Let me preface this post by saying:
I know folks are going to read this post and say it's all over the map, but sometimes you have to go branch out and go deeper, especially as the subject of music is no small subject to tackle - even if it's just one aspect (ie: theory/composition/arranging/production, etc.)
Moving on ...
After reading Kallie and Danny's responses, which I agree with, I also agree with it as looking at it from a individual/societal perspective.
Everybody's heard the contradicting statements when comparing to people (mainly women but men, too) - especially when wanting friends or potential mates
"S/he's so hot, but dumber than a box of rocks!"
"S/he ain't much to look at, but she can run circles around Einstein!"
Which person do I ask out?
As someone said earlier, if every artist had meaningful songs, then listening to music (the lyrics part) would be no fun at all, but tunes that are meant to be about having fun aren't meaningful. Yet, I find it absurdly ironic how folks find unnecessary underlining meanings to things that aren't pushed in there faces, but ignore them when they are put in their faces.
Like I've always said when it comes to movies: People pick out what they wanna pick out, no matter what you put in front of them. ie: There could be a slew of deep messages within an extremely violent movie, but it's repulsed just because it was violent. (The Saw Franchise for example).
Do you see what I'm talking about?
Same goes regarding the classical (and all periods) vs. contemporary music. The former is sophisticated and says something every time you hear it, just like a thought-provoking movie (Inception). Then, you've got the modern bubble-gum pop akin to a comedy (Baby Mama).
I guess you see that everything isn't for everybody; however, you also see how creators (not just music) can use the term uniqueness - which, I too, don't like because again, nor everybody nor does everyone want to be all of those artists that Danny mentioned. They are in a class all by themselves and while it's nice to be influenced by them, don't lose sight of who you are either. "Don't give up what makes you, you" as said in a Anti-drug commercial just to impress people.
As I argued (politely with Jeff though), I can understand how and why some things need to be "dumbed down." However, that in and of itself, has a very bad connotation. (I'm a gamer, so I hear this alot). Again, just remember that - everything is not for everybody - which is why production companies/artists/products get a ton of flack for the dumbing down -- er, streamlining -- because they try to be everything to and for everybody. (This includes the company this forum is tied to. No offense, Bakers)
I'm all for trying "to get a broader audience" and do know that sacrifices must be made - even though I might not like it; however, you really are shooting yourself in the foot if you try to appeal/appease everybody and everybody includes more than the audiences to listen to said genres.
Remember Tolkken, who wrote her first adult book? That was pretty much panned as the "Mrs. Hobbit" moniker won't wear-off any time soon; however, seemingly adults didn't like this book either. Having said this, you can't instantly jump out the box -- you can, but most people take gradual changes with a smile - moreso than abrupt one. There's nothing wrong with experimenting and in Tolkken's case, she may have a successful adult book or books one day.
So, perhaps the term one should use is different, but it would seem that people are afraid of that word and it's on so many different levels. What I want to know is why; yet, why is everyone trying to so hard to be something you're afraid of being (and not just for the hell of it?) The conscious effort Kallie mentioned above.
Is it
indifference, perhaps? (This is what breeds dislike/hate) That's on a much deeper level than what is being discussed here, but do you see the similarities?
In terms the recipe - well, there's no one recipe because you'd get the "trite/ripoff" comments I mentioned in my previous post responding to the OP However, I wonder if that's the spiteful way of saying - influence (and I can make the distinction between both terms).
I still say that it's all about identification. One does not have to be off in the wilderness away from civilization to be identified; some visible clue while skimming the crowd can lead to identification as well. It'll be somewhat harder, but it can as has been done. (Where's Waldo,anybody?)
You have to be able to fit in before you can stand out or if you can't fit in, make it so you do stand out, then perhaps you might fit in.
Notice how artists are molded in they get into the music business! Then, after years of scrapping knees and breaking bones, they become their own person (assuming they broke away from mgmt.). That's why you hear things like "manufactured artist," etc; however, that is not the artist. That is the company they work for.
"My house My rules! You don't like it, move out!" or when they become of age, they boast how they can and will move out. It's unfortunate that people part ways on bad terms, but it happens.
But again, as it is still a matter of opinion if someone is manufactured or genuine, it's all about who you as the artist can identify with and how you identify yourself - most notably of and with yourself, first and foremost.
I've said many times that I arrange moreso than composing from scratch because that's who I am. I identify with that and so do the people around me. I've done original pieces before, but have ended up dissatisfied because that's not me! Be who you are!
Same with music although what comes through one's voice, instruments, writing utensils, speakers in an extension of the person who sings, plays, writes and listens to. She's going to be who she wants and you let her tell you - don't tell her, Suggest? Yes! Demand? Most certainly not!
I happen to identify with her and she with me despite disagreements, but how boring would this "marriage" be if there were none. Even, literally the best marriages work when both are one, but have the individual identities as well.
That is how outsiders "identify" a happy marriage (among other clues) - even if everything plus the kitchen sink says otherwise! They most certainly can tell and unhappy one, especially if you don't hide it well!
Again, identification, identification, identification!!
I think this is the reason the term unique is used because it's very hard to identify oneself - especially, when it comes to the arts & entertainment.
Music having tons of genres and subgenres and the cross-pollination or movies/tv shows/video games/books, etc. having bits and pieces of other genres within them although they fall under one general category. Maybe it's that we need to get away from categorization. It's wonderful as it helps organization, but as noted with the fusing, categorization becomes more and more convoluted. In fact, it has been for quite some time.
So, you can see why the uber-generic term, "unique" is used although I agree that it has next to nil meaning, but so have alot of other terms in the English language (but that is most certainly another topic of discussion). I don't disagree with Danny who says that such a term means "a lesser endowed talent," in one sense, but how often have we heard when an artist is asked about their sound:
"It's a mix of this and that!" or when composition/arranging/production say that no album should be one where every song sounds the same nor should they sound like they're all of the place. Of course, to the physical ear, no album should ever be; however, an "unorganized album" is a way to identify someone, especially if they release tidy albums later.
"Hey, I remember the clusterbucks you made of the last three albums, but these last four sound so much better!"
As you see with the above sentence, you can be identified by things that are or aren't well-received, but here's a question: Would you rather go unnoticed because even BTS people get noticed, they just don't get all the attention the people infrony of the camera or onstage do! I'm a BTS person myself and I don't want recognition either, but I won't necessarily decline the gesture if I do get recognition because it just means I identified with somebody in some way; however, I might because the real reward was me connecting with somebody.