I thought of other titles for this, such as "Originality is a Myth" or "You Are Not and Probably Never Will Be Original", but I want to avoid the idea that this is some sort of personal confrontation. This isn't a knock. I'm not saying that anyone is inferior for not being original - rather, what I want to get across is that originality, true objective originality, is rarer than hen's teeth and as far as music goes, may well be unattainable in this modern era.
Consider:
The composition 4'33" by John Cage directs the player to play no notes; it can be thought of as a composition of silence, though in actuality there is the sound of the environment in which the piece is performed.
At about the same time, Karlheinz Stockhausen came up with Gesang der Jünglinge im Feuerofen, containing harsh electronic sounds and noise (along with the voice of a boy soprano).
Also about this time, William S. Burroughs and Brion Gysin were experimenting with "cut-ups", including audio recordings on tape, where they would rearrange spoken word recordings for surreal effect. All this was happening before rock and roll got its name.
With that in mind, think of any type of music you like, any strange style, any wacky genre you care to name, and whatever it is, there is something that it derives from. Once you have conceived of noise, silence, and radical rearrangement as valid forms of music, there's precious little space left to play in that hasn't been done before. Do you like glitch electronica? Electronic sounds are common and buffer repeats can be thought of as very tiny cut-ups. Does microtonal work interest you? This is also not new. Harsh "noise music" as a genre has been around for decades, but was preceded by classical and academic composers working with abstract sounds. If you have a grasp of the wide historical scope of the music that has come before, it becomes harder and harder to think of anything that hasn't already been discovered. Glitch is only relatively more recently made commonplace by the availability of more powerful computing tools, but even that has been around for a while in some of the works of, say, John Oswald and his Plunderphonics.
And this leaves aside the question of popular music of various stripes, which by its very nature is constrained within particular structures. Nirvana may be credited with starting the "grunge" style of music, but grunge is merely a blending of punk stylings with heavy 70s riff-rock. Punk itself was a reversion to simplicity and raw energy, in opposition to disco and complex, "progressive" music. Even basic rock music is a cobbling of other musical styles into something different - for its time - that eventually became the root of much of today's commercial music industry. All the musicians and bands we think of as unique and iconic did not arise fully formed out of nothing but their own genius.
All this is a long way of saying that originality, true originality where something is entirely new and has never existed before in any way, is virtually unattainable. I submit that nobody reading these words - including me, for what it's worth - is capable of that sort of originality. I mean, if you are - if you can truly invent a type of music that hasn't already been done in some way, then do so, and secure yourself a place in music history. But realistically, the best any one of us can hope for in that regard is to work in styles that are uncommon and unusual - to orbit close to originality, even if we never truly reach it.
Since we (very probably) can't achieve originality, it makes sense not to worry about it. The Residents once put this sentence in the liner notes to an album: "[this musical concept] is nothing new either, but at least every stupid band in the civilized word isn't doing it, which gives The Residents some dubious claim to fame." You can't be unique, but you might be able to be uncommon, or at least unusual.
Don't stress about "originality".
-
platzangst
- Posts: 731
- Joined: 16 Jan 2015
We can only twist things around. But words like "original artist" is not literary meant, it can only be relative wording. As you say, it is quite impossible! Unless one may come from another planet and surprise with a totally different view of life. But so much with music, culture and life in a whole is about references. We all navigate through life with references, that is how our brains work. With zero memory, one might come up with something totally unique, but if one do not even remember the last note or sound, it might be experienced as nothing we would call music at all, maybe noise or a random arrange of sounds. We could call anything in nature for music, depending on our interpretation of what could be called music.
Here is a video I watched just before I read your post. Some try their best to be original, or at least different, while some of these just happen naturally while they combine their own thing ending up into something few others do or sound. But today, with even the weirdest things revealed online, even if I may force myself to do something out of this world, surely, some other have already done something similar. I think one need to be humble and honest, because these are not the days where one can have an gigantic ego, pretending to be extraordinary original and special. But just by being honest and curious, taking in impressions as well as following some crazy ideas that may pop up, we can not help but being unique in the little nuances. I mean, even if one tries hard to imitate another, it will still be influenced by ones own colors. Some of the "you sound unique" artists etc, are often afterwards explaining that they wanted to sound like this or that, but it ended up into something that sounded different.
