I’d agree with Radiohead and The Prodigy being particularly creative but the others I would have to say are somewhat derivitave - especially when compared to the best bands of the 60’s and 70’s or to the more creative of the US artists like Nirvana, Public Enemy, NWA, and Prince.
Then again, most music these days seems to be derivitive imho.
Unfortunately, however good the top UK acts are (such as those above), UK music has about zero credibility these days due to manufcatured cover bands like Westlife, Hearsay. Will Young and so forth dominating the current music scene.
Not too long ago (a couple of months if I remember) there wasn’t a single UK act in the US top 40 for the first time in about 40 years. That statistic doesn’t exactly support the assertion of UK music being creative imho.
Would you say it’s the creativity that compells most of 'em to sing with American accents?
I’m jes’ sayin’.
Radiohead are particularly creative while New Order are somewhat derivative? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. And… chart positions as an indicator of creativity? Hoo boy. Do you also think the richest people are the smartest ones, too?
Does anybody care to define for me what creativity is in terms that would allow us to make subjective comparisons about creative acts? 'Cos what I’m hearing is “bands I like are creative, bands I don’t like are derivative.”
Anyway, Scotland would have enough to claim victory on the strength of the Wake and the Orchids alone. But Leeds is the ultimate punk rock city. Leeds, or some city in Ohio. Akron or Cleveland.
-fh
Westlife aren’t from the UK either.
Nah, but it doesn’t mean there hasn’t been creativity along the way too does it? Lots of punk bands studiously avoided American accents anyway, preferring (fake) Cockney accents instead. Which sort of contradicts hazel-rah’s suggestion that Leeds was the ultimate punk city over here.
We’re still waiting for paulus123 to tell us what he thinks musical creativity is aren’t we?
I didn’t say that I didn’t like derivitive music. I do quite like some of the music from New Order and most of the other bands mentioned, but I jost don’t see it as especially creative. On the other hand, I do think that The Prodigy were very different and creative but I absolutely hated pretty much everything I ever heard from them.
But what does it mean when you say one band is more creative than another one? How can you have a basis for comparing derivativeness that doesn’t depend entirely on what music you yourself have been exposed to so far?
-fh
Good point hazel-rah, but it does become easier to tell with hindsight. For instance, I’d guess that no-one was combining dance music and rock in the eighties the way New Order did.
For me, creativity is about creating a sound I haven’t heard before, writing intelligent lyrics which make a point or in some cases even creating a new genre such as Gangsta or Grunge. So, imho, artists I would consider to be creative include NWA, Public Enemy, Nirvana, Eminem (lyrically), Alanis Morissette (lyrically), Radiohead, Prodigy, Beck, Spooks and KRS One to name a few.
Derivitive music on the other hand is about copying someone elses style, even though they may improve on it. Artists I consider derivitive include The Stokes (copying Ramones), Oasis (Beatles), Craig David, Ja Rule, Jay-Z and Linkin Park.
I should also say I like (and have bought) all of the artists I’ve mentioned whether I personally consider them derivitive or creative.