music and want to play music like Sabbath. Nothing wrong with that either. You dont need new ideas to be great, you only need great songs.

If a band is described as being exactly like Slayer should I not bother checking them out because they arent original?

The music industry has changed completely since Led Zep, Deep Purple and so on. If you dont have a hit straight away you get dropped. We probably will never have any more bands like them until one manages to somehow get a hit through the internet or something and they own the copyright to their own songs and dont answer to a record company. It will happen sooner or later.
The point is, they're stealing other people's ideas. Other people's ideas that have already been put into effect years and years ago. You can worship Sabbath's music, and be highly influenced without digging up the exact characteristics of the band.

It doesn't matter what the music scene is like these days. Even in the last decade gone, most bands brought something distinctive to their creations. Something of this calibre is completely nonexistent in this day and age.
You mean the decade that was completely dominated by grunge, bad guitar playing, dressing like a bum and self pitying lyrics?
As opposed to this decade of being money hungry, showpony rip-offs?? There is even a band ripping of Bob Dylan for god's sake.
But really, what's the difference between ripping someone off and paying homage to them? By your rationale, every power metal band is a rip off of Maiden and Priest.
Here is my two cents. But firstly I wanna say I personally can't stand these bands, but not for the same reasons as you. I'm gonna be defending them here... though I personally hate their sound.

How is sounding like bands from the 60s or 70s any less original than sounding like new bands?? It's not. There's nothing more unoriginal about sounding like the Rolling Stones than there is if you were one of the Korn clones in the late '90s or one of the Pearl Jam clones in the early 90s or one of the Motley Crue clones in the late 80s, you get my drift.

In the music scene there are VERY VERY VERY few bands or artists who start a new sound or music revolution, and the rest of the bands are followers. There is nothing wrong with being one of the followers coz 99.9% of the bands in the world are, as i said it is a select few who revolutionize things. There is a reason those artists such as Elvis, Beatles, AC/DC, KISS, Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix and Nirvana are such icons, and that reason is because there are so few artists like them who did that.

You can't expect every band to be original. And a band is playing a style of music that was popular 20-30 years ago is no different or less original than a band playing a style of music that is popular or "current" now. I mean that sound is current & popular now anyway, but sounding like 1970s bands is no less original than sounding like 2000s bands.

There are millions of bands in the world and only a handful that really do something fresh, new, original and groundbreaking. If everyone tried to just experiment and do something new we probably wouldn't get many good songs. Music is about good songs more than anything else and sometimes sticking to the formula and playing it safe is the best way to go, and there is nothing wrong with that. The worst thing a band can do is try to be something they're not and play something that they aren't interested in. If a band grew up crankin' Stones & AC/DC records and have a passion for that music and want to play it, what's so bad about that?
by the way, I'd say Jet were more Iggy Pop/The Beatles ripoffs.

The AC/DC I'd liken more to the Darkness, but they have a much more unique sound than the other 'ripoff' bands.
You're missing the point Trixxi Trash. Go and download a song from this fucking Wolfmother trash (the song is called Woman) and tell me you don't think you're listening to Black Sabbath. They have copied EVERYTHING - and I mean EVERYTHING that Black Sabbath has already done. They are a blatant CLONE. Nothing else to say about it.
Wolfmother do sound like Black Sabbath. But so does Cathedral, and I fucking love Cathedral. I can see your point, blood. You're arguing for more original sounds, and I'm all for that, or at least for injecting some originality into what you're doing, which Wolfmother and Jet don't do, but I also think that I'd rather listen to Wolfmother and Jet than some band that's ripping off Nickelback or Coldplay.
Dude just listen to Jackyl or the first Cinderella or Britny Fox album and you think you're listening to AC/DC. But you know what? I love those 3 albums. Why? Because I love AC/DC! Or just listen to some of Primal Fear's stuff and it's identical to Judas Priest and you'd even swear Ralf is Halford at times.

If you like Black Sabbath then what's your problem? If they are that much of a clone then it means you're pretty much getting some new Black Sabbath music, just enjoy it! Who cares if they lack originality if the music sounds good.

And I didn't miss the point because you also mentioned the bands like Jet who (though I hate them) don't sound identical to anybody and only draw influence from certain bands and have a general 60s/70s vibe.