the pernicious and silly term "influence"

yes yes of course the problem is that several rival meanings for the word are being used here, and attached to them radically difft deep assumptions => i still don't believe that we couldn't just do without it (eg that we can find a different — routinely used — word to replace it in ALL contexts, and that the ambiguity lost has no useful function)

INTERVIEWER: Who are your influences?
BAND SPOKESMAN: Your question is meaningless, lackey!!
I: OK oh grate one, what are your beliefs?
BS: Killing Joke and Karen Carpenter. AND THAT'S IT!!

This is a major improvement.

Honour the Fire!

Perhaps that's too easy, but in certain cases, perhaps, also not wide of the mark? One problem I have with the use of the term "influence" is that it has the active work being done by the wrong party. Surely, the one "being influenced" is doing the active work, not the thing (ie., record) that is putatively doing the "influencing". Rather than say, "Band X was influenced by classic album Y", why not say, "Band X sensitively and perceptively extracted certain aspects of classic album Y and then combined them in new and exciting ways with other extracts, original ideas, etc., to form new album Z". Records by themselves can't "influence" anybody or doing anything else for that matter - they just sit there on the shelf until someone takes them down and *listens* to them (listening being another active behavior frequently mistaken for passivity).

"Usually the only time bands really talk about their influences is when they're being interviewed."

Usually the only time bands really talk is when they're being interviewed.

I was broadly in agreement with Alex with respect to abandoning the idea of an 'artist based' concept of music, but wonder if he can elaborate on this bit (hopefully the Killing Joke mention will summon him)

"I love hearing strands and sounds and bits of stuff recombined and replicated from song to song"

What are the nature of the 'strands' that you like to hear, and how can a musical 'movement' be described without resorting to influence? (It's not that I think theres a problem, I'm just not very bright)

I think influence can be shown musicologically. This rhythm comes from here, this chord progression comes from here, etc.

lots of musicians have made music under the influence

Old ILX: not just a bunch of people going "num num num" and talking about the Manics

"Influence" as a term of musical psychology, is indeed useless. However, "influence" as a term of musical history, is one of the tools by which the musical historian gives meaning to an otherwise unrelated series of notes.

the musical historian should choose a less silly word

ugh i am embarked on a project which is requiring me to plough through 20 million extracts all using this stupid word at its worst and laziest, it is such a fucking tell

like they used to say nanotechnology would turn everything into featureless grey goo

not only is influence a good word but we should replace the word art with the word effluence

I was actually thinking about this subject this morning. As someone who writes songs, the influences I think of as most significant have more to do with methods of working. There was an appeal for me in how some people went about creating a body of work. Influences directly affecting musical materials seem to be hazier, more general, more subconscious.

A prosaic interpretation of the word might be: band A liked band B, tried to write something a bit like them, then probably came up with something interesting in a different way, or if they didn't we wouldn't be talking about band A.

Mark S's crusade against 'influence' has been going on at least 20 years, as this thread shows. I'm slightly amused and touched to be reminded of it, though ultimately I'm now not especially convinced by it; at least not by recent restatements of the cause.

3 notes:

1: FWIW I am quite sympathetic to deliberate attempts to use particular words less, as an intellectual exercise to sharpen thought. (I said this above, 20 years ago.) This wouldn't make 'influence' a special case, though. All kinds of words could be affected.

2: as far as I know, the discussion has talked surprisingly little about the etymology, which presumably implies liquid and 'inflow'. A tributary influences a river, and vice versa? Is this a good metaphor for human action or not? Mark S says not, ever. I think: more likely it sometimes has been (it seems likely that a great many etymologies originally encoded something suggestive, rather than inaccurate), but has also been over-extended and this has obscured the most useful instances.

Not very helpfully for my purposes, discussions of this also always talk about 'the general sense ‘an influx, flowing matter’, also specifically (in astrology) ‘the flowing in of ethereal fluid (affecting human destiny)’'.

Here it is worth noting the parallel term 'inspiration' which clearly derives from something 'receiving a divine breath'. That breath might roughly resemble the 'ethereal fluid''.

3: related, it still seems to me (cf 2002 post) that thought around this is clouded by a conflation of what, in dull words, I may as well call 'conscious' and 'unconscious' 'influence'. This would be the distinction between eg:

"yes, on this record we tried to sound like The Ramones"

and

"without really knowing it, this late 1970s band found their sound shaped by the other music and recording techniques of the period".

