Acts that aren't afraid of speaking of their influences

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

I think Nick has a lot more to answer for:

http://www.pure80spop.co.uk/Images/poppics/davidsylvian.jpg http://www.ladyinterference.com/nick/nicks.jpg

of course not. that's why the band covers their songs instead.

A: "Oh, we just threw darts"

interpol > joy division (& I still dont understand what all the fuss over interpol is about. maybe someone can take me to school on this)

A band speaking of influences is in fact useful. Useful for everyone who likes the influences they are listing, and who think that "Hmmm.. I need to check out these guys".

And, in fact, if you look at Britpop, the three bands who were most happy to speak of their influences (Suede also belongs here) are also the ones that got most commercial success, and also the ones whose albums are still considered very much part of the "canon" today.

In the UK, their first two albums are still considered classics. In the US, they never made much impact anyway, but this goes for a lot of other huge acts in rock history too.

As for Blur, Damon Albarn has always been very happy to speak of his influences. Around "Parklife" he spoke a lot of XTC and Kinks. Around "The Great Escape", I read an interview where he was particularly happy to speak about how ska acts such as Madness, Specials and Fun Boy Three had influenced the album. Then there was "Blur", where Beck and Pavement were both cited a lot, around "13" Damon spoke a lot about krautrock, whereas the 00s has seem him speak a lot of R&B and world music being important influences.

What if the influences suck?

And you're wrong. Put downs in general, no matter what form, can make for great journalism, if they're done well.

I mean, I never once heard Blur acknowledge blatantly ripping off Spiritualized, Pavement, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong. (Acknowledging the Small Faces was probably a safer bet - they're old and dead!)

Wait, are you arguing for or against, here? Blur is hardly the best example as a "con" argument.

In the case of Blur and Oasis, they most certainly don't. They are all absolutely brilliant, and way underrated.

Blur, unlike Oasis, would never rip off a song or a part of a song, instead they did style pastiches. Which is a sign of musicality way above average, and thus brilliant.

That is, the one and only song of theirs that has made some impact in the US.

The hitsingle off "Blur" was "Beetlebum", which topped the UK Chart.

By the way that record IS great.

Anyway, to answer the question: I find it refreshing - it's much, much better than hearing some asshole talk about how 'music' doesn't influence his writing as much as 'art, literature, film' etc - bullshit

For instance, every interview with Ben Chasny I've read, dude always goes on and on about how crappy he thinks he is and how great all these other people (Bill Fay, Van Morrison, Jack Rose etc) are. Maybe it could be percieved as false modesty, but I think that it's cool and totally unpretentious. Ryan Adams, Thurston Moore, Devendra Banhart and Thom Yorke all do the same, from what I've read. Good for them.

Also, jazz cats do it all the time. I was just reading this killer interview with the great Rashied Ali and, even now, all he talks about is how much Art Blakey inspired his playing.

Such talk doesn't neccesarily have to have any kind of 'function,' it just tells it like it is. I'm into it.

x-post

Interpol's never admitted to sounding like Joy Division, and if anything they sound like Josef K transplanted from 80's Edinburgh to 00's NYC replete with all the changes you'd expect they'd assume from being in the five boroughs.

I've read this before and just don't get it. The only Josef K I've heard sounds absolutely nothing like Interpol. This seems to be the lazy reference of choice for people who can't admit that the lead singer obviously sounds a bit like Ian Curtis.

I think it's great when artists are straightforward about their influences. There's nothing to lose if the influences don't suck. It's definitely dud when someone pretends like they're not influenced by someone they obviously ripped off.

The hitsingle off "Blur" was "Beetlebum", which topped the UK Chart.

-- Geir Hongro (geirhon...), May 11th, 2005.

its true that Beetebum went to number 1, but this is mostly due to is being the first song off the album and all the big fans buying it as soon as it came out in the first week. Even in the UK, Song 2 was in the longer run a bigger hit - more of a 'grower'

Also, that "She's so high" sounding a lot like Oasis...

And Duran Duran derived a negligible amount of influence from Japan. John Taylor was the big Japan fan in the band -- all the rest of the band members were into different things. (Nick Rhodes adored Talking Heads, for example, and Simon Le Bon was the big classic rock fan, counting Led Zeppelin and The Doors among his favorites.) I think the band said nice things about Japan in early interviews because they wanted to be friendly toward contemporaries they felt were talented, but I'm not at all sure Japan were enough of an influence on DD to actually be considered an actual "influence". In fact, early Japan recordings, from '78 and '79, sounded incredibly glam rock-ish, similar to artists DD have gone on record as being influenced by, from Roxy Music to T. Rex to Ziggy Stardust-era David Bowie. Duran formed in 1978 and already had recorded (in a demo) or performed in concert the early versions of "Rio" and "Late Bar" as well as "Girls On Film" by the time 1980 rolled around. (Simon had already written the lyrics to numerous other songs at this time, too. Some of them included "(Waiting For The) Nightboat", "The Chauffeur", and "Careless Memories.)

So, um, anyway. You get my drift.

the campiness of some of their songs is where I see the influence, along with some of the beats and overall feel. But otherwise yeah