Too Derivative

[Aleatoriac]

Someone once said "Don't try to be original, just try to be musical" or something like that with regards to composition.

That's great and all, and I understand the point. Sometimes I want to make something that is recognizable as music. Most times, in fact. My problem is... nearly every time I think I've composed something that is truly my own, I realize I've pretty much lifted it from something else. For example, I love Joe Satriani, truly; but I don't want him to sue me because I used a sus4 chord and then resolved it to a major. Know what I mean?

So I've been messing around with all my toys I've bought over the decades. And to this day, I still cannot make something that is still recognizably music that is not completely derivative of other works.

How do you make a chord progression, for example, "your own" while still making it "music" within the... well I was going to say confines, but I guess I really mean within the loosely sketched adumbrative outlines of music theory. Yeah.

















Cuz I'm horny too.

[Ogg Vorbis]

If you were able to come up with something totally and completely original, it would be impossible to grasp. It would use absolutely no conventions and relate in no way to any other music before. Therefore no one could relate to it.

So without ripping someone off blatantly, I'd suggest don't worry about being too "original" (as if that is a valuable thing anyway).

Your music will inevitably be yours. So you probably don't have to think about it, individuality will result. If you are just starting out in making music, your individual voice will develop over time. Everyone will begin with being influenced by what they've heard somewhere else. I believe that this is a good thing.

Self consciousness kills good music and good sex.

[Foxwolfen]

There is more to music than notes.

[Doug1978-OLD]

True originality is unattainable, but individuality is within easy reach.

[psenior]

This is a very valid question, one I struggle with myself at times. Even when I start to get clever and creative with harmony and start playing chords that don't have names, I still end up hearing someone else such as Herbie Hancock or Kenny Barron who has already been there and done that.

The way I make a chord progression my own is by making whatever chord substitutions and using whatever chord voicings I think will get the desired physical or emotional responses from the listener in the audience at that moment. I don't consider chord changes to be written in stone; they're flexible.

I am happy if I can create music that sounds good to me personally. If other people happen to like it, then that's even better. If I wrote a song that made a bunch of money and was sued by Joe Satriani because I copied from him, I'd be estatic!

[robogone]

I notice you posted it in 'Music Theory'. Maybe that's the problem you have - you're analyzing too much.

If I spent all my time trying to work out chord progressions I'd never get anything done. Most of the time I just play something and see where it goes. If it sounds familiar in any way I can change key, or throw a really odd chord in, or change the rhythm, or anything really - just see where it goes.

[jancivil]

I think the idea of originality is quite valid.

there is a point of, one's never heard music of any kind and is in a sort of solipsistic dream world and detached from every one and every thing, which can't be very desirable.


the thing is, is your thinking derivative? do you lean on the conventional wisdom in preference to really thinking about as many ramifications of the thing itself? is your comfort level exceeded when you reject authoritative statements? are you worried about seeming like an abject jerk when you don't go along with the rest of the people's views?


when you get to a point in your tastes where you're not that easily satisfied, you are getting to a somewhat original point of view. when you get to where, according to this, taste, that you are making music for your own tastes, and they're not exactly the same as your neighbor's, you're getting towards originality.

it's NOT FOR EVERYONE. not at all.

[Musicologo]

What is your purpose when you make music? Just do whatever it takes to please you. If you achieve an outcome that satisfies yourself you're in the right track. What's the point of making anything just for the sake of it? Take some pleasure and profit. Originality comes after that. When you do something so well that only you can do it. And something that people listen and say "look, this is really X, only X could do it! ".

[eduardo_b]

I notice you posted it in 'Music Theory'. Maybe that's the problem you have - you're analyzing too much.

Although, I can see that in seeking to discern what sets true originality (in his terms) apart from "copying" others, he would turn to analysis of music theory to look for answers. There's a fear of copying (or perceived copying) that drives the need for originality to extremes for some people.

[eduardo_b]

when you get to a point in your tastes where you're not that easily satisfied, you are getting to a somewhat original point of view.

And yet, one could be unsatisfied not by a lack of originality but by common mediocrity and musical clichés. To be original doesn't automatically result in quality, craftsmanship or excellence. Even the creator could dislike his or her own original work if it's most obvious quality is only originality.

[jancivil]

I didn't imagine actually that to discuss originality addressed anything one way or other as to 'quality of craftsmanship'.

To be honest, in context of these two statements ('a fear of copying drives some to extremes') and your professed preferences insofar as I have seen, one might infer that you're not real comfortable with things outside a certain purview of common currency and acceptability. So the topic gets to be 'Not derivative enough?'


I will counter to say that to excel in craft doesn't necessarily even address any issue of quality in music. If you're making a table, fine, craft is most if not all of it. To be satisfied with 'everyone says I did a good job' is all well and good, and for many if not most people that's enough. The OP has a question, 'too derivative?' which I addressed (and your post seems to seek to naysay that). If your thinking about objects, if your thinking about a subject is based largely upon general consensus, you've derived it from external sources. Your music if you should make any, is going to hew to that level of thought, it might get to be 'too' derivative.

Personally I'll copy some things, steal some things, parody (in both the homage sort of way and to have fun with something) some things and use convention and tradition to my own purpose. A fear of copying is something that can happen to someone kind of early on in the process of finding one's own voice (or not). A fear of mediocrity might intersect with that, or might not at all. The idea is to find a personal confidence about the kind of choices one makes in an art work. There are levels of this, some might find they just can't get past the idea of, "man, only 20 people out of maybe 10,000 have the slightest idea what I tried to do here, I better get back", some have more personal confidence than that at some point.

As far as craft, there are many things which meet most people's idea of craft and are still utterly mediocre. As far as quality, there are many things which a hundred million people think is the best, which aren't good really, in terms of a whole lot of things.

It's a choice, do you make music for yourself first or does what the general public likes figure into it as a primary impetus. Because: "The general public voted for Hitler and like Coldplay"...

[jancivil]

QUESTION:

What is your purpose when you make music?

ANSWER:

making it just for the sake of it!

[eduardo_b]

A fear of copying is something that can happen to someone kind of early on in the process of finding one's own voice (or not). A fear of mediocrity might intersect with that, or might not at all. The idea is to find a personal confidence about the kind of choices one makes in an art work.

I certainly agree with this, my point being that concern with being derivative could get in the way of other creative assets and possibilities that matter more. To completely avoid the possibility of having one's efforts classified as derivative is not much of a goal to my mind. It's more a fear, and one that comes from very early on, when copying someone else's work receives stern reprimands and worse. Any creative endeavor that centers on not copying -- whatever that might actually mean -- is that much less likely to succeed artistically. As you note, confidence in one's self is important, making it easier to dismiss those who point to other works as proof of a lack of one's originality -- being derivative thus the same as being unoriginal, and we know where that leads.

I have no problem with artistic work outside the box, so to speak, but I don't think being outside the box itself makes any work better unless there are many elements contributing to the effort besides simply being outside the box. I don't have a habit of concerning myself with how derivative or original something is. I like or don't like it for itself.