It still seems to me that the latter is closer to the original sense, as in the non-conscious flow of an enveloping force (cf water) which has effects on phenomena it encounters.

Actually I add a 4th note:

4: Mark S, still furious at 'influence' after all these years, alleges that it is a piece of magical hand-waving. This kind of allegation may risk becoming what it describes, and I am not especially convinced that 'influence', specifically, is a good candidate for this category. However, again, there is, to my mind, a hint of transferrable truth in what he says, in that *some* words do indeed function like this. A major instance would be 'Modernism' (more clearly, I think, than mere 'Modern') - I have probably never seen such a magical, wish-fulfilling philosopher's stone of a word.

Your third point is my preferred argument against the use - or lazy use - of the term, i'd expand it to include not just less conscious but less 'cool' influences or less obviously musical ones, e.g. some people they played with in school, some guy who taught them a cool lick, anything that might have helped develop confidence, attitude, ambition.

i have definitely happily raged abt the fact that "influenza" as a concept emerged from astrology

but possibly on LJ rather than here

"i put on the doors and influenza"

‘Influences’ also rankles me as it’s often the way for an “artist” sitting in leather trousers to claim instant connection with a self-selected hip canon and pantheon and place themselves firmly in it , in a Patti Smith/ Bobby Gillespie way:

“My influences? Oh too many to mention but… Burroughs obviously, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Alice Coltrane, early Dylan, Suicide Spacemen 3, Lee Perry, MC5, William Blake“

I readily believe artists who claim it's best to reduce your exposure to other art to preserve your own pure creative juices, to reduce the risk of contagion of ideas and motifs, to force you to cultivate your own art. At the same time, nothing comes out of nothing, you can't always be reinventing the wheel.

I take the conclusion of this thread that influence is a real but complex phenomenon for artists (you don't necessarily sound like your inspirations, you can learn the same skills from different artists), that the public schematizes very crudely, adding on top various misconceptions that being good equals being influential etc.

The idealization of being the first, the creator. That's what it all comes back to right.

"contagion" is a good word, ppl should definitely go with spread-of-plague style metaphors

music hack: "what is the colour of the sky on yr planet?"
band member: "blondie and oasis!"

^^also an improved reworking

Something that I've talked about with a few artists I've interviewed has been the difference between "inspiration" and "influence," with influence being "Ooh, that's a really cool thing [other band] did, I should try doing that" and "inspiration" being "[other band]'s music is so awesome it makes me want to make my own music more awesome."

artists often refer to themselves as "influenced by" other artists. what do they mean when they say this?

imo the best definition of influence (in the context of art/music) is this functional one, rather than one found in its etymological roots in water metaphors, astrology, or epidemiology

i know a writer who keeps 3 books on his desk and each day before he works on his novel opens one to a random page and reads it. this is an extreme example in how deliberate it is, but i don't think influence that is less intentional or methodical is conceptually distinct

is it accurate to say his novel will be influenced by these 3 desk novels? he wouldn't do this exercise if it didn't have some effect on his own writing. presumably this effect is something he wants to impart upon the work

what's the effect? you can imagine two counterfactual novels, one written with the random-page-a-day method and one without. the former bears the "influence" of the desk novels in a way the latter doesn't

skimming the 2002 posts upthread and there's a kerfuffle over how the phrase "under the influence of" suggests the influencer has some measure of control. i.e., Pere Ubu dictating to Joy Division how to play guitar. i don't see it that way, a driver "under the influence" of alcohol is still "in control" of the steering wheel; alcohol has no agency of its own, but it does have an effect

it would be convenient for derivative artists if influence didn't exist, because they could pass themselves off as sui generis, like academics who claim originality but didn't read the prior literature. people like to dismiss artists who are not "more than the sum of their influences" as mere "pastiche". i personally like a lot of art that is considered derivative and don't really care when people say this. but i think it's a sign of artistic maturity to be able to acknowledge one's influences

it certainly helps to narrow down the meaning -- and render it a more useable and perhaps useful word -- if you declare by fiat that some of its confused overlapping and contradictory meanings just don't apply. i don't think it's as good as my solution -- "Use other words please." -- bcz my solution means thinking abt what yr saying instead of not thinking abt it, choosing yr phrasing carefully to pin down what you want to say instead of using a word that doesn't do this and then having to expand at length abt what you precisely choose it to mean and not mean (which others wil immediately contest). what not be precise instead of casual?

