Follower or Leader?

[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...

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.

TIME... don't you get it? i even put asterisks around the word "still" and you still didn't get it.

[Chuck E. Jesus]

dirty o, you got way more patience than me...it's a losing battle...

[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.

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) 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 live.

I understand that. But many people actually like certain kinds of music -- music that sounds similar but by different artists. That's the rational behind Pandora. If you liked that, you may like this. I see a desire for new, but not necessarily innovative or original, music among typical listeners. Some people have very broad taste, but many stick to what they know and like...and can easily be put off by a favorite artist heading off into new territory. Looking at people's CD collections can be quite revealing.

[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.

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.

Actually I try to sample a lot of new music, and find that even if it's the umpteenth female vocalist playing piano (is that a category or genre? ), I still like and buy at least some of it. Actually, over the last decade or two I've come to prefer female artists because many, but not necessarily all, seem to choose good material or write quality music. I don't think originality ever comes into my reasons for choosing what I do -- whereas voice, lyrics, style matter very much.

[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.

TIME... don't you get it? i even put asterisks around the word "still" and you still didn't get it.

I saw that but don't think it's particularly relevant to originality. Does the running time of films determine their originality? I don't see how it could.

[dirty oscillators]

I saw that but don't think it's particularly relevant to originality. Does the running time of films determine their originality? I don't see how it could.

no, the running time doesn't determine originality and you should know that. but are you telling me that art over time, or performance art, should be judged on the same level as still art, or a painting?

[dirty oscillators]

I understand that. But many people actually like certain kinds of music -- music that sounds similar but by different artists. That's the rational behind Pandora. If you liked that, you may like this. I see a desire for new, but not necessarily innovative or original, music among typical listeners. Some people have very broad taste, but many stick to what they know and like...and can easily be put off by a favorite artist heading off into new territory. Looking at people's CD collections can be quite revealing.

what you're talking about is marketing, not art.

[dirty oscillators]

Looking at people's CD collections can be quite revealing.

not as revealing as the music they might make. btw, any links to music that you've made or produced?

[eduardo_b]

I saw that but don't think it's particularly relevant to originality. Does the running time of films determine their originality? I don't see how it could.

no, the running time doesn't determine originality and you should know that. but are you telling me that art over time, or performance art, should be judged on the same level as still art, or a painting?

I'm just not seeing the concept of originality in any of the arts being all that different. At the same time, borrowing and reusing in the arts is typical and common. How many books, films, songs and so on are truly innovative as opposed to simply well done, moving, inspiring or whatever without being an artistic break-through? Of course, I recognize that each medium is unique unto itself, but the concept of true originality remains consistent I think. In each case I could be quite satisfied by works that are obviously not new in concept but executed very well.

How many guitar bands are out there. Are many creating new works of obvious originality or reusing existing music to recreate more music? I don't find myself judging their music on the basis of how innovative it is because I don't need that to find much of value. It seems you do, but I wonder...do you really dismiss most works simply because they don't exhibit distinct innovation or originality? That wouldn't leave much, I don't think.

[eduardo_b]

I understand that. But many people actually like certain kinds of music -- music that sounds similar but by different artists. That's the rational behind Pandora. If you liked that, you may like this. I see a desire for new, but not necessarily innovative or original, music among typical listeners. Some people have very broad taste, but many stick to what they know and like...and can easily be put off by a favorite artist heading off into new territory. Looking at people's CD collections can be quite revealing.

what you're talking about is marketing, not art.

Then music isn't art when people like certain genres? Not following you here. Are you saying true art is always innovative, and that which is not is also not truly art?

[eduardo_b]

Looking at people's CD collections can be quite revealing.

not as revealing as the music they might make. btw, any links to music that you've made or produced?

Not true. The music people make says little about what kinds of music they like and what specifically they like within any category or type of music. I'm betting they often make music within their abilities as opposed to what they listen to.

[koolkeys]

I'm kind of with you on that one(edit- this is an answer to not the post above mine, but the next one up). I mean, who really is to judge what is "art" and what isn't? If a songwriter pours their heart into a song, putting together a melody that just happens to grab the attention of enough people to sell millions of records, but the song just happens to share similar sounds to something else on the radio, how is that not art still? I'm not sure where marketing comes into that anywhere.

