James Blunt
Mar 16, 2006 at 1:16 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 22

lewtz

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Posts
143
Likes
0
recently picked up his CD, sitting here listening to it. Up to song 4, like it so far. Easy listening, something about it, is kinda relaxing. Only thing so far, all the songs seem to be talking about girls.
 
Mar 16, 2006 at 1:48 AM Post #2 of 22

Dusty Chalk

Head-Fi-holic: With headphones would just be a benny.
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
6,565
Likes
15
I dig him a lot.

I don't think all the tracks are about girls. What's the one about three wise men trying to have a good time?

I especially like that last track, too.
 
Mar 16, 2006 at 1:57 AM Post #3 of 22

markl

Hangin' with the monkeys.
Member of the Trade: Lawton Audio
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
9,130
Likes
42
Trade him in for the true artists he copies/apes/rips off--- Jeff Buckley and especially his father, Tim Buckley. For Jeff, get a hold of Grace. For his father, get ahold of anything, it doesn't matter, his work is immortal. It's the difference between a monkey-see-monkey-do copy-cat and the object he's copying.
 
Mar 16, 2006 at 2:27 AM Post #4 of 22

lewtz

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Posts
143
Likes
0
Just did some googling on the buckleys, as I have never heard their music, but have heard their names around here. I find it funny about James Blunt, being called a copy cat, as... isn't a lot of music "copy cat'd" for lack of better terms.

Also with the buckley's dead, isn't it lame to call someone who is carrying on a style a ripoff? Don't know, just reminds me of all those people who like bands, until the band "sells out" and goes mainstream.. then they all of a sudden hate the band.
 
Mar 16, 2006 at 2:56 AM Post #5 of 22

Coltrane

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Posts
1,345
Likes
19
There isnt a difference between expressing yourself in a certain style and being influenced, and just ripping people off. James Blunt is, to avoid sugar coating, trash. His music, as pointed out, is about girls and getting laid. Just like John Mayer, or Teddy Geiger or any of the rest of them.

And it has nothing to do with popularity. It has do with quality and honesty. And it has to do with preying off unkowledgeable listeners. No offense, but of course you dont know Jeff Buckley, if you did you certainly would never listen to James Blunt. Once you go authentic, you never go back.
 
Mar 16, 2006 at 3:24 AM Post #6 of 22

antiant

Banned
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Posts
848
Likes
10
although i haven't heard jeff buckley yet (probably will at some point down the road), i concur with the rest of the sentiments, he's whack as f*uck, but "you like it i love it"
 
Mar 16, 2006 at 7:02 AM Post #9 of 22

Dusty Chalk

Head-Fi-holic: With headphones would just be a benny.
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
6,565
Likes
15
I disagree that he's a rip-off artist. There is a difference between being influenced by something, and being calculatingly derivative. To me, that difference is a certain confidence in delivery, which I think James Blunt has. I have heard the Buckley's, and quite frankly, I prefer James Blunt.

I mean, let's compare Jeff Lynne/ELO -- highly derivative of the Beatles, to the point of saying that Lynne has a Beatles fetish. Hard to argue. And yet, I don't like the Beatles, and I do like ELO. And ELO has stood the test of time, as well. Maybe not in the same standing as the Beatles, but still widely regarded as a classic band. So...there ya go.

There is no such thing as originality any more. Certain musicians stick their head in the sand and come up with something that they consider original -- and it is, to an extent. As a musician, one has to stick one's head in ...erm... one's sand...otherwise one would lose all interest in making music. The important thing is that it is interesting to you, and hopefully that interestingness will translate to the target audience.
 
Mar 16, 2006 at 7:11 AM Post #10 of 22

mysticaldodo

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Posts
1,242
Likes
10
I find the way he sings and his voice somewhat unpleasant. That was what turned me off. And no, I don't like Daniel Powter too
tongue.gif
 
Mar 16, 2006 at 8:29 AM Post #11 of 22

Omega

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 14, 2004
Posts
520
Likes
13
Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane
There isnt a difference between expressing yourself in a certain style and being influenced, and just ripping people off. James Blunt is, to avoid sugar coating, trash. His music, as pointed out, is about girls and getting laid. Just like John Mayer, or Teddy Geiger or any of the rest of them.

