Originally Posted by
H4rl3quin
I just can't buy this point of view - take, for example, this (in tab, because there's no way in hell i'm writing stuff out, scanning it in, and uploading it):
e------------------------------|
B------------------------------|
G------------------------------|
D-5^-5-3------5^-5-3---------|
A--------5-5---------5-5-3----|
E------------------------------|
this riff from grounds for divorce - now, i'm sure that that pattern of notes has been played 1,000 times in bluesey improvs and rock solo's, but it becomes something original when you play it with that intonation, that tempo, and the messy return bend from the G to the Ab at the start of the phrase.
I know from composing a whole load of my own stuff, that you don't need to borrow anything, whether something similar's been used before is irrelevant, as long as you make your own music your own.
back on topic, the worst band ever would almost certainly be unheard of, and probably dead by now, therefore the debate is pointless.
Harl is right, drummer. Being a drummer, you couldn't possibly understand what this means. While your focus is exclusively on rhythm, tone, and intensity, mine is on more than that. I personally can tell you that Nickelback's riffs are lame and unoriginal. Want original riffs? One doesn't need to "re-invent the wheel" to do so. Through arpeggios and various licks, one can make two riffs over the same chord progression that are totally different. It is true that ever so often, someone comes along that creates essentially a game changer. To put it in your perspective, Topper Headon's drumming on Train In Vain. That particular style of drumming had yet to be used. That was truly original. However, Kurt Cobain's riff on Smells Like Teen Spirit is original as well, despite being a common chord progression. This is due to his use of muted notes, distortion and sliding. Essentially, it matters how it's done, not necessarily what's being done.
Thanks, there you go.