Artists and their stated influences

Hit return twice.

remember early boo radleys not citing mbv as an influence though using the reverse reverb trick and ashields was p.off.

influence only has meaning to me when you replace it with 'i am ripping off' - otherwise it is krazy a koncept -'i was writing a VU song without even trying'

I'm getting sick of myspace bands that use "influences" as a chance to show off their musical taste.

I mean it's one thing to be influenced in a subtle or near-imperceptible way, but it's another to just rattle off a bunch of stuff to sound impressive, like a garage rock band with straightforward songs putting down "Jaki Byard, CAN, Shostakovich, Django Reinhardt, Jackie McLean, Glen Branca" ok I'm making this up but I've seen similar lists.

This is what I fucking hate about "music critics" or rather, music listeners who think they are critics.

They seem to conflate "influences" and "sounds like".

"Sounds like" is what is going on in YOUR head. "Influences" is what is going on in the artist's head.

And I'm sorry, unless you're like, best friends with the artist in question, or living in their flat and hearing what they are listening to, you have NO IDEA what their influences actually are, beyond what they feel like telling you.

I notice this, as an artist, that the artists that listeners and/or critics often compare my work to have NOTHING to do with what I've actually been listening to, but more to do with their own prejudices - for example, women can only ever be compared to other women.

So who the fuck are you to say that someone on MySpace is "showing off"? How the hell do you know what they listen to in the car on the way to rehearsal? You don't. Unless you do, shut the fuck up. The end.

You sound like you have a major chip on your shoulder.

I'm not confusing "influence" with "sounds like." But there's also a difference between "listens to" and "influenced by." Yes, anything you listen to is going to influence you to some extent, but I think there ought to be bit of a higher standard in what one cites as "influences."

I was responding to much of the bollocks spouted in the former part of this thread, as to your post.

Most artists I've met, myself included, don't really know what influences them. I think most people who enjoy art like to think that its this thought out mathematical sort of thing like "I'll through in a V.U. guitar over a dub bass line and throw on some girl group harmonies and influence influence + influence divided by influence = me!" In reality I don't know what a song or a work is going to be and I adjust it based on some abstract idea of what feels "right." The influence lies in what my sensibility is, how my gut works when I change something because it seems misplaced, but I can't really say where that came from. The most I can do is maybe name a few things it sounds like when it's done, or a few artists whose work I've respected or learned techniques from.

maybe instead of "were influenced by" we can more economically just say "copied"

(xpost) Sure, I think that's fair. When I was playing in an alt-countryish band, some of the biggest influences on the way I was playing were very non-country things (Zeppelin, prog rock, bossa nova, etc.) But then I was only the drummer. The guitarists were mainly influenced by John Fahey, Jim O'Rourke, various Thrill Jockey bands, Son Volt, and classic country stuff and it showed. That doesn't mean they didn't like other music, but if they told you that was what they were influenced by, it would make sense to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6Vfjjwgv6c

The band cite influences as diverse as My Bloody Valentine, New Order....[ ].....and Arthur Russell

things are clearly stirring re that lot.
heard a track on 6 music over the weekend, and just moments ago, i received a ewan pearson remix for surfacing.

For a lot of musicians, it is easier to claim they are influenced by something that doesn't sound like them at all than by something that they actually sound like. This because the latter may lead to copycat accusations. Blur, in the mid 90s, were very obvious about their influences, which led to a lot of derivativeness-accusations.

I notice this, as an artist, that the artists that listeners and/or critics often compare my work to have NOTHING to do with what I've actually been listening to, but more to do with their own prejudices - for example, women can only ever be compared to other women.

Peter Gabriel and Kate Bush get compared with each other a lot.

Yeah, but most if not all other female "non-pop-music" gets compared to Kate Bush.

Even if to say "she's not like" ...

K8 OTM re idiocy in early part of this thread, I mean in the OP:

to say you're influenced by it? Then I want to hear it in the work

this is just really stupid

Yeah, but most if not all other female "non-pop-music" gets compared to Kate Bush.

I'd argue that Kate Bush is pop, and that it is largely pop oriented singer/songwriters that get compared to her. That is, if they are somewhat experimental and weird, otherwise they'll be compared to Madonna instead. (And female rockers get compared to Patti Smith)

Well, I was kinda expecting.. Yeah OK..

Except:

female rockers get compared to Patti Smith)

No.

Joan Jett, Chrissie Hynde, SQuat, but rarely PSmith, except for PJHarvey and clan.

Or you could go the Led Zeppelin route and ignore the whole "influences" thing and just rip people off.

I guess people were pretty much confused when Nona Hendryx, with a background from the disco/R&B group Labelle, suddenly debuted with a rock album. Who to compare here to with that album and that background?

generally an artist's band work and solo work are filed under the same genre, regardless of how widely they differ in style. so even if that Nona Hendryx album rocks like Meat Loaf and rolls like Journey, people will still think of it as R&B/soul filtered through a rock sensibility. if your musical background is on record(s), then you can build upon it or rail against it all you want, but it's still going to color the way people look at all your forthcoming releases.

I'm not arguing that this is a good thing, mind you. it can be useful to compare and contrast an artist's recent work with their existing oeuvre, but the downplaying of an artist's ability to jump from style to style is a huge drawback of genre classifications.

is it that difficult to get how you can be influenced by someone and not sound like that artist?

generally an artist's band work and solo work are filed under the same genre, regardless of how widely they differ in style. so even if that Nona Hendryx album rocks like Meat Loaf and rolls like Journey, people will still think of it as R&B/soul filtered through a rock sensibility. if your musical background is on record(s), then you can build upon it or rail against it all you want, but it's still going to color the way people look at all your forthcoming releases.

I do agree, however there have been a few exceptions. Like, Eric Carmen started out doing powerpop With The Raspberries, and yet I think it is pretty much established that his solo work is closer to soft rock than powerpop.

Same about David Sylvian, who after the new romantic Japan broke up got more and more a reputation as sort of an avante garde postrocker or something like that.

Now of course, in the case of Nona Hendryx, her next solo album was a pretty typical early 80s electrodisco soul weekender album, not very unlike what most disco acts from the 70s were doing at the time whenever they were still around. (A great album btw, hopefully somebody will reissue it soon)

literally just now got an email through about a band which says, "Influences for the EP include Queen, Green Day, Johnny Cash, Operation Ivy and Bert Jansch" which I guess maybe goes to show that some bands are happy to bypass the 'feigning coolness' option and go straight for 'give us enough rope and we'll hang ourselves'