Previous entries might give the very false idea that I am
set on my opinions. So with this one, I would like to clear the air. I have
some doubts about this entry, maybe my claims are false and I do hope they are
actually so please point them out!
The question I have been asking myself is what makes a music
artist original and more precisely, do we care about originality in a solitary
sense or as an addition to a genre? Should we judge an artist for themselves or
compared to their surroundings?
This has greatly disturbed me since first listening to
Nirvana. They made grunge the centre of the 90’s, the next step in rock music,
even a fashion statement! You can’t help but love that imperfect, crude voice
of Kurt, or his mop-like hair, or his intermediate guitar skills. And then
there’s Dave Grohl, drumming like the pro he is, aggressively yet fun, a real
artist, an unstoppable machine of musical genius (fangirl moment, I apologise).
Finally, simple lyrics from a pessimistic pot-head (among other things) that
gave adolescence a matching soundtrack.
But Kurt shot his foot and died (this is my personal
favourite theory and I’m sticking to it). The band no longer is. So what is
their legacy? While a legacy is present for sure, this is where my doubts
arise; for their legacy partly is grungy, indistinguishable, dull alternative
rock bands. Suddenly, two chords sufficed! Minimal skill was required. Pot
remained a strong component but now accompanying whining, boring clichés. All
bands may site them as an influence but the influential ones surely don’t site
them as the main one, not even top five. They made things easy, maybe too easy.
It is my personal belief, for example, that if Simple Plan suddenly disappeared
and their songs were performed by Good Charlotte, no one would even notice. And
these are popular rock bands and sometimes fun but definitely a drag on
originality. So what is the verdict? Are Nirvana to blame?
Having honoured the past, let’s now talk about the present.
This is very personal; it is my all-time favourite band, Muse, as I can explain
things better with my extensive (exteeeensive) knowledge on the band. Muse were
first criticised as unoriginal, as Radiohead copycats, mostly because of
Bellamy’s voice. Later on, we dedicated fans, Muse can also have some of the
credit, convinced the world of their unique sound, their perfectionism in
melody, their excellence in riffs and live energy. They combine so many
different things, they sound like no one else and they are talented musicians,
extravagant performers and such particular artists (again, apologies). Now that
my personal admiration is out there, I have to ask; so what?
Could they be too particular? Or too extravagant? It feels
like if anyone was inspired by Muse and developed the sound any further they
would sound silly. They do not define a generation; they are dorky in a
hipster-less sense, non-scandalous and lacking stardom. Not to mention their
flirtations with pop music, leaning away from their Muse-ical characteristics
(pun intended). They lack a legacy. They are not an old band, so the fact that
they are not a leading inspiration yet is not definitive but maybe just a tad
alarming.
Personally, it’s quite easy to keep on loving Muse and
forget all these doubts but still debate over Nirvana’s damage but in all
honesty, music is a continuum; no one likes just one band!... Apart from me!
Fuck all, Muse rule!!
