You do have a recognizable sound, but then, doesn't every major artist sound like themselves? You hear a new Stevie Wonder song, and you know it's him. Or better, a new Santana song with a random singer--you still know who it is. From sound choice to song construction to technique--having a "sound" to me seems sorta inevitable. A Johnny Cash song is always a Johnny cash song.

Picasso has a "look" and a "feel" and so does Pollock. I guess I'm not making a point.

I myself am rarely able to sound like anyone else at all, so I always sound like me. In fact, a Rob Martino Stick song, or a Glen Poorman Stick Song, also have a certain "sound," from literal sound to type of music and technique of playing to style. But Rob Martino playing Bach is probably not that hugely different from Glenn or Scott playing Bach. The difference is in the originals, and each artist has a "voice" that we learn to recognize over time. Even if you're just singing "Oh Canada!" it's still gonna sound like Richard Marx.

Keep 'em coming, Scott! I always enjoy your stuff.

--Steve

So I guess I'll make the point you were next to. A Jethro Tull song will always sound like a Jethro Tull song. However, a song from Stand Up doesn't sound like a song from Benefit which doesn't sound like a song from Aqualung, which doesn't sound like a song from Heavy Horses...

Having a sound is a sign of a mature/maturing artist. Maintaining differences over time is a sign that the artist is not stagnating.

It is this stagnation that I am warning against. Some artists stagnate prematurely.