How important is uniqueness to you in music?

[Farpoint Kevin]

The new Farpoint album is out at long last, and a couple of reviews have begun to show up on the web. The first two I've seen have both used the word "unique" to describe our music...(The second one used it three times!) To me, this is as huge a compliment as pretty much anything they could say...Of course influences will show through, but as we have never set out to actually copy or imitate anyone, it's very rewarding to have folks see something unique in the art that we pour our hearts and souls into.

So, this got me thinking...How important is it for the average prog listener for a band to be unique? Would you rather stick to the "tried and true," sounds and styles that you have come to appreciate? Or would you rather something be fresh and unique? And how much is it possible in this day and age for anyone to be truly, or even somewhat, unique with new music?

Would love to hear some thoughts...

[rcarlberg]

Uniqueness is VERY important to me. I think each artist or band needs to strive to carve out their own unique sound, and be the very best example of that sound.

If a band or artist sounds like a second-rate copy of somebody else I have no time for them. I'll go for the original every time. Copycats -- even copycats who synthesize the sound of say three or four other bands -- are just weak tea. I can't be arsed to listen to pale imitations.

Good topic BTW

[Zeuhlmate]

Uniqueness is quintessential.

[Magic Mountain]

Since we are all music addicts on this site, I find that the more music that I listen to, the more value I place on uniqueness. This is not to say that I do not like music done in certain styles, eg Fusion; while it may not be unique, per se, it demonstrates tremendous skill and musicality.

[Shadow]

If the music can nique up on you I like that.

[Jimmy Giant]

Interesting question. Of course we need uniqueness to separate one band from another. While they can be in the same genre, there should be enough distinctions to ID them from the others. Not so in many cases though. Probably for the listeners here, I might say that Neo Prog suffers most from identity crisis. Now, I'm a fan, but a lot of it is interchangeable. The strongest survive.
Uniqueness for the sake of uniqueness usually doesn't come across well for me. It does seems to for many others though, especially the ones who despise any kind of structure. This is the stuff I would call quirky or experimental and most of the time I don't like it. I require good musicianship, great vocal harmonies and very well constructed songs. As much as I like cross instrument play and killer chops, I want good songs with good melodies that don't beat you over the head with unnecessary note flurries, demonic goat summoners, or the sound of throwing instruments and atonal singers down the staircase just because it sounds "unique"!
Therefore, when I hear the word "unique" used to describe something, I'm very weary of what that might actually mean. It's a very personal word and I think the meaning varies greatly on the person using it.

[No Pride]

Uniqueness is definitely important; nobody wants to be thought of as somebody else's clone. However, you don't want to be so obsessed with it that you veto great musical ideas because they remind you of somebody else. We all have our influences and some of them are bound to poke out from time to time (I guess I'm speaking more as a musician/composer than as a listener). I do feel that the more influences you absorb, the greater the possibility of coming up with something unique. If all you listen to is '70s Yes and Genesis, it's likely that your music will sound too much like that... and let's face it, nobody's going to beat them at their own game. In fact the trouble with some modern prog bands is that they spent all their time listening to older prog bands. The original practitioners from the '70s were being influenced by all kinds of sources; jazz, classical, folk, pop, "world," etc. But some of the newer bands only pick up on what the originators came up with by having these outside influences. so it all becomes watered down. Trying to come up with ideas that you've never heard done before is ideal, but that can be hard to do sometimes when we've been saturated with so much music over the decades. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that one should strive to be unique, but not so much that it's at the expense of the quality of the art. I.E. don't think TOO hard, just let it flow. And listen to LOTS of different kinds of music.

Fusion; while it may not be unique, per se, it demonstrates tremendous skill and musicality.

Are you saying that fusion is generally not unique? If so, I vehemently disagree. There's many faces of fusion. Some leans heavier towards the rock side and some more to the jazz side; some has various "world" influences; some has involved compositional elements while other forms are mostly improvised, some favors electric instruments and others acoustic... Do the Dixie Dregs sound anything like Weather Report? Does Oregon sound like Planet X? Fusion can be and often is every bit as diverse as prog imo.

[polmico]

When the last Wobbler album came out a few years ago, they got slagged for being overly "Yes-ish." (A common joke on the site was that it was the best Yes album released that summer. FFH came out around the same time.)

