I'm tired of all these rip-off bands the kids poop their pants over because they're SO COOL! But, you know what?, they sound just like the stuff that has gone before, only blander and less dangerous. You can't really blame them though, because you have to have a lot of years behind you to experience the full range of this thing that is POP/ROCK, and they just don't know any better.

But I do. 8)

Devil's Advocate question: Are there any original bands left? If so, who and how are they original?

better question, were there EVER any original bands?

Everything was influenced by something that came before it. Its more of a matter of how much you can disquise it or put your own spin on it...

The original rock band were the cavemen and the beating on rocks with sticks....now that was original. a little avant-garde for my taste, but it spawned EVERYTHING!!!

I guess you can't be totally original, but you can be original enough to spawn a new "genre" if you're influential enough.

hip hop sound and style changes so fast it's hard to even apreciate how much change happens every year.

The computer I'm on is blocking your movie. Oh, well.

u2
pixies
radiohead

not sure how "original" they are..but they impacted music greatly and are still around

Though they're not inventing anything out of whole cloth, groups like Liars and Frog Eyes aren't content to just pay homage or be competent retreads.

I agree you can pay homage through your music, but if that's all your bringing to the table, you better be DAMN good.

While ALL bands belie their influences at times...
That said, the most original bands I can think of these days:
Super Furry Animals
Tom Zé (still, after all these years)

I can think of quite a few which I would consider to be relatively original, but they're the same ones I'm always talking about on here. They're also some of the most widely hated around these parts.

A big part of being "original" - or as close to it as is really possible - is not being afraid to take chances and not catering to a specific crowd. I think pissing people off is generally a good sign.

I'm by no means the expert, but I've never heard much that sounds like The National.

I am getting back into that album heavily

At this point in my life, I have to say there aren't any really "original" bands out there, but I will also add why does it matter? To me a good band these days is a band that stays fresh and finds inventive ways to make a rehashed sound be original. A great many bands that try to invent a sound or be completely original are complete crap, and a few bands that have to some extent ripped off a certain sound are unbelievably good.

i think tvotr deserves its own sub-genre

Also, as Bobby Bare says:
CHUCK BERRY, CHUCK BERRY, YOU WROTE THE ONLY ORIGINAL SONG, some whiteboys stole it we all still sing along. Chuck Berry sing to us one more time, before Fred Biscuit freezes everybody's mind.

He also cites "Black Francis, Black Francis yer the last mutherfucker out, grabbin all the good stuff, and leavin no doubt that if rock and roll dies its not my fault, I do the best with the left-overs that I've got"

And Bare's just your average singer-songwriter. Who happens to write awesome fucking songs that are really catchy and funny and poignant. What else you want?

i'll go back to my hip hop point.
i think hip hop production is in constant flux and has some of the most creative minds and ears in music.

Mmm original is tough, but i would throw A-Frames, Chromatics out there.

Whenever i get in a funk i go back to The Vaselines & Young Marble Giants. That shit sounds so fresh every time i listen.

I'd say Einsturzende Neubauten is original, but then they're an original themselves that lots of other people copied. The fact that they're still continuing to be original is what amazes me. I can't think of anyone else who sounds like these guys do these days, and what they're doing these days is actually incredible music, rather than just rehashing their past glories.

I think the bigger question is, since it's pretty well acknowledged that it's pretty damned hard to be really original when so much has already been done, who is at least adding something substantive to things that have already been done before? That is something we are in dire need of.

True. The way that music is made has a BIG effect on that, too. If the entry fee to being an artist is rhyming and knowing a guy who can do beats for you, that pool is gonna attract lotsa varying people, none of whom have any "training" to influence how they sound. It's as hard as playing a mild video game to get something recorded. No chords to learn, etc. Plus making guitars and drums sound "different" is a lot harder than importing new samples and beats. Wider pallet.

But that in no way detracts from it. Just makes it a different animal.

Well, I think "adding something substantive" is as close as anyone ever gets to originality. That's what Miles Davis did. And Bob Dylan, The Beatles, The Stones, Louis Armstrong, Public Enemy, Wire, Kraftwerk, Brian Eno, etc. etc.

This can even just be someone adding a fresh perspective or a new personality to an old formula.

Yeah, because at SOME point, its gotta sound good. To more people than just the schmoes making it. And there are pretty established formulas for this.

Its kinda like writing: If the story's no good, who cares how you play with the form?

I don't think anyone's really going to debate this in the broadest sense. There has to be something underneath all the flash and bells and whistles, etc.

Still, sometimes the form is the story, and that in itself can resonate or inspire or whatever. Sometimes a really unusual form is fully complementary or even integral to the story, but it makes the story less immediately accessible. Yet people often resist being challenged by art so they refuse to accept something that doesn't hit them at least on some familiar, comfortable level. Not to accuse anyone of being closed-minded or to dig up old arguments that I'm sure we're all tired of, but I think a lot of things get dismissed as total garbage around here when in fact they do have substance and considerable craft involved. It's just presented in an unusual way, and some people seem prone to always react adversely to things like that.

i disagree.
it think it's just as hard or harder to make a drum beat sound new. We're 30 years deep and the obvious parts of the well are dry.

and i agree that (for some who don't use their hands, which isn't everyone) making making beats is similar to learning a video game. But beating a video game is harder than learning four chords. If kids played guitar for five hours every day they way they do trying to beat a game . . .

I'm probably biased by the people I know who've done either side of it... kids who take a passing interest and have a stolen copy of ProTools are able to turn out stuff that sounds passably unique, but I know people who spend years playing guitar or keyboards and who can't manage to find a unique sound to save their lives. If I wanna sound like SRV or Clapton or Metallica (and I don't) that's easily $3,000 worth of gear for each, and it doesn't sound like everything, just that narrow span of sounds. What does $3,000 buy you in the hiphop world? I seriously don't know, btw.

<--- learning a lot today!