So, we all see some extraordinary good imitators on TV and shows, folks who are so exact that it is scary. And they can live on that kind of imitations. Myself, I am soooo bad at imitation, however I try, I will just sound odd or colored by my lack of perfect pitch when it comes to "follow". If imitation is the thing, I am terrible. So, it is better to accept that and try to make best of what quirks I have. One good thing is that I dont have to worry too much about sounding too much like anybody else, even when taking lots of impression from concerts etc. But, yes, I do wish I could choose to be good at imitation as well as being my own.
But I think that either way, one have to do the best of what one has got. Some are almost better or more convincing when doing another artist songs, but then they have really hard tim doing something fully of their own style. It sounds good, but not unique.
I can not say what is better than the other, it is just what it is, we have different talents or quirks and better do our best with that.
Here is a video I watched just before I read your post. Some try their best to be original, or at least different, while some of these just happen naturally while they combine their own thing ending up into something few others do or sound. But today, with even the weirdest things revealed online, even if I may force myself to do something out of this world, surely, some other have already done something similar. I think one need to be humble and honest, because these are not the days where one can have an gigantic ego, pretending to be extraordinary original and special. But just by being honest and curious, taking in impressions as well as following some crazy ideas that may pop up, we can not help but being unique in the little nuances. I mean, even if one tries hard to imitate another, it will still be influenced by ones own colors. Some of the "you sound unique" artists etc, are often afterwards explaining that they wanted to sound like this or that, but it ended up into something that sounded different.
So, we all see some extraordinary good imitators on TV and shows, folks who are so exact that it is scary. And they can live on that kind of imitations. Myself, I am soooo bad at imitation, however I try, I will just sound odd or colored by my lack of perfect pitch when it comes to "follow". If imitation is the thing, I am terrible. So, it is better to accept that and try to make best of what quirks I have. One good thing is that I dont have to worry too much about sounding too much like anybody else, even when taking lots of impression from concerts etc. But, yes, I do wish I could choose to be good at imitation as well as being my own.
But I think that either way, one have to do the best of what one has got. Some are almost better or more convincing when doing another artist songs, but then they have really hard tim doing something fully of their own style. It sounds good, but not unique.
I can not say what is better than the other, it is just what it is, we have different talents or quirks and better do our best with that.
help bring me down ive fallen out the top all i need is status qoo
Reason 12 ,gear4 music sdp3 stage piano .nektar gxp 88,behringer umc1800 .line6 spider4 30
hear scince reason 2.5
hear scince reason 2.5
So true in many ways. For a while there was a true evolution which created new genres, although it was at first derivative of what came before it. From the African-American slave songs came the Blues. From that saw the rise of blues-based rock which changed the face of western music as we know it. Oddly by British artists in the '60's. From that, 'heavy' rock was born. Bands like Black Sabbath would have been incredibly 'original' for their time, as they broke away from what the other British rock giants were doing, and this as likely the first real 'split' for western rock. Then we started to see more splits from the Blues, or Blues-Rock when it returned to the USA and spawned the proto-punk bands such as MC5 & The Stooges, which then ended up back in Britain (& Ireland) with the likes of the Clash, the Pistols & the Stiff Little Fingers.
We then saw some of those elements take into the electronic realm. One great example I can cite would be the Prodigy. To this day, I consider them a punk band. It takes all the loud, last & angry elements of 'punk' and re-imagined the genre to become something of their own. We might even say they were the forefathers of what would become hard EDM, where electronic music can be aggressive, rather than soppy, limp synth pads
A friend of mine has the theory that as more time goes on, it becomes less likely that you'll have an 'original' sound since everything will have been done before. This is generally in the context of hard rock, and I tend to agree with him.
I think examples of originality is best found in progressive rock/metal. Now before all you synth guys & girls groan when you hear the terms rock & metal, consider this. How about using the approach of these bands, and utilize it into your electronic music ? It opens up a whole new world of possibilities with your compositions. Or spend some time listening to music from other cultures, and incorporate that into your music, as a hybrid of 'east meets west' or whatever.
