Follower or Leader?

[eduardo_b]

I wonder if the terms original and copy carry significance from early in childhood, when doing schoolwork and being admonished to not copy but do one's own work. Copying is hardly a crime against creativity, but perhaps the negative connotation lingers on. Copying is also linked to imitating, as if one is taking credit for the creativity of someone else. There's a lot of psychological baggage attached to these words, and maybe that contributes to the opinions being expressed about them. As if originality is the only legitimate form of art.

what about sampling? do you think that because a hip hop artist samples a record from the 60's that their music doesn't have originality?

what do you mean when you say original and copy? you talk about things in such a generalistic way... unless a band is doing a cover, there is never going to be a song that completely copies another.

What I mean is, how does someone perceive something being original as opposed to not. Is a song or work that isn't perceived as being original really the work of others simply appropriated by the musician, and thus less worthy of interest or value? I don't know. I'm wondering if it seems like copying someone else's work and thus lacking originality. That might matter to some people. It doesn't to me. If I like the music, I really don't care about any of this.

[dirty oscillators]

something i don't completely understand - how does one "analyze" art? as in Lunatique saying earlier today he sits down and analyzes ambient music. if i hear something that "moves me", it's sometimes an inexplicable thing. it's a feeling or an emotion that you can't quantify. this is the sort of thing that contributes to originality. the end result of how a piece of music makes you feel. if you only say that the quantifiable parts are which determine the originality you are only listening (or just analyzing) on a certain level. to me, quantifying music or art, takes the emotion out. but it also makes it easier to say that it's hard to make something sound different.

[debra1rlo]

how does one "analyze" art?

You pretend you're doing something different than other people when you're listening?

[eduardo_b]

Originality is overrated.

It may also actually be quite original, but I have no way of determining that.

So originality is overrated, yet, you just admit that you sometimes don't have a way of determining if something is really original. Interesting.

Meaning, it doesn't matter. Therefore, it's overrated. No contradiction. In other words, it's not a criterion for me. It obviously is for some, but I don't think most people rank originality as a must-have with music they like -- or even think of it.

things are so cut and dry as you try to make out. especially when talking about "art" or "originality"...

I didn't say they are cut and dry. You seem to be actively working to make a mountain out of what is hardly even a mole hill. Without an agreed upon perspective on what originality is, it's not likely we'll have similar points of view about where it fits into the artistic process and listener/viewer experience. How about you doing the work and presenting your thesis on originality in the arts. Then I can take your role.

[debra1rlo]

How about you doing the work and presenting your thesis on originality in the arts

I didn't realize we were going to have to write a paper now because of this thread. I'm so out of here once I graduate.

[eduardo_b]

what about sampling? do you think that because a hip hop artist samples a record from the 60's that their music doesn't have originality?

Sorry, missed this part.

It depends, I suppose, on -- once again -- the definition of originality. Some people think using loops and samples is a level below actually creating them. Personally, I have no issue with their use. Whether it's original or not is not an issue for me, so I don't apply it.

[captain caveman]

Really, I have never met or read anyone who I thought actually understood music as a whole.

Whilst not wanting to sound like a republican, is that to mean that to understand music as a whole means you need to molly-coddle everything and appreciate it for its one-ness with its greater self?

Making music isn't applied physics - I should know because I studied it at uni for a time before my 2nd rebellion kicked in* - or chemistry or mathematics.... its making ear-drums vibrate in a pleasurable and recognisable way to the mind when they're deciphered. There can be atonal characteristics derived from incorporating prime numbers that are used to make a 257 minute piece and that is all well and good. Does it make anyones hairs on the back of their necks stand up? I don't know.


* I used to be in a hardcore techno band that was a lot noisier than any noise stuff I've heard and love all great music - no matter what the style - which by the law of diminishing return is few and far between.

(IMO )

[Fructose]

If you are getting fed up of the "how do I threads" then I'd like to know exactly who is forcing you to read them?

