This is a little arrogant, don't you think? I'd like to know who has ever been so creative that they've come up with something entirely new? There is nothing completely original. Even the most creative and "smartest" of artists appropriates from past and current work by others. It's not a matter of not being "smart" enough, unless you mean in the sense that none of us ever attains cosmic, all-knowing intelligence.

Ivor Darreg was the last "super original" composer I was exposed to (someone along the lines of people like Harry Partch et al, who really made up a new system and had to make custom instruments to be able to make their compositions a reality), and even he seemed mostly obsessed with the concept of microtones. Great stuff, but I still listen to "unoriginal" rock and folk music a great deal more often. I'm really more concerned about sincerity and tasteful execution than anything. A nice amalgamation of disparate influences can be cool too, but not being "totally original" is a far cry from being blatantly and transparently derivative.
Hell, occasionally even derivative can hold my interest if it's pulled off with enough chutzpah. Case in point: The Brian Jonestown Massacre.

People from the past:
There was brilliant article about 'Stoopid'(as opposed to 'Stupid') music on The Wire a while ago.It said it better than all of you combined in one post.

I find "derivative" works far more interesting than any supposed attempt to be completely "new." How an artist derives from other sources, traditions, and makes it their own can result in fascinating work, I think. The magic is in the details of the hybrid.

Well, at least speaking for myself, that's just because I'm obvious and lazy. Obviously.

And I would hope a professional writer paid to write for The Wire would nail it better than a common simpleton like me.

I don't know, I don't think I know any musicians I know, or know of, are ever going to pull out something that is entirely original, or brilliantly innovative. The point is more that to be a musician, mostly, involves a suspension of the intellect. Like Drone says, it's more interesting to hear something sincere, or exciting, or in my case, big gay shiny fraudulent pop than it is to hear someone being 'clever' with their music.

A suspension of the intellect. This is silly psuedo-intellectual bullshit. Seriously, where do you get this stuff?

He's not the one who works for a University, you know.

Look, dude, I've apologised, I was out of line in that other thread, I'm genuinely sorry and didn't intend to hurt your feelings. If you're going to pursue this line though, I'm not going to be entirely happy myself. If you don't agree with my opinions, fine. That's wonderful, my opinions aren't terribly important. But 'pseudo-intellectual bullshit' is not a terribly nice thing to say. I know what I'm talking about. You don't have to agree, but to call me 'pseudo-intellectual' is just name-calling and unecessary mud-slinging.

I think all Glice was trying to say is that there are very few Throbbing Gristle/Devo/Sonic Youth-level "original" acts that are likely to crop up at any given time, because most musicians either have no originality or aren't interested in creating a brand new art form, and just want to rock out.

I think the phrase "suspension of intellect" is pretty apt when speaking of enjoying the music of bands like The Stooges or Blue Cheer, both of whom I love. That Randy Holden solo LP is pretty "stoopid," but it's also one of the most perfect heavy rock LPs I have ever heard. Not one second of wasted space on the whole thing.

Too bad, or at least he'd have an excuse, like I do! :)

I think the phrase is assuming a lot! That's all.

Ha!
I just meant I should think you'd be used to this sort of thing.

^ Oh, yes. Believe me, I am. Maybe that's why my b.s. meter might be a little senstive.