I guess they're not unique in what they're doing, but they're really good at it. I get that they can be considered copycats, but it just doesn't feel like that to me. They play with energy and passion, and that comes through. Same can be said for Big Big Train and Beardfish, two other bands that owe a lot of their sound to the '70s.

Unique? Maybe. It's good and that's enough sometimes.

[Farpoint Kevin]

Thanks everyone. I love the diversity of thoughts and approaches here, and I think my own feelings kind of fall somewhere in the middle.
Can there be a happy medium? For example...The first Farpoint review mentioned above described our song "Gone" as a mix of folk, classical and country. Wow. I would have never thought that...or really even imagined it...Then, the next review described that very same song as being reminiscent of Pink Floyd...Another great compliment in my book...But certainly not one that seems to go hand in hand with uniqueness...I guess there's a fine line there...

Keep the responses coming!

[Zeuhlmate]

A blend of ideas and sounds can also be unique.
In fact almost all music is a fusion.

[Magic Mountain]

Are you saying that fusion is generally not unique? If so, I vehemently disagree. There's many faces of fusion. Some leans heavier towards the rock side and some more to the jazz side; some has various "world" influences; some has involved compositional elements while other forms are mostly improvised, some favors electric instruments and others acoustic... Do the Dixie Dregs sound anything like Weather Report? Does Oregon sound like Planet X? Fusion can be and often is every bit as diverse as prog imo.

I am definitely NOT saying that fusion is not unique. I have hundreds of fusion albums that run the gammut as you've described. I was just giving an example of an instance where I can also like/love a band that plays music similar to, [insert band name here], by enjoying it for the musicianship and musicality, even though it may not be particularly original. So my point is while I place a high value on uniqueness, it isn't the only criteria that I use.

[klothos]

I mirror most of the comments made

I think this is why we are starting to hit a uniqueness wall in Rock music: with a typical guitar-driven (any number of gtrs)-bass-drums ensemble form and only 12 keys to work with in Western scale. Sure, its ludicrous to say "Everything in the Rock Ensemble format has already been done and every "cool riff" has already been written", but I can certainly see that it takes more effort for blatant originality in both songwriting and artistic identifier in a 2014 Rock format as opposed to the unexplored Rock fronteir that the 60s and 70s offered

[Magic Mountain]

The problem with discussions like these is that everyone's definition of uniqueness in music can be vastly different. As Voltaire once stated "If you wish to converse with me, then define your terms"

[Trane]

Rock and jazz stopped being unique by 79 (as blues annd reggae did as well)... they started repeating itself endlessly and still do nowadays ...

[No Pride]

I am definitely NOT saying that fusion is not unique. I have hundreds of fusion albums that run the gammut as you've described. I was just giving an example of an instance where I can also like/love a band that plays music similar to, [insert band name here], by enjoying it for the musicianship and musicality, even though it may not be particularly original.

Thanks for clarifying; I understand and can relate to that. I'm equally enamored with improvisation and composition and some of the players I love are an amalgam of several influences that I can clearly recognize. I don't love them less because of that; it's all in how you put it all together.

[perpetual strange]

I just want the music to move me somehow. It may not move me as much if it sounds just like something else, but other than that I really don't care that much.

[walt]

Doesn't bother me if a band sticks to the tried and true,just make it new,somehow.Change something, mix it up;shuffle the ingredients.

Sounds easy to say.."make it new".Being able to do just that,with skill and craft........there's the rub.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Uniqueness is quintessential.

But it also tends to appear somewhat relative. I guess they can't all be Van Vliets, Vanders, Marcoeurs or Martyns.

[GuitarGeek]

To me something that "sounds good" is more important than something is "unique". I've heard a lot of "unique" bands that I thought were terrible. There was one band in particular that played at NEARfest one year, and everyone was going nuts for them (or at least it seemed like everyone, anyway), and I just thought, "Is it me, or is it everyone else who's gone mad?!". I remember someone telling me that this particular band "sounded like nothing else", and I honestly didn't know how to respond. (sigh) That was a lonely morning for me. (shrug)

You could argue that a group like Radio Massacre International are Tangerine Dream copycats, or that Fish era Marillion or IQ were Genesis copycats, or that Porcupine Tree circa The Sky Moves Sideways were Pink Floyd copycats. I remember someone saying that Eloy's Silent Cries And Mighty Echoes was "either the greatest German symphonic rock album or the most unimaginative one". OK, fine, but that's what I like about them. I like that there's still people making music that sounds like the old stuff.

