Musical copyists in a notable tradition

[quizzy]

Sir, I have been writhing in mild discomfort for a number of days, since Ludovic Hunter-Tilney chose to refer to Noel Gallagher as a "crude copyist" ("Gorillaz and the joy of virtual pop", November 3).

A number of protests come to mind. First of all, oh, the irony of such an insult landing in an article about Damon Albarn! Is Mr Hunter-Tilney unfamiliar with Blur's mid-1990s work? If not, has he heard any records by The Kinks or XTC? Any deep connection there, or not? But the admission of such a connection in itself does not trivialise Blur, to me at least.

The history of music (classical and pop) is full of copyist tendencies. The Beatles were plagiarists of the highest order. Keith Richards speaks evocatively of the melodies that travel round the universe, spinning around and there for the taking. It stands to reason: we really cannot abide by random arrangements of notes; songs have to be of finite length; there are a finite number of notes. There is not an unlimited number of melodies to be had, and a lot of songs have already been written.

Back to Noel Gallagher. So perhaps you would agree that it is not so bad to be a copyist, but Mr Hunter-Tilney thinks him crude nevertheless. Please do recognise that some might say that he works considerable charm with melody, harmony, arrangements and sonic quality. Some thinking people (who are deeply unfashionable!) rank him among the very best of all time.

Lisa Capuano,

Brooklyn, NY, US

FINANCIAL TIMES

[quizzy]

Back to Noel Gallagher. So perhaps you would agree that it is not so bad to be a copyist, but Mr Hunter-Tilney thinks him crude nevertheless. Please do recognise that some might say that he works considerable charm with melody, harmony, arrangements and sonic quality. Some thinking people (who are deeply unfashionable!) rank him among the very best of all time.