On a related note(or maybe not so related?), I find it strange how many people here are big supporters of "art". But only the art that is made like THEIR art. Much of the time, this means that anything mainstream isn't "real" art, or anything that isn't 100% original isn't "real" art. I've seen people criticize those who use tools like Masterwriter to help write lyrics, but these same people will throw an arpeggiator onto a single chord being held down for 4 minutes and call it a "part". This is just an example, but who's place is it to really judge what is, and isn't art?

Mainstream stuff, even when it sounds like other stuff on the radio, can be just as much art as any other musical piece. Suggesting that anyone here really has the grounds to say it is NOT art is just odd to me.

Brent

[Sascha Franck]

I for one like being "unoriginal". A) It results in jobs, b) I also like to "sound as great as XYZ".
I do as well like to add a little of my own flavour. But I'm not looking for originality in the first place. As long as I like stuff, I'm happy. And being unoriginal doesn't make me like stuff any less. Props to those striving for originality, though (I'll borrow from you later), it's just not my thing.

- Sascha

[eduardo_b]

I'm kind of with you on that one(edit- this is an answer to not the post above mine, but the next one up). I mean, who really is to judge what is "art" and what isn't? If a songwriter pours their heart into a song, putting together a melody that just happens to grab the attention of enough people to sell millions of records, but the song just happens to share similar sounds to something else on the radio, how is that not art still? I'm not sure where marketing comes into that anywhere.

It's that commercial thing...you know, if it's popular and makes money, is it really art or just swill consumed by the masses. I see the names of bands in threads that haven't sold more than a few thousand records in their career and are virtually unknown outside the circle of worshippers, but those who are successful in the mass market are accused catering to the unsophisticated consumers of whatever the record companies put out there. I have no idea what this is actually about.

On a related note(or maybe not so related?), I find it strange how many people here are big supporters of "art". But only the art that is made like THEIR art. Much of the time, this means that anything mainstream isn't "real" art, or anything that isn't 100% original isn't "real" art. I've seen people criticize those who use tools like Masterwriter to help write lyrics, but these same people will throw an arpeggiator onto a single chord being held down for 4 minutes and call it a "part". This is just an example, but who's place is it to really judge what is, and isn't art?

There is that cache of obscurity...the anti-commercial, anti-populist thing, with only bands few have heard of being true artists. That gets combined with the art for art's sake, not selling out thing. Not that these same people could actually create any of these commercially successful examples of non-art. The antagonism about commercial music being considered art is simply odd...and somewhat elitist it seems.

Mainstream stuff, even when it sounds like other stuff on the radio, can be just as much art as any other musical piece. Suggesting that anyone here really has the grounds to say it is NOT art is just odd to me.

Well, there is that disdain thing. I once mentioned I thought Lily Allen was doing some interesting stuff and the derision about how crap she was from people who don't have anything close to her talent was quite amazing. I still get remarks about it. They're welcome to their opinion, but that's all it is...opinion, not fact. So it becomes an indictment of the person who listens as well as of the person who makes the music. It can't be art because it doesn't have their seal of approval. The more popular the person is, the louder the disdain. Whatever. I've never let the opinions of others influence what I like. And, yes, it is art.

[Klemperer]

Props to those striving for originality, though (I'll borrow from you later), it's just not my thing.

- Sascha

Nice out of at least two reasons. First, you know that there still is originality (something postmodern university declined for 20 years now, and they were wrong). Secondly, because everybody borrows or lets him or her inspire from nice ideas before you or me. Which seems to make everyone who wants to be, or is not ONLY imitating, someone who creates nice things. I sometimes have to laugh about all those ego monsters striving for "being da genius".

off topic: the crash of 2008/09 is in big parts due to too many people thinking they were "a" in your poll. Sadly enough those who didn't "care for the masses" did not make music, but had their orgasms from being a slimy, cold people burning money from others, while they were (and are) incredibly rich.