paynk: if you wanna put it this way, it really is easy to call something influence and play almost exactly like that band. but does the emulator deserve credit for it?
let's look at wolfmother. they have too strong a led zeppelin influence. are they interesting as a band? would one rather listen to them, or to led zeppelin? why are they still popular? cause it's hard as hell to emulate it anyway, and i guess they came at a time when people wanted to listen to another kind of led zeppelin. but popularity does not mean they are doing it completely right. they have received lots of crap about them 'ripping off' led zeppelin, which is right in the sense. the style of the music, the appearance, the whole attitude.
when we talk about the whole fall out boy/paramore trend that's still irritatingly going on, do we really adore those tween bands trying to emulate their idols so completely?
in the 50s and 60s, rocknroll bands often had to pay each other royalties cause they were 'ripping each other off', but that has been phased out in today's modern context.
then we get to the issue of most modern bands sounding the same. in my opinion, a band that would stand out and really matter is one that genuinely has something new to offer.
when we talk about original music, that's exactly what it must be, original. mr narcissist here does sound decent, but it is a fact that his music, his accent, and his appearance as an artist too closely resembles pete doherty's. that, and considering he isn't exactly british, with his londoner's accent, it is pretty acceptable to come to the conclusion that he is subconsciously ripping off doherty.
if he doesn't want to matter much, sure, he can be a doherty clone. what we are saying here is his music and entire package lacks an identity that is really his own.
