----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Bash" <bashpop@earthlink.net>
> With all due respect, Stewart, given that you've never been to even 
> one IPO show in the eight years of the festival's existence, are you 
> really qualified to make such a claim?  Do you really have any idea 
> as to what percentage of "IPO bands" are "Beatlesque" or don't have 
> any original ideas?

With all due respect, David, you should replace "even one" with 
"exactly one." Regardless, I had glossed over Jaimie's IPO mention 
entirely, and didn't even realize it was there until I read this 
response from you.  I apologize for the unintended inference about 
your project: my beef is not specifically with "IPO bands" in 
particular, but with the number of CDs I hear in the course of any 
given year by dozens of weedy little pop bands who sound exactly like 
dozens of other weedy little pop bands.  It's true that some of these 
bands do occasionally end up on IPO schedules, but most of them don't. 
(In fact, as far as I know, most of them barely make it out of the 
bedrooms they four-tracked the records on.)

>> I'm with Jaimie on this one, there is only the
>> tiniest shred of difference between being in Faceless "Beatlesque"
>> Power Pop Band #4172 and wearing Star Wars footie pajamas to bed.
>
> I don't know that Jaimie was trying to say that the IPO bands in 
> question are all trying to ape The Beatles; I read his statement to 
> mean that they were trying to evoke the styles of several bands from 
> bygone days.  Anyway, that's not the major issue here: I call into 
> question the lack of distinction that you claim exists between your 
> two stated categories. Someone who wears Star Wars pajamas is not 
> doing anything but Tefloning to an already existent construct, not 
> unlike that of a Beatles tribute band, but no matter what anyone 
> thinks, a band who is attempting to be "Beatlesque" is contributing 
> something far different (and greater, IMHO) than that of a Beatle 
> tribute band.  Let's take as an example the band who you seem to 
> consider to be a paragon of this "virtue", Myracle Brah. Despite 
> what anyone says when they claim that Myracle Brah "rips off 
> Badfinger", the truth is that their songs are clearly different from 
> those of Badfinger, even if they are not "original".  Andy Bopp's 
> voice is clearly different from those of Pete Ham or Tommy Evans, 
> and his guitar licks do not ape those of Joey Molland.  And, even if 
> Myracle Brah's melody lines are evocative of Badfinger, there are 
> several subtle differences between them. There are billions upon 
> billions of different permutations that make up melody lines, vocal 
> timbres, and guitar tones, etc.. and even if each element of the 
> respective features of each of these bands are similar, in the 
> aggregate they make up wholes that are easily distinguishable.  To 
> my ears, even something as similar as songs on the first Spongetones 
> album and songs on Meet The Beatles are easily distinguishable, as 
> they both contain their own set of characteristics.
>
> In sum, any band who writes their own songs, even those which are 
> strongly evocative of bands from the past, is putting their own 
> stamp on these ideas, and is therefore creating something that is 
> unique and, by definition, original.

That's entirely true.  On the other hand, I feel that the more 
self-consciously an artist -- ANY artist -- tends to model his or her 
own music on that of others, the less interesting that artist's own 
work is going to be.  That's why I prefer the Roy Loney Flamin 
Groovies to the Chris Wilson ones, and why I always liked Blur more 
than Oasis: at least Blur were lifting from a wide variety of sources 
instead of just one or two.  I personally have got little tolerance 
for the overtly deriviative. Not everyone feels that way, and that's 
cool.  The lecture has been duly noted.

S