Follower or Leader?

[eduardo_b]

I totaly understand everyones views on this subject. I understand that to even be able to pick up a musical device, whether a Tuba or a computer one must first use sounds, chords, samples, melodies, and so on and so forth that its pretty much impossible to be 100% original, thats a given.

Would this same conversation be as likely if we were talking about painting? Amateurs and professionals alike paint seascapes, sunsets, still lifes despite how many tens of thousands of times they've been done. So originality can't be an issue, whereas style and interpretation can. There are really no leaders or followers unless one looks to the old masters for leadership. Obviously music is more abstract than art as a rule in terms of subject, but it wouldn't make sense to judge music's quality and aesthetic value on how "original" it might be.

[dirty oscillators]

I totaly understand everyones views on this subject. I understand that to even be able to pick up a musical device, whether a Tuba or a computer one must first use sounds, chords, samples, melodies, and so on and so forth that its pretty much impossible to be 100% original, thats a given.

Would this same conversation be as likely if we were talking about painting? Amateurs and professionals alike paint seascapes, sunsets, still lifes despite how many tens of thousands of times they've been done. So originality can't be an issue...

how can you compare a *STILL* painting with something that changes over time ---> MUSIC. apples to oranges man, and really you're just grasping for shit now...

[debra1rlo]

Originality is overrated.

So you think originality is over rated? to me, blowing off originally like it means nothing makes me think that you must have bad taste in music. no offense intended, but to me music that lakes originality overall is in the "bad taste" category.

I agree to a point, but I think the problem is, once again, where is the line drawn? For instance, I like the Beatles (but not one of my all time faves) and they get a lot of props for being "original" but their "original" sound has often borrowed heavily from other artists, Buddy Holly and Bob Dylan being two early examples. Of course, they managed a very original update/take on those artists ideas, but ultimately can be proved derivative.

Even in something as abstract as experimental music, it's not unlikely for a listener to equate it to something (wrongly? ) to their own scope of knowledge/comfort, even if that hadn't been the intent of the composer. So there's that too.

Yes, eduardo's comment is a bit on ridiculous side, but there is a certain underlying truth that there's a very limited amount of people doing something that could really be termed completely original, that is completely uninfluenced by some other source.

[eduardo_b]

Originality is overrated.

So you think originality is over rated? to me, blowing off originally like it means nothing makes me think that you must have bad taste in music. no offense intended, but to me music that lakes originality overall is in the "bad taste" category.

Okay...define originality. The majority of musicians are working in one or more genres, along with many others plus those who've come before. Few are truly original, but their work and playing can be quite good anyway. If the criterion is fundamentally about being original, a lot of these people who make a living in music and are considered talented would have to be categorized as being in the bad taste side because while making music enjoyed by many, they are not breaking new ground and thus will lack sufficient originality. I don't see that as a viable standard.

[dirty oscillators]

Originality is overrated.

So you think originality is over rated? to me, blowing off originally like it means nothing makes me think that you must have bad taste in music. no offense intended, but to me music that lakes originality overall is in the "bad taste" category.

I agree to a point, but I think the problem is, once again, where is the line drawn?

i don't draw the line, so how would i know?

but if i hear something that's original, somehow i know.

[dirty oscillators]

Originality is overrated.

So you think originality is over rated? to me, blowing off originally like it means nothing makes me think that you must have bad taste in music. no offense intended, but to me music that lakes originality overall is in the "bad taste" category.

Okay...define originality. The majority of musicians are working in one or more genres, along with many others plus those who've come before. Few are truly original, but their work and playing can be quite good anyway. If the criterion is fundamentally about being original, a lot of these people who make a living in music and are considered talented would have to be categorized as being in the bad taste side because while making music enjoyed by many, they are not breaking new ground and thus will lack sufficient originality. I don't see that as a viable standard.

my point was that you were comparing a still object we see to something we hear that changes over time. arrangement of something can contribute to originality.

[eduardo_b]

Yes, eduardo's comment is a bit on ridiculous side, but there is a certain underlying truth that there's a very limited amount of people doing something that could really be termed completely original, that is completely uninfluenced by some other source.

I didn't mean to imply originality was of no value. My point was that it only represents one of many criteria that we can use to judge, evaluate and enjoy music by. I don't think not being originators makes most musicians followers or untalented. So, to me, originality as a primary criterion is overrated.

[debra1rlo]

Originality is overrated.

So you think originality is over rated? to me, blowing off originally like it means nothing makes me think that you must have bad taste in music. no offense intended, but to me music that lakes originality overall is in the "bad taste" category.