And it has nothing to do with popularity. It has do with quality and honesty. And it has to do with preying off unkowledgeable listeners. No offense, but of course you dont know Jeff Buckley, if you did you certainly would never listen to James Blunt. Once you go authentic, you never go back.



Shoot, half the good music of the world is about girls and getting laid! And this coming from a guy who dubs himself Coltrane :wink:

Of course music is largely derivative. John Mayer is a prime example--I love his style, and he readily admits his influences (Hendrix, Clapton, Buckley, BB King), who are great in their own right. Besides, even if an artist produces 100% derivative work, but it is enjoyable, who is to complain that I enjoy it?
 
Mar 16, 2006 at 2:21 PM Post #12 of 22

Girdag

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Posts
153
Likes
0
I'd be more harsh. James Blunt is irritating, whiny crap. His voice is nothing special, his songs are simple at best, the lyrics have no depth to them, and he generally falls straight into the 'bland, middle of the road singer-songwriter' template. And he doesn't do that particularily well. Get some Jeff Buckley (really, he may be hyped a lot here, but that's because the album really is excellent) or Nick Drake (downbeat, beautiful acoustic songs) instead. Far superior in every way.
 
Mar 16, 2006 at 4:28 PM Post #14 of 22

Coltrane

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Posts
1,345
Likes
19
Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega
Shoot, half the good music of the world is about girls and getting laid! And this coming from a guy who dubs himself Coltrane :wink:


There is a humongous difference between writing music about love and about women as a personal expression of your experiences, and writing music with the sole purpose of getting girls to sleep with you. What John MAyer, James Blunt, Teddy Geiger etc.. do is write crappy sappy music for teenage/college girls with the sole purpose of getting laid. John Mayer even admitted as such. That simply isnt music.

Not sure what you are implying by bringing up Coltrane. If you think his music had any relation to trying to get laid, you clearly have not heard much of it.

And again, there is also a difference between being influenced and creating music the directly copies. When someone is intentionally (or even unintentionally) derivative they are not creating honest music, they are not creting art. They might as well go produce soda or bubble gum as far as I am concerned. If you enjoy it, good for you. But you can only enjoy it at a certain level, because it is emotionally dishonest.

And to everyone who thinks ALL music is derivative and unoriginal, I feel very sorry for you. Clearly you have a very limited CD collection and do not listen to much new music. Or you just have a problem recognizing indivduality. Take some 'recent' bands like the Falming Lips, Tool, Wilco, Radiohead, The Frames. All do rock. All do rock almost completely unlike anyone before them. And I could name another 20 off the top of my head. To say nobody is original is the same as saying music is dead.
 
Mar 16, 2006 at 7:34 PM Post #15 of 22

lmilhan

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Posts
4,880
Likes
15
All the bands you mentioned may have some small element of originality, but the bulk of it has all been done before. All musicians are inspired in one way or another by Musicians and music before them.

The only way you would get truly original music would be to take a child at birth, and shelter that child away from all forms of entertainment, including music. Provide this child with various musical instruments as he/she grows over the years and see what the result would be. The result would undoubtedly be truly original music (or noise, depending upon the results and your own personal taste). A very unrealistic experiment to say the least, but it would be the only way to demonstrate what original uninfluenced music would sound like.

Of corse, it all had to start somewhere, but I am certainly not a music historian perhaps someone can help here. This leads me to a 'musical paradox'. There has to be an 'original master musician or musicians' that got the ball rolling, which no doubt influenced (in some way or another) all music that followed.

As for my CD collection, I have a very broad collection of music that covers almost all genres of music from many different eras. So no need to 'feel sorry' for me
wink.gif
.

P.S. Music is FAR from dead, it is certainly at a very low point IMO, but it will turn around for the better eventually - it is the nature of the beast and music history.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top