so a sort of continuation of the other thread, sort of.

when a band sounds like a particular act from the past, or (usually) genre, it seems like instantly labelled "retro"/"rip-offs" etc.

is this a load of cock?

example: I've seen people dismiss the Hold Steady offhand purely for sounding too much like Springsteen, but the fact is none of their songs are direct rip offs, and they've written at least 5 songs that would probably be on a Springsteen best of had he himself written them. Same goes for Marc Bolan/Banhart.

On the other hand, you have Jet, who are labelled the almost the same way. The actual reason they are shite though, is that they don't do it well and rip riffs off wholescale.

Similarly, what's the difference bwetween a punk band who formed in 77 after seeing the Pistols/wheoever and one who form now and write great songs? You cant be blamed for being born too late can you?

I think what I mean, is 'unoriginality' so bad?