smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Stewart Mason" <craigtorso@verizon.net> |
| Subject | Re: What IS influence, anyway? |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:02:12 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (1.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Smith" <sam@lullabypit.com>
> So I guess I wonder - there being a good number of musicians here,
> and
> plenty more informed listeners - is there a standard that says if I
> can't
> hear it, it's not really an influence? Or can influences be more or
> less
> invisible to the listener of the finished product?
I think so, or at least so buried that you don't recognize them until
the artist says they're there. I'm sure I've used this example here
before, but I once read an interview with Brian Eno where he said that
when he was in school, he was addicted to his parents' Ray Conniff
albums, particularly the wordless vocal choruses. I wouldn't have
made that connection on my own (fan though I am of Conniff myself),
but remembering that quote in the context of hearing, say, "Taking
Tiger Mountain" or "On Some Faraway Beach," I just think, "Well, yes,
of course."
What bugs me is when I can hear nothing BUT the artist's influences,
especially when it seems like an artist is influenced solely by a
certain set of stylistically similar bands. I don't mind when you can
baldly hear an artist's influences IF he's combining several different
styles into one whole (the High Llamas' blend of Brian Wilson, Steely
Dan, Antonio Carlos Jobim, Ennio Morricone and Mouse On Mars, for
example), but when you can listen to an album and hear that the
songwriter's influences stretch all the way from the Beatles to
Badfinger, with a short detour into ELO, I'm just not interested.
S
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.