Sining/Art is highly subjective. It's only standard is Beauty, and Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Originality is also a standard but not a requirement. Most Art developed through the process of imitation and gradual change.
At first, the Artist will have to imitate the Master's work. As time goes on the Artists evolved in his craft, including technique and taste. Eventually, the Artist finds his place on his Art, and becomes Honest.
When an Honest Artist exposes his work, it does not necessarily have to be original. That work might have been done before. Original or not, if that is what's beautiful for the Artist, then he has achieved Art.
The context of OP's question is whether the common practice of Pinoys imitating what's hip in the US is to be considered Art, I'd say it would depend on whoever is appreciating the Music. But, as what previous posts here have indicated, WE HAVE NOTHING ORIGINAL HISTORICALLY WISE TO BEGIN WITH.
Of course there are a few, limited among small tribes here and there. But, would anybody appreciate them, aside from ethnologists and a small number of ethnic music lovers? Even our so-called ethnic music is a mixture from other culture, particularly Africa and India (and, hayyy, US pa rin).
So, to answer the question in respect to the context it was posted: Music, like any form of Art, never required originality, but has beauty as its sole yardstick. On the other hand, Originality, itself, is agnostic of beauty, but it can be considered an Art to produce something original (as well as to imitate). Therefore, it swings both ways. My 2 cents.
