Things generally go horribly wrong when they try for a certain sound or try to do something different for its own sake. What's more, Joe Public generally sees through it and dislikes them for it. We can't all be innovative (by definition, you need a whole bunch of people to be 'conventional' for one person to seem innovative) and I really think the best advice is to do what you feel comfortable with.

Malcolm Young's response to an interviewer asking about accusations that all their albums sounded the same: "It's the same band!"

as long as they're good.

The most exciting new music is definitely outside of the guitar pop format. Whilst I do enjoy the odd bit of indie, it tends to be revisiting Britpop from my youth. Modern bands bore me.

That's not to say modern music is bad. Far from it, but the most beautiful and exciting music is still out there pushing boundaries.

For me, Balam Acab is the most exciting and played thing from this year. Not sure how it'd be definable as, but there are half remembered vocal samples, Four Tet bleeps, sub bass and computerised beats. But boy, is it beautiful.

1. being forward looking, adventurous, open-minded
2. glamour, sexiness, some kind of beauty
3. intelligence, wit

Not that many bands have two of these and very few have 'em all. I think if you are deficient in these three qualities your music has to be consistently amazing; the only acceptable substitute is a large and solid body of work.
Something that has annoyed me for many years is the way Noel Gallagher has persuaded interviewers to associate his work with The Beatles when The Fabs would be exemplars in at least two of the above categories and his own band seem to wilfully oppose the notion that these (particularly 1 and 3) are desirable qualities at all...

is that the *style* of a band's music is a lot less important than the *content*, but often the press and the (more superficial of their) fans think otherwise.

I don't mind bands trying new things all the time, as long as they're doing them well. I don;t mind them sticking to the same path as long as they do it well. Being boring (whether in their existing style, or a new one) is where I draw the line.

as some sort of badge of authenticity as musicians end up making very tedious music.

To my way of thinking, a group that sees itself as having roots in diverse musical traditions and therefore draws from as wide a range of influences as possible will probably stand a much better chance of actually producing something that sounds fresh yet not overly precious.

I have always thought of Led Zeppelin as being an example of this kind of approach. I don't think Messers Page, Plant, Bonham and Jones set out with the intention of making vastly "original" or "different" music; rather they began playing together and their myriad influences started to flow into the songs they were writing. So a mixture of folk, blues, rock n' roll, rhythm and blues, soul, jazz (and later on even reggae and funk) coalesced into something greater than the sum of its parts.

Many people might disagree with me here, but I would cite Radiohead as a more recent example of this magpie tendency producing some wonderful results. Their best music comes about when they don't come over as overly bothered about "pushing boundaries" and all that nonsense and instead sound like they're simply having fun. That is why In Rainbows is a far better and more enjoyable record than The King of Limbs.

I shared this link on FB yesterday, as I happened to find it rather wonderful:

and immediately a friend responded that "it sounds like Music For Airports!"

It may very well do - in fact, for all I know it's a blatant rip-off - but as I've never bothered with Eno, I wouldn't know. My point is that this track is fundamentally different enough from what I normally listen to, that it made me pay attention; so, in its own way, it's 'new'. Even if it isn't. Or am I talking bollocks?

Some days I want to listen to someone pushing them. Other days, I want someone who is staying well within them. There's space for it all.

Simple as that really.

a) the songs are better than just "quite good" and
b) there isn't TOO much of a total indebtedness to the past.

If there are some really excellent tunes going on that don't sound entirely like someone else from forty years ago, I'm on board, generally. Revivalists, no. Updates of an old sound that do something I haven't heard yet, yes.

This is why, say, La Roux couldn't sustain my interest. One really good tune, but there was far too much hommage and absolutely nothing new in the sound. And the rest of the songs were weak.

You need a mix - too unfamiliar and you flirt with unlistenable. Too familiar and you're into "why bother" territory.

How many acts over the years have truly broken new ground? Hardly any I would suggest. Most have tended to follow a trend or have discovered an underground experimental artist and been influenced. Maybe what seems new is really just a fresh combination of influences or a new presentation of an old idea. I think those that have broken new ground have probably not thought too self conciously about doing so but have been bright, creative, talented people who have been playing around and didn't want to bore themselves with clichés or repetition. Then again you do need the occasional exceptional act to shake it all up from time to time or things tend to ossify. Yet good country style music records still get made and genres like that haven't changed noticeably for a long, long time and that's OK. I guess that's where we're at with rock and pop now. Stuff like The Horrors album could be pulled apart into clearly derived influences - still a thrilling record though. So what I am saying is essentially - no.

While I'm liable to prick up my ears at a record that sounds very striking and "new", for me it always comes down to the songs, and whether they're any good. Take the example of Ron Sexsmith: he's produced a fair few albums over the years, most of which I have. They all sound very similar, and will offer very little in the way of the Thrill Of The New. But if you're after Bloody Good Songs, he comes up with the goods time and time again.

I've said this before, I know: I also don't care if an artist or band sounds like someone else, provided the songs are up to snuff. To take a band much discussed around these parts, The Silver Seas are nobody's idea of cutting edge. Their singer, Daniel Tashian, sounds quite a lot like Jackson Browne. Their songs sound as if they could have been made in the 70s. And I don't give a damn, because these songs weren't made in the 70s, and they move and delight me now, as much as anything else.