For me, one of the most innovative artists of the late 20th Century in popular music has been Tool. They took heavy rock, added elements of freeform jazz (not that you would ever thing 'oh yea, Tool are jazz' haha), and evolved to create their own signature vibe. But that's limiting too - their latest album, after a 13 year hiatus, still holds those elements, but it's still Tool. It's been done before... by them. They have become a parody of themselves.
But I believe there is plenty of material to provide inspiration for the modern artist if they spend a few months listening to a hundred 'prog rock' songs from bands of the 70's, and try adding some of those elements to your own tunes, with your own instrumentation.
We then saw some of those elements take into the electronic realm. One great example I can cite would be the Prodigy. To this day, I consider them a punk band. It takes all the loud, last & angry elements of 'punk' and re-imagined the genre to become something of their own. We might even say they were the forefathers of what would become hard EDM, where electronic music can be aggressive, rather than soppy, limp synth pads
A friend of mine has the theory that as more time goes on, it becomes less likely that you'll have an 'original' sound since everything will have been done before. This is generally in the context of hard rock, and I tend to agree with him.
I think examples of originality is best found in progressive rock/metal. Now before all you synth guys & girls groan when you hear the terms rock & metal, consider this. How about using the approach of these bands, and utilize it into your electronic music ? It opens up a whole new world of possibilities with your compositions. Or spend some time listening to music from other cultures, and incorporate that into your music, as a hybrid of 'east meets west' or whatever.
For me, one of the most innovative artists of the late 20th Century in popular music has been Tool. They took heavy rock, added elements of freeform jazz (not that you would ever thing 'oh yea, Tool are jazz' haha), and evolved to create their own signature vibe. But that's limiting too - their latest album, after a 13 year hiatus, still holds those elements, but it's still Tool. It's been done before... by them. They have become a parody of themselves.
But I believe there is plenty of material to provide inspiration for the modern artist if they spend a few months listening to a hundred 'prog rock' songs from bands of the 70's, and try adding some of those elements to your own tunes, with your own instrumentation.
Originallity imho is an illusion our brains like to tell ourselfs to feel less dependent on past influences then we actually are.
in the end everything is a remix (even our very existance, just like the Kopimist faith belives).
https://vimeo.com/kirbyferguson/remix2015#t=827s
in the end everything is a remix (even our very existance, just like the Kopimist faith belives).
https://vimeo.com/kirbyferguson/remix2015#t=827s
It does not matter if it's an illusion. It is a mass illusion, so it attracts listeners and boosts popularity and sales.
As for extending the concept to us living creatures, I think that's a grave mistake. Even a simple object is not just a sum of its properties. Whatever Samsara mаy take our qualities and resurrect them later, they are not what we are, rather clothes we have chosen or inherited. If I could perfectly simulate someone else and act exactly as they did, that would still be a fake and I would still remain myself.
We're going off on a tangent here, but try to follow me on this: A brain is basically just a structured neural network that's processing signals from the sensory hardware of the body (eyes, ears, skin, nose, etc.). If that signal feed was sufficiently well emulated could the brain know the difference?orthodox wrote: ↑05 Jan 2020It does not matter if it's an illusion. It is a mass illusion, so it attracts listeners and boosts popularity and sales.
As for extending the concept to us living creatures, I think that's a grave mistake. Even a simple object is not just a sum of its properties. Whatever Samsara mаy take our qualities and resurrect them later, they are not what we are, rather clothes we have chosen or inherited. If I could perfectly simulate someone else and act exactly as they did, that would still be a fake and I would still remain myself.
couldn’t disagree more with the idea that some people aren’t original. everyone is unique, and everything they ever create of their own will have their imprint on it, no matter how close it is to something that already exists. everyone is original. no two people will ever write the same piece of music in exactly the same way.
the only difference is what we strive for. do you strive to push yourself away from what’s come before? or do you strive to fit into an existing musical narrative? either is perfectly acceptable, and both should be celebrated. the act of creating something, even if it’s intentionally similar to something else, enriches the individual, and that in turn enriches the world around them, even if no one else ever hears it.
except Nickelback. f%** those guys.
the only difference is what we strive for. do you strive to push yourself away from what’s come before? or do you strive to fit into an existing musical narrative? either is perfectly acceptable, and both should be celebrated. the act of creating something, even if it’s intentionally similar to something else, enriches the individual, and that in turn enriches the world around them, even if no one else ever hears it.
except Nickelback. f%** those guys.
