Can the melody of my music already exist before i created it?

[jancivil]

I want to respond again, I just don't know what to say.

Music is mimicry. A lot of art is mimicry.

It's no big deal if it's fun and you're good at it.

My remark as to mimicry is a mere observation. Which I make from my experience in/with classical music/musicians. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it per se. As I was replying to 'every single melody has already been done', now founded in some classical soloist's statements, I drew a contrast of someone I felt would state that belief vs someone better educated.

However music has to be more than mimicry. I said the more significant artist has done something deeper. Would you disagree?

[rockstar_not]

I have just started the Jazz Improvisation course at Berklee online through Coursera.org. The instructor is none other than Gary Burton, vibraphone extraordiaire.

In this first week's lesson, he makes an analogy between language and musical improvisation which I think actually will slot in nicely here in this conversation.

In language you have:

words
words in a correct order to make an understandable sentence
story/explanation

In music you have:

chords and notes
chord sequences that are pleasing to most listener's ear
melody development

These generalize to the following for language and music:

vocabulary
grammar
content

All the words that have been typed in this thread have pre-existed the thread. Some of the connections of words in sentences have pre-existed the thread as well. Perhaps even one or two of the sentences have pre-existed. Does this mean that the usage here was 'stolen'?

No.

Tell the listener a story with your words, sentences, and thematic development. We all stand on the shoulders of giants who also did the same.

So, yes in answer to the title of the thread - some of your melody ideas pre-existed YOUR thought of it? No worries unless you are blatantly copying, whether you realize it or not.

It was funny that Coldplay was mentioned. They absolutely copied Kraftwerk with one of the melodies on X&Y for the single "Talk" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_%28song%29 , and proudly professed their love for Kraftwerk in interviews and so forth. And then Joe Satriani, the guitar shredder, claimed that Coldplay nicked one of his melodies! http://www.musicradar.com/us/news/guita ... uit-220134

[jancivil]

:trollolololololololol:

Anyone miss this??? ^^^^

the user name of the OP was familiar to me so I wanted the room to have some backstory before they go too far trying to address his particular, uhm, question. as an overall thing, it becomes interesting to see people so ready to believe something ludicrous, on the order of 'every sentence you will ever write has already been written', mainly following that people with no knack for melody struggle coming up with melody like at all.

I didn't want to dignify it with any remark for days but here I'm prattling on.

[HaganeSteel]

I want to respond again, I just don't know what to say.

Music is mimicry. A lot of art is mimicry.

It's no big deal if it's fun and you're good at it.

My remark as to mimicry is a mere observation. Which I make from my experience in/with classical music/musicians. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it per se. As I was replying to 'every single melody has already been done', now founded in some classical soloist's statements, I drew a contrast of someone I felt would state that belief vs someone better educated.

However music has to be more than mimicry. I said the more significant artist has done something deeper. Would you disagree?

I'll be honest: I didn't read half of what you said. What I did read was totally asinine. Please don't take offense to that: I don't disagree with you. My original post was pretty much agreeing with you (and I'm saying you probably misunderstood me here).

Mimicry is a good thing.

I see a lot of people struggle for legitimacy with their music, myself included, and that's why I responded.

Legitimacy doesn't just come from what you do, it also comes from how others view what you do. If one of these is lacking, an artist will probably struggle for legitimacy.

You and I are in agreement. It's all about thinking, and learning, and that's essentially what you said. The learning goes two ways, though: Music inspires people and helps them think. We learn through making our music, and other people learn through listening to the music we make.

So that's why I said mimicry's a good thing. I write music that people like, and I write music that people like because I know it not only helps me, but also helps them in some way too. Being an artist is being a public servant. It really goes far and beyond being creative for me. That's the point I was trying to make.

Edit: Trying to be more clear.

[whyterabbyt]

:trollolololololololol:

now that's irony.

[Tricky-Loops]

Being an artist is being a public servant.

For me, an ARTIST is someone who swims against the (mainstream) tide. Only if you're a studio musician, you may be the servant.

[vurt]

im nobodys servant.
i go out oof my way to do things people dont like, helps avoid being asked to do gigs.

[HaganeSteel]

Being an artist is being a public servant.

For me, an ARTIST is someone who swims against the (mainstream) tide. Only if you're a studio musician, you may be the servant.

I think it can be argued that what you described is a nonconformist. Ain't nothin' wrong with that either. Arguments can be made in favor of being both.

I have no problems being a pop musician because if I can make a game soundtrack that makes kids go, "This is awesome", and inspires them to do stuff, then @#$% yeah, because that music moved me as a kid too.

I'd be half the man I am today without people like Nobuo Uematsu inspiring me with their music. Now I get to honor them through mine.

[vurt]

theres a real skill to emptying a room of 200 or so people.
bloody hard work if youre on late and theyre already drunkasfeck!

[thecontrolcentre]

theres a real skill to emptying a room of 200 or so people.
bloody hard work if youre on late and theyre already drunkasfeck!

Been there ...

[dark_virus]

:trollolololololololol:

You quoted my laugh out of context.

[Fraser M]

Every single melody in equal temperament was already written by the classical composers.

If we restrict a melody to 10 notes in length and each note can be one of the 7 pitches in a (diatonic) octave, there are 282,475,249 possible melodies. As soon as you allow for each note's length, slightly longer melodies or melodies over a range of more than one octave, basic statistics shows that there are literally trillions upon trillions of melodies that have yet to be written.

[planetearth]

I want to respond again, I just don't know what to say.

Music is mimicry. A lot of art is mimicry.

It's no big deal if it's fun and you're good at it.

My remark as to mimicry is a mere observation. Which I make from my experience in/with classical music/musicians. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it per se. As I was replying to 'every single melody has already been done', now founded in some classical soloist's statements, I drew a contrast of someone I felt would state that belief vs someone better educated.

However music has to be more than mimicry. I said the more significant artist has done something deeper. Would you disagree?

+1

[osiris]

[planetearth]

Being an artist is being a public servant.

For me, an ARTIST is someone who swims against the (mainstream) tide. Only if you're a studio musician, you may be the servant.

I think it can be argued that what you described is a nonconformist. Ain't nothin' wrong with that either. Arguments can be made in favor of being both.

I have no problems being a pop musician because if I can make a game soundtrack that makes kids go, "This is awesome", and inspires them to do stuff, then @#$% yeah, because that music moved me as a kid too.

I'd be half the man I am today without people like Nobuo Uematsu inspiring me with their music. Now I get to honor them through mine.

I believe that artists are public servants, in that they (dare I suggest "we"?) "serve the public" by holding a mirror up to it to remind it of its ideals...or, failing that, emotions.

And a true "artiste" can be a non-conformist, but I don't believe it's required. Many of us conform to things we'd rather not, if only to have the time and finances to create "art". We imagine ourselves to be John Lennon when we're probably closer to being John Q. Public.

And there's nothing wrong with that, either.

Steve