[phoenix]

of course it does. It is one of the things that differentiates human beings from other species.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by cars_willkillyou

I dont think there has ever been an "original" thought in the history of mankind. Everything is just a manipulation of an already pre-existing idea.

Im sorry if it offends, but that is the most ridiculous thing to say. You've just described having an original thought. Taking a current concept you understand or a process you follow, and modifying it in a unique way to come up with a new concept or process..

Every original idea comes from attempting to problem solve, so it must come from somewhere.. that doesn't mean the end result is not an original one.

sigh.

[[Sandbag]]

it does exist, i guess... but this term it's pretty much related to particular opinions. like Mondrian's Composition with Yellow, Blue, and Red.
some people think it's original, some think 'anyone could do that and its original', others think 'anyone could do that and its not original', and others think its shit.
originality, good music, etc.. all do exist but they're all opinions. yes, art is subjective.

well. thats only my opinion anyway anyway :P

[Rob Instigator]

th thought "anyone can do that" in relation to any creativ4e endeavor is stupid and wrong and moronic.
the point is NONE did that until modrian/pollock/etc.
anyone can do anything. it is a pointless argument by pointless people.
what matters is the people who DID do something.

originality exists and appears every day all day every day.
just ebcause humans use something from the past as the starting point for creativity does not negate the pure originality of their new idea.

[atsonicpark]

Originality existed at some point, as evidenced by Beefheart, Sun City Girls, Thinking Fellers, Xenakis, Throbbing Gristle (who I'm not even really a fan of!), Caroliner, The Residents, Harry Partch, Glenn Branca, and a few others. Sure, those artists weren't "original" 100% of the time, but they did reinvent music in some way.

In the world we live in in 2009, with the INFINITE disposal to us of instruments, effects, recording programs, VST plugins... there's really no reason any two bands should sound much alike at all. And I do see and hear somewhat original bands every now and then but none strike me as much as some of the artists I listed above.. and those are the artists that will stand the test of time, even if no one gives a fuck about them right now.

[Rob Instigator]

what about the beefheart/zappa confluence?

[[Sandbag]]

the 'i could do that' was an example of someone saying something is not original.. common from my friends towards my noise listening habits. heh

but theres no originality in nature. its just a bloody human concept tied to every human mind tied to every human particular opinions.

[Rob Instigator]

every new mutation in nature is ORIGINALITY. every new living creature is original as a whole.

(edit) I figured that the 'anyone could do that" was not coming from ya!

[atsonicpark]

thinking about it, not deeply at all, for about 5 seconds.. all the really original, interesting music I've heard nowadays is either coming from Japan or the deep, dark underground in America and elsewhere... usually kids in their bedrooms who don't have formal training.

I used to try to make original music and I think I succeeded, now I just play boring drone bullshit. And in a few years of playing unoriginal drone, I've had a million times more success than 10 years attempting to make creative, unique music. So, yeah. Even if you are original, I don't think that means people want to listen to you!...

So, originality exists, yes; do most people concern themselves with seeking it out? No.

[Rob Instigator]

every bit of erosion create s a wholly original landscape. every single day evcery coastline in the world is new and original due to tidal forces and erosion, and the wave action.

every second of every day nearly everything is different in some way than it was anytime in the past.

the entire universe is awash in originality and we humans do no see the forest for the trees,

[[Sandbag]]

actually thats a fair way to see it. and maybe, letting aside opinions, the search for originality is the engine of human evolution (or at least in art)...

