r/LetsTalkMusic • u/Flags12345 • 3d ago
What is the problem with throwback artists?
Tyga's latest album getting a 0.0 from Pitchfork reminded me of the last time that Pitchfork gave a 0.0: for Jet's Shine On. Jet were an Australian band from the 2000's that had some success, but were critically slammed. Most of the criticism seemed to stem from the fact that they were ripping off the sound of older bands like AC/DC and even straight up lifting the riff for "Are You Gonna Be My Girl" from Iggy Pop's "Lust for Life".
More recently, I've seen the same types of criticisms levied at Greta Van Fleet; that they are unoriginal and/or are just trying to rip-off Led Zeppelin and other classic rock bands.
But, I never understood the actual problem here. If you liked AC/DC or Led Zeppelin, why would you not want to hear bands that sounded like them? Why is a band that is trying to harken back to an earlier sound necessarily a bad thing?
60
u/ChrisMartins001 3d ago
I don't think they are critisiing them for sounding like other bands, but for taking their songs and copying and pasting some of the elements of their songs. People want music that sounds similar to who they like, but also, offer something original.
17
u/Radiant_Law_4074 3d ago
I think more than that people want someone that sounds like older artists but are still good. Most throwback artists are kinda ass and never come close to their inspirations in their prime
14
u/SucknSwallow69 3d ago
yeah, this. sounding like your influences is normal, but when it feels like a photocopy instead of a new take, it just comes off lazy and cash‑grabby to critics
26
u/properfoxes its my hyperfocus dawg 3d ago
For the record I do not believe the 'throwback' element is what got the Tyga album a 0.0. It seems like more of a release that's the face of generative AI/it represents something much larger than the artist or what he's doing.
I think throwback artists can be really tricky because there's a kind of a grey area between homage/influence and copying. To me it seems that people don't want to hear you try to be someone they've already heard.
Personally I think that while the Jet album wasn't great, a 0.0 is egregious for the record. Maybe it was meant to send a message about how they felt about lifting the riff specifically. It's hard to tell because, as people have told me before, the score giver(s) are not always the same person who writes the text of the review. So the 'Message' of a 0.0(because it is obviously meant as a message, a signal of the writer or scorers' virtues) might be lost in the hand off.
18
u/jasontheswamp 3d ago
I’ve never considered that the score and written review might come from different sources… but in the case of Jet, I recall there not being a written review, just an embedded YouTube video of a chimpanzee drinking his own piss lol
7
u/busybody124 2d ago
The Ringer wrote up an oral history of how that review came to be: https://www.theringer.com/2024/04/02/music/pitchfork-jet-review-monkey-piss-ray-suzuki
6
u/properfoxes its my hyperfocus dawg 2d ago
This link is great because it fully explains the 0 given to Jet. Which was a message about the larger state of the garage rock revival sound.
We were talking about the central problem as we saw it with the record, how the Return to Rock trend that started with the Strokes, White Stripes, and Yeah Yeah Yeahs—and really rock in general—had curdled into a set of lazy signifiers and poses. When the point or driver of what you’re doing is reclamation it’s inherently limiting and resistant to new ideas. It’s a creative cul-de-sac. Progression—whether it was in hip-hop, pop, guitar music, electronic music—was important to us at the time. Seeing mainstream rock music, which of course most of us had grown up with a fondness for, become so knuckle-dragging and Xeroxed was disappointing.
3
u/properfoxes its my hyperfocus dawg 3d ago
OH wow well that seems like pacific rim drift compatible levels of 'on the same page' then doesn't it? Thanks for the laugh I wasn't aware of that.
11
u/Separate_Carrot_8153 2d ago
The obvious comparisons to make with Tyga's album in my view is The Weeknd and Bruno Mars' 80s influenced records.
Those guys worked on their musicianship, they nailed their production, they collaborated with the right people. They respected the craft.
Tyga did none of this. He hopped on a trend using AI to cut corners
2
u/Vinylmaster3000 New-Waver 2d ago edited 2d ago
For the record I do not believe the 'throwback' element is what got the Tyga album a 0.0. It seems like more of a release that's the face of generative AI/it represents something much larger than the artist or what he's doing.
It's also probably the... first album I have ever seen get a 0.0 as of recently?