It may or may not know.jam-s wrote: ↑05 Jan 2020We're going off on a tangent here, but try to follow me on this: A brain is basically just a structured neural network that's processing signals from the sensory hardware of the body (eyes, ears, skin, nose, etc.). If that signal feed was sufficiently well emulated could the brain know the difference?
First, I can't accept the model you propose, especially when you make conclusions based on it. An auto mechanic looks at a living organism and says 'I know how it works'. He feeds a mouse gasoline and when it runs two yards and falls, he says 'It ran out of gas'. A scientist tries to apply what he deems universal nature laws, which he has derived from observing lifeless matter. He knows that a living body consists of molecules, yet he cannot reproduce even the emergence of protein, let alone organic life. This is an area of unprovable, as not many experiments can be set up that yield repeated results. You may come up with models, but their relevance cannot be proven.
I don't know if my perception is based on the sensory hardware. I can't claim there is a sixth sense, still I can't deny it.
Second, the brain may not tell the difference, but it doesn't mean there isn't any. It may be revealed later, or by other means.
-
platzangst
- Posts: 731
- Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Yes and no.guitfnky wrote: ↑05 Jan 2020couldn’t disagree more with the idea that some people aren’t original. everyone is unique, and everything they ever create of their own will have their imprint on it, no matter how close it is to something that already exists. everyone is original. no two people will ever write the same piece of music in exactly the same way.
Look at it this way: Everyone who still has fingerprints (they disappear eventually with age) has a unique pattern in those fingerprints, no two are alike, yadda yadda and so forth.
But everyone knows what a finger looks like. We know what fat fingers look like, skinny fingers, young and old, most of us have probably seen fingers that have been injured or even amputated. The finger, unless dramatically deformed or mutated, holds no surprises for us. Each fingerprint may be unique, but few if any fingers are original.
Having started out in the world of underground cassette traders back in the 90s, having made music in a variety of obscure styles, I can say with some confidence that I don't really sound like a lot of other musicians. Whether that's good or not is debatable; I've certainly never had much if any kind of fame or following.
But can I call myself original, in a musical sense? Not really. Audio collage was well established before I ever started doing it, electronic music was almost passe by the time I had enough resources to pull it off myself.
I tend to use the word "original" as related to its root - origin - that is to say, the source, or first. You can design a unique car - but you aren't the original inventor of automobiles. We may all be unique, but we are not all original - those are somewhat different concepts.
-
platzangst
- Posts: 731
- Joined: 16 Jan 2015
okay, that makes sense. I misunderstood, and you’re right, I shouldn’t have been using the two terms interchangeably. there’s a reason they’re separate words.platzangst wrote: ↑06 Jan 2020Yes and no.guitfnky wrote: ↑05 Jan 2020couldn’t disagree more with the idea that some people aren’t original. everyone is unique, and everything they ever create of their own will have their imprint on it, no matter how close it is to something that already exists. everyone is original. no two people will ever write the same piece of music in exactly the same way.
Look at it this way: Everyone who still has fingerprints (they disappear eventually with age) has a unique pattern in those fingerprints, no two are alike, yadda yadda and so forth.
But everyone knows what a finger looks like. We know what fat fingers look like, skinny fingers, young and old, most of us have probably seen fingers that have been injured or even amputated. The finger, unless dramatically deformed or mutated, holds no surprises for us. Each fingerprint may be unique, but few if any fingers are original.
Having started out in the world of underground cassette traders back in the 90s, having made music in a variety of obscure styles, I can say with some confidence that I don't really sound like a lot of other musicians. Whether that's good or not is debatable; I've certainly never had much if any kind of fame or following.
But can I call myself original, in a musical sense? Not really. Audio collage was well established before I ever started doing it, electronic music was almost passe by the time I had enough resources to pull it off myself.
I tend to use the word "original" as related to its root - origin - that is to say, the source, or first. You can design a unique car - but you aren't the original inventor of automobiles. We may all be unique, but we are not all original - those are somewhat different concepts.
-
cocoazenith
- Posts: 131
- Joined: 31 May 2015
I've always found that people who say that originality does not exist and that nothing new can be created
have given up or are just to incompetent to create something original. I to went thru such a phase but quickly
recovered from it and realised I was just being lazy. Not work-lazy but brain-lazy, though-lazy, introspective-lazy.