People learn by emulation. When you learn an instrument, be it a piano, a guitar, whatever, how many people learn by never listening to and emulating what others have done before them?
Which is most efficient - trying to teach yourself the piano by hitting things at random and experimenting and hoping you'll create something original?. Or alternatively, listen to what others before you have done, learn it, and the techniques and the background and the music theory. Then when you have a foundation you can create.

So which is more efficient?

So no reason why the same principle can't apply to other things too - sound design, production techniques, composition. Learn by emulation, then once you've learned you can create and experiment and stretch if you have the ability and the inclination. Maybe some people ask how do I questions not because they want to emulate but they are curious and realise you never ever stop learning.

As for myself I dislike dance music (I'm into creating things like Robert Rich etc.) however I am curious about the techniques they use, techniques I will never use such as side chained compression trigger from a kick, yet I still want to know how its done, and the best way to do that is by asking or reading past how do I type questions.

[debra1rlo]

what about sampling? do you think that because a hip hop artist samples a record from the 60's that their music doesn't have originality?

Sorry, missed this part.

It depends, I suppose, on -- once again -- the definition of originality. Some people think using loops and samples is a level below actually creating them. Personally, I have no issue with their use. Whether it's original or not is not an issue for me, so I don't apply it.

You might feel different once you've heard Kid Rock's (OK well anything by Kid Rock) All Summer Long, a song that so blatantly samples and rips off both Warren Zevon's Werewolves of London and Lynyrd Skynyrd's Sweet Home Alabama that it actually sends the corpses of both men spinning and vomiting violently in their caskets each time the song is played on the radio. True story.

[tetraplan]

Did I have a definition of originality in mind when I said it's overrated? Not really.

...Which renders the entire argument meaningless.

Groet, Erik

[dirty oscillators]

Originality is overrated.

It may also actually be quite original, but I have no way of determining that.

So originality is overrated, yet, you just admit that you sometimes don't have a way of determining if something is really original. Interesting.

Meaning, it doesn't matter. Therefore, it's overrated. No contradiction. In other words, it's not a criterion for me. It obviously is for some, but I don't think most people rank originality as a must-have with music they like -- or even think of it.

things are not so cut and dry as you try to make out. especially when talking about "art" or "originality"...

I didn't say they are cut and dry. You seem to be actively working to make a mountain out of what is hardly even a mole hill. Without an agreed upon perspective on what originality is, it's not likely we'll have similar points of view about where it fits into the artistic process and listener/viewer experience. How about you doing the work and presenting your thesis on originality in the arts. Then I can take your role.

you don't have to be condescending to me.

you're the one who made the blanket statement about your view of originality in a way that inferred it was the absolute truth for everyone and have been relentlessly posting and replying for the last 20 pages.

btw, i edited my quote since you took out the "not".

[vurt]

no, you did miss the "not"

[eduardo_b]

something i don't completely understand - how does one "analyze" art? as in Lunatique saying earlier today he sits down and analyzes ambient music. if i hear something that "moves me", it's sometimes an inexplicable thing. it's a feeling or an emotion that you can't quantify. this is the sort of thing that contributes to originality. the end result of how a piece of music makes you feel. if you only say that the quantifiable parts are which determine the originality you are only listening (or just analyzing) on a certain level. to me, quantifying music or art, takes the emotion out. but it also makes it easier to say that it's hard to make something sound different.

I have seen herodotus analyze music over in the Music Theory forum, and I agree that it diminishes the emotional focus of the art, but it does add another dimension to music. Art historians do this with paintings, explaining the techniques and borrowing/originality by artists, separate and apart from the emotional qualities.

You're absolutely right about the emotional connection to art. It seems like the reason for art to exist at all.

[dirty oscillators]

no, you did miss the "not"

argh.. too much going on at work and trying to write on here at the same time...

[dirty oscillators]

love your new sig btw Vurt...