And I get the impression I'm not the only person who wishes there were another 10 or 12 Tangerine Dream albums like Phaedra/Rubycon/Ricochet/Stratosfear/Encore, or that there were a few more records that sounded kinda like Selling England By The Pound, or another two or three records that sound like Wish You Were Here.

It's nice that there's people doing totally one of a kind music that sounds like nothing else anyone has ever played before. Sometimes I enjoy listening to some of those bands. But I'm also happy there's people doing the retro/neo/whatever-slightly-derisive-term-the-snobs-want-to-call-it thing. And I agree, it's especially when you can bring something a little different into the mix. In the case of Marillion, Steve Rothery's guitar playing seemed to borrow from the Andy Summers/The Edge school of "new wave" guitar as much from the Hackett/Gilmour school of lead playing. RMI brings newer technologies that didn't exist in the 70's to bare on their music, making it sound like something that TD couldn't have quite done back in 1977 (and they've also integrated conventional rock instrumentation into their music to a greater degree than TD did).

I just want to listen to cool sounding music. So what if it sounds a little bit like something I've heard before? I mean tossing aside RMI or Marillion just because sound too much like an older band is liek casting aside Tentacles, Killer Fish, Piranha II: The Spawning, Up From The Depths, or especially L'Ultimo Squalo because they're all blatant Jaws knock offs. So what? They're still fun to watch!

[WytchCrypt]

I got into IQ back in the 80's with "Tales From the Lush Attic" and "The Wake" and I was on a mission to turn other prog fans onto them...I described these as lost Genesis albums that could have been written between Nursery Cryme & Foxtrot. Similarly, I love Yezda Urfa which sounds like a cross between 70's Yes & Gentle Giant, or Cathedral's "Stained Glass Stories" which to me is a Yes/Genesis hybrid, or early Anekdoten which is just overflowing with Crimso...and on and on. Apparently uniqueness in and of itself isn't important to me nearly as much as music that I like the sound of. Even prog that some consider highly derivative is fine with me if it's done well...I like to hear what bands can do by rearranging some of the same building blocks in different ways...and really...isn't that what all Western rock music does? Unless they're purposely writing 12 tone, atonal, or microtonal music, 1000's of songs are all based on similar foundations of Western harmony and melody...it's what they do with it to give it their own voice and I guess that is where the unique factor becomes important. That said, when I feel a bit too comfortable and want to go outside the tried and true box I can always throw on some Beefheart, Zappa, Magma, Shub Niggurath, Univers Zero, Arnold Schoenberg, etc...

[augdimsus]

The problem with discussions like these is that everyone's definition of uniqueness in music can be vastly different. As Voltaire once stated "If you wish to converse with me, then define your terms"

To me something that "sounds good" is more important than something is "unique".
I just want to listen to cool sounding music.

I wholeheartedly agree with the ideas quoted. Uniqueness is less important than a surprise while listening. A musical surprise can be anything and can even trigger the same satisfaction during multiple re-listens of a particular piece. Maybe a concept related to both "uniqueness" and "surprise" would be the idea that something can establish a familiar pattern or format, then present a deviation that doesn't alter the pattern but tweaks it in an interesting way. This is rather how I feel about "groove" associated with drummers--for example, how does a drummer use ghost notes, and does that make the drummer's style readily identifiable...which some might call "unique"? Interesting concept, with plenty of opportunity for circular analysis.

[Vic2012]

Originally Posted by GuitarGeek
To me something that "sounds good" is more important than something is "unique".
I just want to listen to cool sounding music.

That's me too. If it's good (to me) that's all that matters. There have been groups that have been accused of being derivative of some classic bands that I like, and I can't get into them at all (Marillion for one). Then there are bands who are accused of plagiarizm and I like 'em a lot (Spock's-Neal era, even though I don't hear any plagiarizm).

[rcarlberg]

Then, the next review described that very same song as being reminiscent of Pink Floyd...

Every reviewer uses that phrase for the first hundred reviews they do, until they learn it is meaningless.

[rcarlberg]

I mean tossing aside RMI or Marillion just because sound too much like an older band is liek casting aside Tentacles, Killer Fish, Piranha II: The Spawning, Up From The Depths, or especially L'Ultimo Squalo because they're all blatant Jaws knock offs. So what? They're still fun to watch!

Good analogy -- the film industry is another with rampant copycatism.

[Facelift]

If only music was actually unique as often as good reviews say it is.