I’ve tried before to articulate why I don’t tend to like artists who rehash old musical styles. Not that I don’t like a lot of old musical styles, but I’m rarely even impressed by someone who revisits an old style that I loved, let alone one I disliked. Like I said, though, I could never explain clearly when someone would ask me why I didn’t just love The Darkness or The Kaiser Chiefs or whoever.

So today, when I read Carrie Brownstein’s Monitor Mix blog, I found myself nodding along with her explanation for why she feels the same way.

I like new. I like influence drawn from various or, sometimes, obvious genres. I am not averse to updating or reconfiguring the old. But if an artist can’t find a way of making the music feel like it’s been reborn then what is the point? There are plenty of bands that make you feel like you are hearing a genre, a form of music, or a playing style for the first time. In my opinion, The White Stripes are a good example of a band who did more than merely copy the blues, whereas The Bravery exemplify the most benign and pointless regurgitation of new wave and post-punk.

I feel I should point out that I enjoy cover songs. A lot. I quite enjoy established artists taking a crack at an old song, especially if they mess with it a bit. However, artists like the new-wave of female British soul singers that Carrie mentions just seem like poor sequels, the same way that Wolfmother sounds like a local house band trying to be Zeppelin.

Clearly lots of people like Amy Winehouse and The Bravery, etc. I’d have to assume they’re the kind of people who like their music fun instead of interesting, which is fine…different people want different things from music. I’m just glad I found a way to articulate why I don’t want to listen to the retro-act-du-jour. I suppose it was a little inelegant to respond to “Why don’t you like Scissor Sisters?” with “Because I fucking hated disco the first time around, and I wasn’t even there.”

[tags]carrie brownstein, monitor mix[/tags]