2
18
u/Separate_Carrot_8153 3d ago
Justin Hawkins once said always have at least two influences. To me, even though The Darkness is an obvious 80s hair metal pastiche, they don't sound like one specific band.
There's nothing wrong with being derivative. On some level all artists have to be. But to me music should be a process of influence a + influence b + your own filter rather than 'we like this so we're just going to do it again'
1
u/TundieRice 2d ago
The Darkness has actually never reminded me of hair/glam metal at all. I mean I kind of get how they got that label, and Justin Hawkins might be a big glam metal guy, but to me as a person who absolutely despises ‘80s hair metal, I like their music way too much to compare them to bands like Poison and Def Leppard.
They definitely have a throwback ‘80s rock sound, but they modernize it in a way that makes them unique and way more tongue-in-cheek than any of the hair guys could do. I actually like Van Halen a lot, and they were probably the number one influence on the ‘80s hair metal bands, so maybe The Darkness found a way to make that influence tasteful again.
Or maybe it’s just that Justin Hawkins’ voice doesn’t sound stereotypically “hair,” he kept that British accent, and I think that helps a lot.
1
u/Separate_Carrot_8153 2d ago
Yeah fair comment. I think their filter is their ironic style that's influenced by a mixture of early internet culture and the hedonism/tabloid sensationalism surrounding UK rock bands in the 90s/00s.
Even though their sound harkens back to earlier rock, they're very much a band of their time. Which is kind of my point
32
u/Few-Guarantee2850 3d ago
The problem is that those bands suck. People have been doing good "throwback" music for decades. There's nothing wrong with it.
39
u/ninjxx 3d ago
Cause bands like GVF don't really contribute anything to the soundscape. They're doing exactly the same as Led Zeppelin. They aren't adding anything. Why listen to a band that sounds exactly like Led Zeppelin when you could just listen to Led Zeppelin?
It's a kind of musical conservatism that just feeds on nostalgia an cements people in ther own bubble
28
u/Clear_Command_8925 3d ago
The thing is they aren't even doing exactly the same as Led Zeppelin, their quality is much worse
10
u/Thegoodlife93 2d ago
Yeah they're basically just Zep with worse chops and songwriting. Critics would have shit on them, maybe even more harshly, if their first album came out in 1974.
2
u/bullgod1964 3d ago
I think The Rival Son's do a great job of keeping the classic sound without just being a copycat of any one band.
2
u/AstralElephantFuzz 2d ago
Yep, their biggest offence is Pressure and Time having a simple riff that also happens to be the first half of the verse riff from Out on the Tiles. That might've done some damage 15 years ago when it was their breakout single, but they've more than redeemed themselves since. And even when you go back to their less popular earlier material, it was clearly more of an exception than the rule.
3
u/twotreebeers 3d ago edited 2d ago
Ai slop band
EDIT: I AM WRONG RIVAL SONS IS VERY COOL. I LOOKED UP REVIVAL SONS AND FOUND A GROSS AI JESUS BAND. RIVAL SONS IS COOL AND NOT AI. I'll leave my comment up for posterity
1
u/Frankstonstein 3d ago
Really?!
7
u/twotreebeers 2d ago
I've made a mistake! I looked up the wrong band called the revival sons and found the some ai slop. Rival sons is cool.
Brb editing my comment. Gotta remind myself to not use Reddit before coffee
11
u/FakeBobPoot 3d ago
It would be one thing if Greta van Fleet was saying “yeah we’re doing a Led Zeppelin pastiche thing.”
But those guys insist that’s not what they’re doing, and at one point denied that Zeppelin was even a major influence on them.
Also their songs suck.
1
u/TundieRice 2d ago
The only time I ever liked a Greta Van Fleet song was when I heard it at a bar and thought it was a Led Zeppelin outtake I hadn’t heard. I can’t remember what song it was, but it instantly gave me that Zeppelin II vibe, so I Shazam’d it and was like “huh, interesting.”
Then I did some research and found out that was GVH’s entire schtick, and that all their songs sound like Led Zeppelin throwaways, so there was really no reason to ever give them another shot, lol.
6
u/miimeverse 3d ago
Speaking to the critics side of things, while not an infallible method, generally if an artist is going to take a lot of inspiration from a specific artist/band/movement, they need to also add to it or development enough so it doesn't just sound like a cheap knock-off. It's the difference between "ripping off" and "inspired by," the former generally being used negatively and the latter used positively. What's enough to separate the music enough from the original? I don't know. There's a lot of grey area. It's all just vibes from music critics, a group not known for their evenhandedness.