I agree to a point, but I think the problem is, once again, where is the line drawn?

i don't draw the line, so how would i know?

but if i hear something that's original, somehow i know.

I'm just saying eduardo seems to be drawing a line in the sand where there is none. As a point of reference we both know, I would guess we'd both consider MBV as original. And even though you can acquaint rudiments of their sound to groups as diverse as the Beatles and Soinc Youth, it's like who cares? It's not like it blatantly screams rip off, it presents old ideas in a radically new way and that's probably the majority of what people feel is "original", that is, if I'm defining in quite the purists way like eduardo was.

[dirty oscillators]

Yes, eduardo's comment is a bit on ridiculous side, but there is a certain underlying truth that there's a very limited amount of people doing something that could really be termed completely original, that is completely uninfluenced by some other source.

I didn't mean to imply originality was of no value. My point was that it only represents one of many criteria that we can use to judge, evaluate and enjoy music by. I don't think not being originators makes most musicians followers or untalented. So, to me, originality as a primary criterion is overrated.

originally is not on the same level as say, the mastering quality of the track or who produced it. no - originally is up there as one of the most important characteristics of an "original" piece of work.

[serve]

I'm realy trying to finish this original cover of Boy Gorge's Karma Cameleon, but every second my iNerd goes "bing" and its this damn thread...

Listen, I'm not talking about those who want to understand techs, nor those who what to know what synth or mic was used on what. But more over the mass group that wont rest untill they can sound just like "X".

As for the reply that stated this quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

serve wrote:
and of course the random sh*t talker

what's your problem?

Whats your's? Did you stop there and not read the "God bless" you part?

Its a joke.Ha,ha, ha......

losen up!

And again thanks for everyones reply! Now back to my Vodka, which could be why I can never be original.......I'm too drunk to spend the time on it!

[eduardo_b]

I agree to a point, but I think the problem is, once again, where is the line drawn?

i don't draw the line, so how would i know?

but if i hear something that's original, somehow i know.

You mean original to you. But there can be many points of view on whether a work is original and if that even matters. It would make more sense to me if genres were viewed in terms of their originality compared to what we are already familiar with. But, then again, those genres may be quite familiar and even traditional to others.

[dirty oscillators]

I'm just saying eduardo seems to be drawing a line in the sand where there is none. As a point of reference we both know, I would guess we'd both consider MBV as original. And even though you can acquaint rudiments of their sound to groups as diverse as the Beatles and Soinc Youth, it's like who cares?

right on, i agree with everything you have said here.

[debra1rlo]

Yes, eduardo's comment is a bit on ridiculous side, but there is a certain underlying truth that there's a very limited amount of people doing something that could really be termed completely original, that is completely uninfluenced by some other source.

I didn't mean to imply originality was of no value. My point was that it only represents one of many criteria that we can use to judge, evaluate and enjoy music by. I don't think not being originators makes most musicians followers or untalented. So, to me, originality as a primary criterion is overrated.

I don't have a problem with something being somewhat derivative if it's done well. I get the sense when you listen to something you try to fit it into a box first before you give yourself a chance to enjoy it. I could be wrong.

[dirty oscillators]

I agree to a point, but I think the problem is, once again, where is the line drawn?

i don't draw the line, so how would i know?

but if i hear something that's original, somehow i know.

You mean original to you. But there can be many points of view on whether a work is original and if that even matters. It would make more sense to me if genres were viewed in terms of their originality compared to what we are already familiar with. But, then again, those genres may be quite familiar and even traditional to others.

we aren't talking about "original to just me" - we are talking about original overall, or in general, and i think that someone who listens to and has a desire (and *has* had a desire) to listen to as much music as possible has a good idea of what's original and innovative.

we're not talking about a listener who has lived in a cave all their life.

[eduardo_b]

I totaly understand everyones views on this subject. I understand that to even be able to pick up a musical device, whether a Tuba or a computer one must first use sounds, chords, samples, melodies, and so on and so forth that its pretty much impossible to be 100% original, thats a given.

Would this same conversation be as likely if we were talking about painting? Amateurs and professionals alike paint seascapes, sunsets, still lifes despite how many tens of thousands of times they've been done. So originality can't be an issue...

how can you compare a *STILL* painting with something that changes over time ---> MUSIC. apples to oranges man, and really you're just grasping for shit now...

You don't think the issue of originality in the arts is limited to music do you? It's absolutely not. Apples, oranges and pears. It still applies as a concept.