Originality is the nuance that the individual brings to the spectrum, but it is not by any means a myth.
You just have to have a trained eye to spot the different nuances.
For the sake of conversation let's replace it with "personality".
When I was in school there were three types of kids in class. Those who used an indigo paper to copy a drawing that was underneath, those that replicated it by looking at it and those that just drew it from their memory. These are three types of personalities and they each grow up as different adults.
Unfortunately in the 21th century INSPIRATION has become synonimous with blatant PLAGIARISM.
Blogs, websites filled with pictures from other artists call themselves inspiration hubs, yet there is nothing inspirational about scrolling daily like a hog in a pig farm mentally eating people's work.
True inspiration is your daily life, the garden in the front of your house, the holiday to that temple you've been wanting to visit in Egypt, the fascinating accent of some local dialect from southern Italy, digging through Discogs music that nobody has heard of.
But it's true that you do need to have a certain personality do be able to be fascinated about these things.
I find that most of all one word is synonimous with creativity and that is CURIOSITY. Pure unadultered, childish curiosity.
If you stop using Google, Soundcloud, Spotify and stop looking for "inspiration" (things to copy) you will probably improve your creative endeavours. I do agree that we are bombarded with other people's information all the time and that might sabotage your own train of thought but you have to be more disciplined and restrained with how you want to consume other's work.
I also believe in originality as a phenomenon. That is why sometimes the phenomenology of music is more important
than the theory.
Edit:
I find your approach about originality to be too scientific. Your explanation could be ended with the conclusion that a robot can replace humans. Yet, originality is not about what a robot can do. It's fundamentally linked to human flaws, human emotions, human suffering, hope, love, hate and dreams.
have given up or are just to incompetent to create something original. I to went thru such a phase but quickly
recovered from it and realised I was just being lazy. Not work-lazy but brain-lazy, though-lazy, introspective-lazy.
Originality is the nuance that the individual brings to the spectrum, but it is not by any means a myth.
You just have to have a trained eye to spot the different nuances.
For the sake of conversation let's replace it with "personality".
When I was in school there were three types of kids in class. Those who used an indigo paper to copy a drawing that was underneath, those that replicated it by looking at it and those that just drew it from their memory. These are three types of personalities and they each grow up as different adults.
Unfortunately in the 21th century INSPIRATION has become synonimous with blatant PLAGIARISM.
Blogs, websites filled with pictures from other artists call themselves inspiration hubs, yet there is nothing inspirational about scrolling daily like a hog in a pig farm mentally eating people's work.
True inspiration is your daily life, the garden in the front of your house, the holiday to that temple you've been wanting to visit in Egypt, the fascinating accent of some local dialect from southern Italy, digging through Discogs music that nobody has heard of.
But it's true that you do need to have a certain personality do be able to be fascinated about these things.
I find that most of all one word is synonimous with creativity and that is CURIOSITY. Pure unadultered, childish curiosity.
If you stop using Google, Soundcloud, Spotify and stop looking for "inspiration" (things to copy) you will probably improve your creative endeavours. I do agree that we are bombarded with other people's information all the time and that might sabotage your own train of thought but you have to be more disciplined and restrained with how you want to consume other's work.
I also believe in originality as a phenomenon. That is why sometimes the phenomenology of music is more important
than the theory.
Edit:
I find your approach about originality to be too scientific. Your explanation could be ended with the conclusion that a robot can replace humans. Yet, originality is not about what a robot can do. It's fundamentally linked to human flaws, human emotions, human suffering, hope, love, hate and dreams.
-
cocoazenith
- Posts: 131
- Joined: 31 May 2015
Someone here said something about "except if you'd be from another planet". This is statement is key actually.
From another planet can also mean having the innocence of a child, don't you agree? For a child is like a recently arrived alien.
Originality in modernity has been linked with a sort of primordial innocence. Picasso himself said that he's spent all of his life to be able to paint like a child.
John Cage on the contrary is not what I would call a person with a primordial sense of awe for the world. He is a true proponent of cynicism in an era that was run by cynical philosophy. The act of doing 4'33" is not an act of creation but an act of giving up on music, and consequently giving up on life itself.