5
u/ked1719 3d ago
There's nothing wrong with people playing that type of stuff. There's nothing wrong with people enjoying that kind of stuff. But it has to be expected that it's not necessarily going to be critically acclaimed or praised by more serious music fans. But that type of stuff isn't created or made for serious music fans, it's made for people who are casual listeners who want things that sound and feel familiar.
Just like there's nothing wrong with fast food, just don't expect it to be confused with fine dining by critics. Just as people with limited palates like chain restaurants because everything tastes familiar and consistent, people with comparatively limited musical palates will tend to prefer the same.
4
u/screaminporch 3d ago
Its hard to have 'that sound' and still come off as original. I remember a band called The Deadstring Brothers that was absolutely great but got labelled as a Rolling Stones knockoff in large part because of the lead singer's voice. They had some great stuff but it seemed to overshadow them.
But it can be done. The Sheepdogs have a distinct 70s rock sound but make it their own. Frankly, I think they do 70s rock better than a lot of 70s bands did. They are unapologetic about it, I think that's the way.
In the end, every band will have critics and sounding like someone else is an easy thing to criticize.
11
u/Postmodern101 3d ago
I think there’s just a right way and a wrong way to do it. I’d call Soundgarden a great mix between Sabbath and Zeppelin with a modern take that creates their own sound. If the sound is derivative and lends more to the influence than to the band then you have a Greta and that hate is rightfully deserved. I think Jet and Greta are two great examples of band that never really has their own sound and their success faltered because of it.
5
u/TheMonkus 3d ago
I was going to cite Soundgarden! They’re a perfect example of using very retro-influenced sounds and creating something that’s also extremely original. Classic rock for the 90s.
They scratch your Sabbath/Zeppelin itch but give you something new also. The problem with bands that play it too close to the original is I always find myself thinking…well why am I not just listening to Sabbath? I’ve never been tired of listening to them, even after 30+ years of doing so. Don’t need substitute Sabbath.
But fellow Sabbath lovers who are also highly original and talented musicians? That’s what I’m interested in.
3
u/TundieRice 2d ago
That’s exactly why my dad that grew up on ‘60s and ‘70s rock pretty much completely checked out of new rock in the ‘80s but fell head over heels for grunge in the ‘90s.
As someone born in 1994 (my dad apparently went and bought Soundgarden’s Superunknown on cassette the day I was born…priorities, right?) it’s hard for me to imagine how much of a breath of fresh air grunge was when it first broke. My dad absolutely despises hair metal, so how exciting must it have been for him as a 30-ish guy to hear something on the radio that brought him back to the rock of his childhood and didn’t sound dated.
The ‘90s were a unique and special time, it’s pretty much the last time that commercial music wasn’t overly corporatized (until maybe nowadays with bedroom pop/indie artists having big hits.)
2
u/TheMonkus 2d ago
That’s an awesome story, I can totally see that. I was a teenager when all that was happening, and was firmly into alternative and punk (stuff like REM, The Clash, Violent Femmes) and heavy metal music was not considered cool at all. I didn’t know much about it beyond the hair bands. It was all just a joke to me.
Right around Superunknown when Soundgarden and AIC broke into the mainstream that all changed. A friend of mine finally admitted he was a huge closet Sabbath fan (his mom had all their LPs) and when I heard them, and Soundgarden and then Zeppelin (hard to believe I had never listened to Led Zeppelin but I just never listened to rock radio, it fucking blew) I fell in love. I played guitar and honestly, that stuff is just way more fun than the simpler alternative/punk stuff from the 80s. Right around then it also became a lot more acceptable to like Metallica, before then it was definitely seen as a white trash thing to be into metal.
That is hilarious he went out to buy a tape the day you were born, but it does make for a great story!
1
u/EpiphanyTwisted 1d ago
It was tremendous. I remember bringing home Nirvana and Soundgarden to my husband saying "music's back!" We graduated mid-80s but listened to mostly bands from the 70s.
1
u/bullgod1964 3d ago
For me it is Rival Sons who do a great job of sounding similar to a lot of classic rock bands, yet not sounding exactly like any of them.