the random-page seeding practice you discuss is a case in point: why not simply describe this practice and NOT then muddle and blur it by scrobbling it all back into the ragbag of all the other kinds of relationship (some very distinct!) that art has with the context the artist was thrown into or painstakingly made for themselves

(again, i don't disagree this *is* a solution, it's just that i feel my editor's red crayon twitching)

also derivative bands LOVE the concept of influence! they reel it out non-stop: a mix between The Stone Roses and Primal Scream with the swagger of Oasis

declare by fiat that some of its confused overlapping and contradictory meanings just don't apply

I don't see how flopson is doing this in his post.

is it accurate to say his novel will be influenced by these 3 desk novels? he wouldn't do this exercise if it didn't have some effect on his own writing. presumably this effect is something he wants to impart upon the work

not sure i buy this! you could make the same argument about people who check the horoscope every day - surely they wouldn’t do it, if the stars didn’t influence their lives?

BUT WAIT, you say! surely the act of checking a horoscope every day influences what you do? well, yes! everything you do has some effect on your future. andy warhol ate a can of campbell’s tomato soup every day at lunch (it was his favorite, and he loved routine). did campbell’s soup influence his work?

so i think the book reading probably does influence his work, but maybe not in the sense that the results would be different if we swapped the books for different books. and are the books influencing the writer, or is the writer … influencing himself? and why is the “picking a book” routine more of an influence on the writer than his morning toilet routine, or midday ham sandwich routine, or late night nose picking routine?

i’m not saying i have the answers to any of these questions, but i think they are interesting (particularly whether the influence is in the book vs the routine, cf andy’s tomato soup) and i think we start answering them with “use other words” vs just saying “come on that’s absurd, the ham sandwich has no influence on writing”

did campbell’s soup influence his work?

I mean, yes, pretty famously(!)

well duh? but would the work have been significantly different if he ate progresso chicken soup every day?

answer carefully because if you say “yes because then he would have painted chicken soup” i will lose all hope for western civilization, and who knows what might happen then

ha ha - well, it's hard to explore that counterfactual, isn't it? "If this artist had been a different person, would their work be different?"

you’re fucking with me, right?

Harold Bloom to thread!

Oh wait.

And I see Aerosmith already mentioned.

the random-page seeding practice you discuss is a case in point: why not simply describe this practice and NOT then muddle and blur it by scrobbling it all back into the ragbag of all the other kinds of relationship (some very distinct!) that art has with the context the artist was thrown into or painstakingly made for themselves

you are really positing here the existence of a human who might read a short description of that practice that includes the word "influence" and not understand precisely what is meant by the usage?

marketing term

And I see Aerosmith already mentioned.

― Jean Arthur Rank (James Redd and the Blecchs), Thursday, September 15, 2022 4:03 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglin

Bloom (Looks Like a Lady)

I'd be very doubtful really that Nirvana were 'copying' The Police.

But if they were, then does the 'copy' concept (which is fine) contradict the 'influence' concept?

To me, not really.

As I've probably said all along - all these things exist and coexist, they're all fine, but in critical discourse it's better to use them thoughtfully, precisely and not excessively.

what else should I be
Synchronicity
what else should I say
every breath you take

Both 'Roxanne' and 'Can't Stand Losing You'

Those songs aren’t even really quiet-loud, they’re more slow-fast… what a bizarre thing to say that Nirvana “copied” a formula from them.

agree with both posts.

"There's a guy dropping out of UMass right now who's going to hear this record, form a band, and inspire a Seattle seven-year-old to eventually play quiet-loud-quiet"

It also reminds me of an old interview with Fellini:

"Maestro, why did you have the characters in Satyricon do such-and-such?"

"I did it so that you would ask me why!"

fellini gets it

Come to think of it, there is a strong guitar chorus effect on "Come as You Are," a direct line from Andy Summers to Kurt Cobain. And Grohl came up with the name for Foo Fighters by way of the similarly anonymous/alliterative Klark Kent, plus Copeland inducted them into the rock and roll hall of fame. No Police, maybe no "Come as You Are," and possible no Foo Fighters (at least by that name). It's science.