If we want to exagerate we can thus conclude that originality is an individual pre-requisite for sustaining one own's life.
From another planet can also mean having the innocence of a child, don't you agree? For a child is like a recently arrived alien.
Originality in modernity has been linked with a sort of primordial innocence. Picasso himself said that he's spent all of his life to be able to paint like a child.
John Cage on the contrary is not what I would call a person with a primordial sense of awe for the world. He is a true proponent of cynicism in an era that was run by cynical philosophy. The act of doing 4'33" is not an act of creation but an act of giving up on music, and consequently giving up on life itself.
If we want to exagerate we can thus conclude that originality is an individual pre-requisite for sustaining one own's life.
-
platzangst
- Posts: 731
- Joined: 16 Jan 2015
I don't believe your statement to be true at all, in fact or in philosophy. If anything, quite the opposite.cocoazenith wrote: ↑06 Jan 2020
John Cage on the contrary is not what I would call a person with a primordial sense of awe for the world. He is a true proponent of cynicism in an era that was run by cynical philosophy. The act of doing 4'33" is not an act of creation but an act of giving up on music, and consequently giving up on life itself.
If Freddie Mercury and Frank Zappa had a common long lost cousin...in a parallel universe. -
platzangst
- Posts: 731
- Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Or in a comedian's mind.
To expand a bit on what I said before: If you make some sounds you like, and then ask yourself whether what you're doing has been done by someone else before - it has. It doesn't matter. It will still sound like you, because it's you doing it.
If your goal is to make something "original", you will self-censor your art into oblivion before it ever takes its first breath.
Your goal must only be to make art that you like. For me that tends to mean making stuff that makes me laugh and feel good; maybe for you it means making stuff that expresses the darkness beautifully, or any other thing.
If the only instrument was an old saucepan and a wooden spoon to hit it with, and a thousand people before you had already pushed the saucepan-spoon to every corner of genre and virtuosity - that doesn't matter. If you think about them, you'll never pick up the saucepan. But you must pick it up, because it's fun, it'll enrich you, and nobody else will ever have hit that saucepan the way you do.
We're all just playing the old spoon and saucepan. Get right into it.
If your goal is to make something "original", you will self-censor your art into oblivion before it ever takes its first breath.
Your goal must only be to make art that you like. For me that tends to mean making stuff that makes me laugh and feel good; maybe for you it means making stuff that expresses the darkness beautifully, or any other thing.
If the only instrument was an old saucepan and a wooden spoon to hit it with, and a thousand people before you had already pushed the saucepan-spoon to every corner of genre and virtuosity - that doesn't matter. If you think about them, you'll never pick up the saucepan. But you must pick it up, because it's fun, it'll enrich you, and nobody else will ever have hit that saucepan the way you do.
We're all just playing the old spoon and saucepan. Get right into it.
Well, we are many who are masters on semitone drifting...but then came Autotune...and bam! Do you believe in love after love...
The euro disco kind of use of Auto Tune then went into the hip hop rap producers hands...and here we are. Next up comes remastered remix releases of all the back catalogue...all with Auto Tune. Bob Dylan with it, Beatles, Neil Young, Nirvana, Johnny Cash, Queen, you name it. And then add some rap in between and an edm drop and fake metal riffs, and off course replace the original drums with 4 beat kick. Did I forget to say that the remix DJ from Ibiza also will shift male to female and vice versa through the Formant filter. And if the song is slow, speed it up, and if it is already uptempo, make it crawl. What would the genre be called?
The euro disco kind of use of Auto Tune then went into the hip hop rap producers hands...and here we are. Next up comes remastered remix releases of all the back catalogue...all with Auto Tune. Bob Dylan with it, Beatles, Neil Young, Nirvana, Johnny Cash, Queen, you name it. And then add some rap in between and an edm drop and fake metal riffs, and off course replace the original drums with 4 beat kick. Did I forget to say that the remix DJ from Ibiza also will shift male to female and vice versa through the Formant filter. And if the song is slow, speed it up, and if it is already uptempo, make it crawl. What would the genre be called?
-
platzangst
- Posts: 731
- Joined: 16 Jan 2015
1979:
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
Share and download patches!
Join ReasonTalk on Slack!