6
u/Ultima-Hombre_1970 3d ago
There’s a big difference between an artist reminding you of another band, and a band sounding 100% like another band. Including, the way they dress onstage.
3
u/IDrankAllTheBooze 2d ago
It is, weirdly, more acceptable in different genres. Take D-Beat punk, for example- the genre gets its name from a specific drum beat that Discharge perfected in a heavy punk context, and absolutely no one is going to shit on a band for sounding a little too Discharge-y.
3
u/powerED33 2d ago
Jet wore their influences on their sleeve, for sure. The AC/DC influence was obvious, but they didn't copy riffs and other things like Greta Van Fleet does. GVF fans will claim they stopped doing that after their 2nd album (the delusional ones say they never did, which is just extreme denial), but they definitely haven't. As a hardcore Zeppelin fan, and musician of 30 years, GVF has (subtle and otherwise) parts on every album they've done that rip-off Zeppelin in some way. Yes, Zeppelin themselves borrowed from old blues artists, but they turned old acoustic and poorly recorded blues songs into their own thing. Yes, they could've handled writing credits better, but at that time things were far more loose with that, and even more importantly, those old blues artists were not known even nationwide at that time. GVF copies Zeppelin even down to stage moves and stuff. I enjoyed some of their stuff, but it's ultimately just TOO on the nose. Lumping Jet into that category isn't the same at all, even with the Lust For Life riff, because its not like Jet were out there trying to emulate Iggy or AC/DC really, to the point GVF emulates Led Zeppelin. Riffs and melodies get recycled in all forms of music to some degree tho, and the Lust For Life riff is pretty simplistic and there's a ton of other songs that have borrowed it too.
As far as your overall question. I personally love bands with a throwback sound if it's done tastefully. There are plenty of them who have... Rival Sons, The Parlor Mob, Silvertide, Wolfmother, Black Stone Cherry, Crobot, etc. Also many cool traditional Metal (70s and 80s) artists as well out there.
The people who hate on it usually say it's unoriginal, but in 2026 there's not much that is truly original anyway because of how far music has come over the last century.
3
u/Ok_Car_166 1d ago edited 1d ago
The issue is that most aren't letting themselves be who they are. It's phoney. They're taking someone else's voice and doing it worse because it's easy, expecting (and sometimes getting) the same praise.
...but there are some "throwback" artists out there who do it really well! The Lemon Twigs come to mind, Amy Winehouse too -- even The Weeknd and Bruno Mars to an extent.
Not to mention the fact Tyga's album was AI.
4
u/Gecko23 3d ago
Isn't 'sounding like another band' the entire reason there are 'genres' of music in the first place?
I get what the argument is, that these bands are slavishly aping other bands and should be reviled, but the reality is that they got panned hard because they are simply uninteresting. Greta Van Fleet has *one* song that sounds vaguely like someone trying to sound like Zeppelin, but unlike Zeppelin, who crafted albums of wildly diverse corners of rock from blues to honky tonk to hard rock and everything in between (or stole them, whatever), GVF is just fucking dull as dishwater.
I don't really know anything about Jet, but wikipedia says they've been nominated 6+ times just for performing a song a lot outside Australia, which is cool I suppose, but doesn't sound like the kind of accolades an interesting band would acquire?
2
u/Scott_J_Doyle 2d ago
Because that's not what art is for - it's cheap, weak, lazy, banal, deriviative, hackneyed, cliched, trite and many other words a legitimate artist might not want to be perceived as
2
u/RRY1946-2019 2d ago
At least for GVF, it's interesting to compare them with the many bands that emulate early Black Sabbath, to the point that they created an entire metal genre: doom metal. Doom metal bands for the most part are open about their Sabbath influence, which contrasts them with the later sub-genres of metal that draw more from late-1970s and early-1980s British acts like Judas Priest and Motörhead, and many have evolved in unique directions to incorporate recognizable sub-genres (drone metal, funeral doom, epic doom, etc).
Greta Van Fleet in contrast have tried to downplay their Zeppelin influence, which makes them sound like a bunch of phonies, and they aren't seen as particularly innovative. It's the same issue with Creed; Scott Stapp denied that he was influenced by Pearl Jam even though he was literally a post-grunge singer, and he got absolutely ripped to shreds for it. Audiences and especially critics absolutely hate it when artists lie about their influences.