[fugazifan]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

Originality existed at some point, as evidenced by Beefheart, Sun City Girls, Thinking Fellers, Xenakis, Throbbing Gristle (who I'm not even really a fan of!), Caroliner, Harry Partch, Glenn Branca, and a few others. Sure, those artists weren't "original" 100% of the time, but they did reinvent music in some way.

as much as im a fan of some of those bands i dont think i'd say that they "reinvented music".
the SCG's were never really about reinventing anything, but were a chameleon band that could play ANYTHING. but im not sure if they reinvented music. at least not anymore than the residents and fugs did a few years before.
and branca defiantly didnt. at least not with most of the symphnies of his that im familiar with. as much as i like him, he is basically treading on familiar water that wagner and mahler did, but with guitars, and not as clever.
i mean my favorite thing of his is the 1st movement of his 1st symphony and all that is is lots of guitars going up and down a triad.
but i guess its how you look at it.
im pretty sure that the last person who reinvented music 100% was shoenberg, and everything since has been modulations of that (though im not even sure that i agree with myself)

[Rob Instigator]

and schoenberg got his ass reamed for doing so, and still gets shit to this day.

people bemoan the lack of originality but when originality arrives they instantly shit on it because it confuses them.

[atsonicpark]

I've heard SCG play stuff that sounds like no other band ever. I mean, I have well over 100 albums by them, so I can say that pretty safely. They're definitely original, even though the bulk of their material is loose jazz stuff or exploring the music of the middle East.

You don't find Branca's oddly-tuned, oddly-strung guitar symphonies of noise original? Sure, the compositional techniques aren't original but even today there's no one that sounds like him... well, except Rhys and Sonic Youth, of course, but they're very closely associated to what Branca was doing.

...

Also, I think in time, Harry Partch will be looked at as one of the most important musicians of our generation.

[fugazifan]

i just think that there is a difference between original and reinventing music. it could just be semantics, but it reminds me of a fascinating article that i recently read by leonard myer called style and music or something like that. he talks about style in different periods and how composition is limited by different restraints on different levels.
there are laws
rules
and
strategies

rules are the general musical rules of an era that dont change (our era rules are a basic freee for all experimentation) and strategies are the way to make unique compositions. like bach and mozart had the same basic rules, but their strategies were completely different.
when i say branca didnt reinvent music i guess i mean that he uses the same rules that were already at his disposal and simply found new strategies to work within the constrains, whether they were conscious or subconscious.
that is different from schoenberg who completely changed the rules (even if the new rule was based off the old one)

hope whatever i said makes sense. its an interesting article to read.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

You don't find Branca's oddly-tuned, oddly-strung guitar symphonies of noise original?

The thing is, the originality is in the structure. If you make an alto sax to play artificial harmonics in the soprano register, but they're playing standards, the alterations in inappropriate timbre don't make the music original, they make the player a virtuoso. Branca might use tunings that the guitar doesn't naturally sit in, but that doesn't immediately change the fact that, at the music-on-paper level, there really isn't much of a composer to Branca.

I will say though, what Branca does to the timbre, and volume, of his not-very-exciting structures is innovative. Within the context of rock music, Branca is definitely original but in the context of composition in general he can't touch, say, Dumitrescu or Murail.

10p.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by fugazifan

i just think that there is a difference between original and reinventing music. it could just be semantics, but it reminds me of a fascinating article that i recently read by leonard myer called style and music or something like that. he talks about style in different periods and how composition is limited by different restraints on different levels.
there are laws
rules
and
strategies

rules are the general musical rules of an era that dont change (our era rules are a basic freee for all experimentation) and strategies are the way to make unique compositions. like bach and mozart had the same basic rules, but their strategies were completely different.
when i say branca didnt reinvent music i guess i mean that he uses the same rules that were already at his disposal and simply found new strategies to work within the constrains, whether they were conscious or subconscious.
that is different from schoenberg who completely changed the rules (even if the new rule was based off the old one)

hope whatever i said makes sense. its an interesting article to read.

please link?????

[fugazifan]

i tried to email it top you. let me know if it worked

[Rob Instigator]

worked like a charm.
Thanks so much my man.


no matter what people say about this forum, it is chock full of the best people.
and they all love music.

[narlus]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Which is to say that I like Mike Watt's definition of originality in saying "The only thing new is you finding out about something." This does not simply apply to the artist but also to the inexperienced listener who listens to, say, a Beach Boys album and is blown away. Personal discovery is the only original act.

that's a great quote.