Speaking of John Watson, there is an amusing exchange at the beginning of The Sign of Four, where Holmes is being insufferably pompous and Watson is entirely correct. Holmes' response is pathetic:

“There is no great mystery in this matter,” he said, taking the cup of tea which I had poured out for him; “the facts appear to admit of only one explanation.”
“What! you have solved it already?”
....
"I have just found, on consulting the back files of the Times, that Major Sholto, of Upper Norwood, late of the Thirty-fourth Bombay Infantry, died upon the twenty-eighth of April, 1882.”
“I may be very obtuse, Holmes, but I fail to see what this suggests.”
“No? You surprise me. Look at it in this way, then. Captain Morstan disappears. The only person in London whom he could have visited is Major Sholto. Major Sholto denies having heard that he was in London. Four years later Sholto dies. Within a week of his death Captain Morstan’s daughter receives a valuable present, which is repeated from year to year and now culminates in a letter which describes her as a wronged woman. What wrong can it refer to except this deprivation of her father? And why should the presents begin immediately after Sholto’s death unless it is that Sholto‘s heir knows something of the mystery and desires to make compensation? Have you any alternative theory which will meet the facts?”
“But what a strange compensation! And how strangely made! Why, too, should he write a letter now, rather than six years ago? Again, the letter speaks of giving her justice. What justice can she have? It is too much to suppose that her father is still alive. There is no other injustice in her case that you know of.”
“There are difficulties; there are certainly difficulties,” said Sherlock Holmes pensively;

Damn straight there are difficulties, and Watson is entirely correct to point out that Holmes is overreaching by saying he'd pretty much cleared up the mystery, in fact the mysterious bit of the mystery remains entirely. His response really is very silly, and Watson is correct to point out elsewhere Holmes' vanity.

There's also this interesting exchange at the beginning of A Case of Identity

“My dear fellow.” said Sherlock Holmes as we sat on either side of the fire in his lodgings at Baker Street, “life is infinitely stranger than anything which the mind of man could invent. We would not dare to conceive the things which are really mere commonplaces of existence. If we could fly out of that window hand in hand, hover over this great city, gently remove the roofs, and peep in at the queer things which are going on, the strange coincidences, the plannings, the cross-purposes, the wonderful chains of events, working through generation, and leading to the most outre results, it would make all fiction with its conventionalities and foreseen conclusions most stale and unprofitable. “

“And yet I am not convinced of it,” I answered. “The cases which come to light in the papers are, as a rule, bald enough, and vulgar enough. We have in our police reports realism pushed to its extreme limits, and yet the result is, it must be confessed, neither fascinating nor artistic.”

Holmes here is in an enjoyably baroque and fantastical strain, and suggests he does see something magical in it all - the *outre results* of life. Watson, who is often accused of romanticism by Holmes, is enjoyably brusque in response, and again there's a lot to be said for his view.

I mentioned RLS's New Arabian Nights upthread and I really should emphasise how much of an influence they had on literary London (like Sherlock Holmes they were serialised in a London periodical). They are well worth reading. Conan Doyle was a big fan - The Pavilion on the Links (seven years before A Study in Scarlet) was one of his favourite short stories. They set the template for anything being possible in London, and the visits 'low disreputable corners and suburbia', ie beyond Camberwell. Both Machen (in his very bad, very good The Three Impostors) and Conan Doyle take its geography and cadences. The idea that the stories that emanate from the commonplace are more fantastical than those that emanate from the upper classes is here too.

fuckit rong thread.

Sounds like it fits to me!

i was actually thinking as i wrote it 'mustn't use the term influence or mark s will be after me'.

fwiw, i'm of mark's view in this extremely enjoyable thread. clearly influence can be used to describe something, a relationship, but it's not very clear about that relationship - i liked 'WHO DO YOU BELIEVE IN' far better. or the old NME or the idea of the your unofficial curriculum (I think there's even a thread). i mean i use influence a lot obv, but think it probably skates over more than it reveals, might even be considered lazy.

I am now questioning the use of "influence" everywhere I encounter it, and for that I can thank mark s., you've really had a major--ah, never mind.

“he put the ‘fluence ‘pon me”

Q: WHO DO YOU BELIEVE IN?

a: mark s

left a mark, you might say