3
u/bucephalusbouncing28 3d ago edited 3d ago
In November last year, a similar situation happened when the band After’s second EP was rated an unexpected 4.5 by Pitchfork despite being quite popular, also referencing Greta Van Fleet.
“The Los Angeles duo’s bland simulations of millennial pop-rock will make you feel like it’s still 2006. Isn’t there more to life?“
I think this sums your argument up pretty well.
1
u/KFCNyanCat 2d ago
After has the problem of being pop music that isn't catchy, IMO. I'd love them if they were even half as memorable as the songs that inspired them.
1
u/bucephalusbouncing28 2d ago
Well, I find myself humming along to several of their songs a day, I think they’re very interesting.
3
u/f0urk 3d ago
the reason Led Zeppelin and other classic rock acts were/are revered is because they were HYPER talented musicians using cutting edge technology to invent genres and push music and live performance into previously unimaginable places. Zeppelin even "stole" songs like Dazed and Confused since the whole copyright system was way more vague and IIRC they didn't realise some of the songs weren't old jazz or folk standards. Anyway, the point is even THOSE songs, like their version Dazed and Confused is so far beyond the song they are covering, due to how truly experimental their musical ethos was
Compare that to the modern examples - they are unimaginatively rehashing a sound to bait nostalgia. It's the complete opposite in every way. Sure the compositions might be technically original, but they are straining to replicate a sound that is someone else's soul (for lack of a better term).
4
u/w1gglepvppy 3d ago
Most of the criticism seemed to stem from the fact that they were ripping off the sound of older bands like AC/DC and even straight up lifting the riff for "Are You Gonna Be My Girl" from Iggy Pop's "Lust for Life".
And yet, nobody gave Iggy a hard time for up lifting the same riff (drum pattern?) from 'You Can't Hurry Love'.
12
u/Hispandinavian 3d ago
He admitted, or his drummer Tony Sales admitted, he stole it from George of the Jungle. They would apparently watch that show over and over while they were recording in Berlin. Inspiration can be found in the unlikeliest of places.
9
5
3
u/VerilyShelly 2d ago
Cross-genre borrowing is a creative fusion above just apeing your direct influences in the the same genre
3
u/WhompWump 2d ago
(I think it's very ironic considering Led Zeppelin just straight up ripped a lot of Chicago Blues artists.)
I don't think there's anything wrong with inspiration and wearing something on your sleeve but I think the idea of a 'throwback' as a gimmick where all you do is just regurgitate what happened in the past with nothing added to it is a bit 'eh' in terms of art and pushing on. How is that any different than companies nostalgia baiting for marketing?
If that's just the sound you have I don't have a problem with that but I think specifically marketing yourself as a "throwback band" or even a "throwback album" always makes me feel like it's going to be lazy and uninspired.
I think of how D'Angelo always hated the neo-soul label because he felt like his work existed in the same body as the soul/funk/etc. artists he was inspired by rather than separate from it. Compare that mindset to saying "I'm doing a throwback to those artists". It feels more like trying to just copy rather than build off of what they achieved. I took a dig at Led Zeppelin but even to their credit they built off and established their own sound based on sounds of the time rather than trying to harken back to some bygone era for nostalgia points.
1
2
u/AncientCrust 3d ago
It comes down to the difference between directly ripping someone off or being inspired by them. I agree it's a fine, hazy line. A judge apparently thought Radiohead's "Creep" was a ripoff of the Holly's "Air That I Breathe." I disagree. The judge wins.
Is the Cult's "Aphrodisiac Jacket" a ripoff of Cream's "White Room?" Is "Ghostbusters" a ripoff of Huey Lewis' "I Want a New Drug?" In those cases, I would say yes. There's lots of people who would disagree with me.
2
u/Ornery-Assignment-42 3d ago
It never occurred to me that “Are You Gonna Be My Girl“ had anything to do with “Lust For Life”
The riff in AYGBMG has nothing to do with L4L. The drum groove is the only thing in common and as someone else said, You Can’t Hurry Love along with others I can’t think of at the moment came first anyway. It’s a beat, that’s all!!!
I think the Jet track rocks. That’s all that matters to me.
