The Next Big Useless Comparison

Not to put too blunt a criticism on the music press, but can't they come up with some decent analogy's? I mean sure, music is a pretty hard thing to pin down, and I respect a lot of what they're trying to achieve by making comparisons. But the biggest shortcut to thinking has got to be the labelling of some new band or singer as "The Next XXXXXXXX" or "America's answer to XXXXXXXXX"

As I said, its pretty hard for reviewers to continually come up with new ways of describing music. Some do it well. Pitchfork (despite all their hipstery) the AV Club, and Drowned In Sound all put out good reviews. And don't get me wrong - theres value in making comparisons, it allows us to have a point of reference.

What I'm getting at is those reviewers who dismiss something instantly. Put in in a "same" box without weighing its own merits. Specifically, new UK Soul Singer Duffy seems to have fallen into this trap. Its not hard to see comparisons between Duffy and Amy Winehouse, they both sing Neo-Soul, have a retro sound and look, and to be completely fair, both released fairly similar hooky singles.

But a quick listen through Duffy's album, 'Rockferry' reveals an altogether different artist. Whereas Winehouse pulls a retro soul influence in her style, and lavishes in a rebellious image, Duffy actively seems to be trying to BE a soul singer of old. Amy Winehouse might be channeling the spirit of 60's and 70's northern soul, but Duffy appears to want to carve herself a place among them.

So, calling Duffy "The Next Amy Winehouse" sells everyone short. Winehouse, who's music has its own merit, Duffy, who is trying to build a career in an insanely competitive industry, listeners who need good commentary to make a decision, and most of all the writers themselves, who come across as having made a lame shortcut instead of actually trying to come up with something constructive and intelligent to write about an artist.

Anyway, here's something from Duffy...