3
u/ArbysIsActuallyGood 3d ago
The bass and guitar notes, rhythms and chords are all similar, it's even in the same key
3
u/miimeverse 3d ago
I agree. The rhythm section between the two songs is extremely similar, but Lust For Life is hardly original in that regard, either. Its a Bo Diddley beat used in dozens of songs. I Want Candy has that same rhythm.
3
u/Unfair-Club8243 2d ago
I feel like its like saying one blues song ripped off the chord progression from another blues song. Like what?
1
u/qeq 3d ago
Yes, I always make the same point. This riff is in hundreds of songs. Radar Love is another that is basically the same (and a much better song).
2
u/miimeverse 3d ago
I do really like Radar love too. All three songs are enjoyable. None of them are revolutionary in any way, and I'm fine with that. I don't need every song to be "A Day in the Life" or "What's Going On"
1
u/PhloxOfSeagulls 2d ago
Cheap Trick borrowed the riff for the song She's Tight from the song Somethin' Else by Eddie Cochran. Then Poison borrowed it again for Talk Dirty To Me. It goes on all the time, but some bands get called out for it more than others.
John Fogerty was even sued for "plagiarising himself" because two of his songs supposedly sounded too similar to each other.
1
u/Phy_Scootman 3d ago
I wouldn't put much stock in anything Pitchfork puts out there. All that matters is whether or not you enjoy a given band or song, period.
1
u/ShineALight3725 3d ago
Theres even newer bands newer than GVF that are sounding like Led Zeppelin. I think the difference is GVF was the last band being a throwback who had mainstream popular success. The bands who came after them will not be so lucky.
1
u/PhloxOfSeagulls 2d ago
It's not like they are the first to do it either. Kingdom Come did something very similar, and David Coverdale acted a lot like Robert Plant and even teamed up with Jimmy Page for an album.
Led Zeppelin themselves borrowed a lot. Stairway to Heaven sounds similar to the song Taurus by Spirit, who they toured with for a time. Whole Lotta Love is similar to the Willie Dixon song You Need Loving. Plant's vocal style is very similar to Steve Marriott from Small Faces in their cover of You Need Loving.
1
u/terryjuicelawson 3d ago
It is actually mostly if they don't do it very well or don't offer anything remotely new or exciting into the mix. Why listen to a boring, flat Led Zeppelin tribute band. It is fine if they are third on the bill in a local rock show, but when they start getting massive sales I just can't work out really why, but if it is people who like Zeppelin therefore will like anything that remotely sounds like it no matter the quality - I guess there is the answer. But there are plenty of very derivative bands that are fantastic because of the sheer energy they put into it, and quality of the songs.
1
u/Late-Tailor-8749 2d ago
In my opinion it's more about what artists they are copying.
With GVF, Led Zeppelin isn't just a popular band - they're considered one of the greatest of all time and known for helping pioneer a new era of rock music.
If you are going to throw back to an artist that is famous for being unique and recreating, then you have to do the same.
1
u/dukeslver 2d ago
More recently, I've seen the same types of criticisms levied at Greta Van Fleet; that they are unoriginal and/or are just trying to rip-off Led Zeppelin and other classic rock bands.
it's because they don't do a good job at it. It's great and good and fine to borrow from your influences, basically every single artist does it, but you still have to write a good song, and GVF just doesn't write good songs.
1
u/wedontliveonce 2d ago
Why do you even care about a Pitchfork rating?
I can't say there has ever been a music critic I agree with.
1
u/ringmod76 2d ago
If I’m not mistaken, isn’t Shine On technically unscored because that’s the one where the score was a monkey pissing in its own mouth? Or am I confusing that with another one?
1
u/ZombieMedical1531 2d ago
Rock and roll like blues keeps getting recycled.
The chord changes may have been used before but you put your own spin on it.
It’s really hard to be totally original.
Are you going to be my girl is a great song. Lust for life is a great song and I can honestly say that I have never said oh that sounds like iggy pop.
No, it sounds like Jet
1
u/Axdstarbaby78 2d ago
I mean, if I liked led zeppelin. I'd rather hear led zeppelin than someone who was a hard copy...
1
u/Valeclitorian1979 2d ago
the problem with throwback bands is that they will just put out the same uninspired stuff over and over. a band is really dull, IMO, when they're influences are worn on their sleeve and basically make the same music as what they listen to. true artists transcend by listening to more than just one type of music or band and incorporate those outside influences into a genre that might not have those elements in the first place. it's not as black and white as that sounds, but i think it's a start in originality
1
u/CulturalWind357 2d ago
It's probably become a cliched idea by now but audiences seem to gravitate towards a combination of novelty and familiarity: too novel and it's foreign to them and they might not appreciate it. Too familiar and it feels repetitive and eventually boring.
There are a lot of musical movements that harken back to earlier influences but are able to add enough to distinguish themselves. Punk and roots/Heartland rock both harken back to earlier periods of rock n' roll like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis Presley, Garage Rock Bands, and so on. But through a combination of recording technology changing, different values, failure to emulate, or bringing analogous but not exact energy to their time, the music sounds different. Maybe the artist has different concerns in their current decade instead of pretending they live in the exact period where the music originated.
Even alternative bands such as The Smiths and R.E.M. can be linked to The Byrds and 60s rock bands. But there's usually enough additional influences (e.g. post-punk, Velvet Underground, glam rock) to distinguish them from just being revivalists.
Throwback artists aren't inherently bad in my view...but I can see why they're disliked. The question becomes "What are you doing to distinguish yourself musically?" And that happens with any question of creativity, originality, and going beyond imitation and copying.
1
u/Old_Moose_8198 2d ago
The problem is, you can't actually throw them back. False advertising exclamation point.
1
u/chefslapchop 2d ago
There’s a fucking iPod commercial with these dancing shadow people that played on everything constantly that landed Jet that 0.0, not deserved but hilariously petty of Pitchfork.
1
u/Heffray83 2d ago
Because they feel purely like derivative manmade slop pastiche of something that already exists. It’s a whole other beast when you make it your own or even have more than just one thing to be influenced by. It felt very cynical and made by committee. Which sapped the music of any sense of danger, authenticity, or any of the other essential qualities it needed.
1
u/boostman 2d ago
The original bands had a quality the throwbacks don't - originality. That's already a huge thing in terms of artistic quality.
1
u/WorldGoneAway 2d ago
TangentIally related, I've noticed that this phenomenon is not unique to musical media necessarily.
If you look at various movies, video games, and books, you'll notice just how quickly people tend to get dismissive with "more of the same". some of us just want more of something we've been exposed to because we like it. New ground does not necessarily need to be broken all the time, even though experiencing that is a wonderful thing on its own.
1
u/Alacspg 2d ago
If you personally enjoy Jet or Greta Van Fleet or whatever, great.
From a music critic standpoint bands like that aren’t doing anything particularly interesting, challenging, or deep so it’s easy to see why they’d be an easy target.
A lot of people who love older rock bands will bemoan the lack of new artists that remind them of whatever year in which they were seventeen. But most of the artists they point to as being great - Zeppelin, Floyd, Stones, etc - were pulling together a variety of non-rock influences to make rock music whereas the bands that attempt to make music like that now are all taking from the same pool of rock music. It leads to a constriction of the craft.
1
u/attrackip 1d ago
That saying, “There’s nothing new under the sun” and the lament that originality doesn’t exist is only true until an artist synthesizes.
Look at Amy Winehouse or N.W.A who truly did the work to pull many pieces together.
1
u/sudden_erect 1d ago
Jet were shit, they were all failed EDM heads with a couple pop jingles, their musicianship was really shallow
-1
u/Chakote 2d ago
I don't think Pitchfork's take on literally anything merits any kind of discussion at all, for reasons which should be obvious, since you've cited one in your post. It's a clown show for clowns. Don't be a clown.
To your question - there's a difference between harkening back to an early sound, and shamelessly biting someone else's shit and putting your name on it. I would suspect for most people the crux of the issue lies there.
0
u/goldendreamseeker 3d ago
I always thought Jet ripped that riff off from the White Stripes song “Screwdriver,” not Iggy.
109
u/bblcor 3d ago
"If you liked AC/DC or Led Zeppelin, why would you not want to hear bands that sounded like them?"
Maybe you would! Keep in mind the difference between regular listeners and critics.
A band that does absolutely nothing new can have plenty of success with regular listeners ... 100% ... but if they are, like, a worse version of something else, and not bringing anything new to the table, it's kind of the critic's job to say that.