How important is originality?

I personally think a little originality in music nowadays won't do no harm... 

My thoughts on this (and on your post in general) are:

(1) I agree with you that no one really knows if something is original in the most literal sense of "original." Even if you could know everything released prior to something (and by the way, it's not at all difficult to have heard all top 100 albums on progarchives. Heck, I've owned over 15,000 "physical" albums in my life, and since I've switched to collecting digital files, I have a crapload more than that), anyway, even if you've heard everything released, that doesn't guarantee that what someone did is original. The artist could have lifted what they're doing from something that never got released. Maybe a friend or relative or the guy down the road had a band and the artist stole what they were doing. There's no way to know for sure that that's not the case.

(2) What I care about the most when it comes to music is two things: (I) craftsmanship, and (II) that it emotionally connects with me. Re (II), I'm primarily talking about unique aesthetic emotions, not emotions like happiness, sadness etc.

(3) (2)(I) can of course obtain even if someone is copying something note for note, so originality is irrelevant for that. Re (2)(II), however, relative novelty--relative to my experience, that is--can earn bonus points, and sometimes it's necessary if something is to connect with me emotionally at all. The reason for that necessity in those cases is that musicians can do something that I've heard so many thousands of times over the years that I'm numb to it. For example, someone playing straight-ahead, I, IV, V verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus, 4/4, pentatonic-melody rock tunes. They could do that with a tremendous amount of craftsmanship, but if there's nothing relatively novel about it to my ears, I'm almost guaranteed to not like it very much. Novelty isn't all there is to emotionally connecting with me, and it's not always necessary, but if the other elements that are necessary to connect with me are in place, novelty tends to earn bonus points. Relative novelty, of course, is different than originality.

(4) I also couldn't care less about another criterion you bring up that you say is important to you. Namely, the criterion I call "purism." What I mean by that is simply the expectation or demand that someone will produce work with particular stylistic or content features just because that's the sort of work they produced (in the same or a similar context) before. I have no requirement for that.

Edited by Terrapin Station - August 24 2016 at 09:29

SteveG wrote: Originally is overrated, as people are drawn to what they're familiar with.

^ for the benefit of those who have not followed my five-year mission to separate Pedro's Hollywood version of history from reality, (and to boldly go boldly where no boldly man has boldly gone boldly before)...The players:

Mozart lived from 1756 to 1791

Salieri lived from 1750 to 1825

Süssmayr lived from 1766 to 1803

Baroque - 1600 to 1750

very complex, loads of counterpoint, shed loads of polyphony, and more notes than you can shake a stick at, chromatic. It was also very rigid and formulaic with strict rules on format and composition.

Style Galant - 1720 to 1770

(return to) simplicity, no counterpoint, monophonic (one melody), not too many notes, diatonic. This was a relaxed, freer form of music that was an advance guard ('avant garde') reaction to Baroque and was pioneered by CPE Bach et al. It was seen as revolutionary at the time.

Classical - 1730 to 1820

slightly complex, some counterpoint, mainly homophonic (use of chords), quite a few notes, increased use of harmony, mainly diatonic. A progression of Style Galant that re-introduced form and structure into music (JC Bach and others).

Romantic - 1780 to 1910

moderately complex, some counterpoint, polyphonic, quite a few notes, loads of harmony, increased use of chromatacism. It essentially added romance and emotion into Classical, it also got a hell of a lot bigger in every respect - more instruments, longer pieces, more individual movements. Where Baroque's use of chromaticism was a consequence of the scales and modes used, Romaticism used added accidentals to diatonic scales to create emotional shifts and expression in the music.

Mozart's Requiem - 1791 to 1792 to ????  (i.e., finished after Mozart's death by Süssmayr, then again by other later composers)

• Salieri wasn't mediocre, he was a respected composer in his own right.
• Salieri didn't hate Mozart, nor was he jealous of him, in Mozart's final years they were best buds: they travelled to the premier of The Magic Flute in the same carriage and after Mozart's death Salieri gave music lessons to Mozart's son. He also staged performances of Mozart's music.
• Salieri didn't dress up as Mozart's father to commission the Requiem - Mozart knew exactly who commissioned him and had an actuary witnessed legal contract for it.
• Mozart didn't die poor, it was common practice to be buried in a simple grave due to land shortages in Vienna at the time but it was not a pauper's grave as the film suggests. He was paid handsomely for the many works he completed in 1791 (including The Magic Flute and received an advance payment for the unfinished Requiem).
• Mozart didn't dictate the Requiem score Salieri. Mozart may have dictated some notes to Süssmayr but many were written in his own hand.
• Mozart's operas Marriage of Figaro and Don Giovanni were not box-office flops.
• No one ever said "Too many notes".

Edited by Dean - August 25 2016 at 06:26

^ yeah, I've tried that several time to no avail, but feel free to have a go yourself

Dean wrote: Dispelling The Myths:       Mozart didn't die poor, it was common practice to be buried in a simple grave due to land shortages in Vienna at the time but it was not a pauper's grave as the film suggests. He was paid handsomely for the many works he completed in 1791 (including The Magic Flute and received an advance payment for the unfinished Requiem). Mozart didn't dictate the Requiem score Salieri. Mozart may have dictated some notes to Süssmayr but many were written in his own hand. Mozart's operas Marriage of Figaro and Don Giovanni were not box-office flops. No one ever said "Too many notes".

This is excellent bio of Mozart and Salieri , as well as the relevant music and it's characteristics. But you didn't comment on one important point: Did Mozart really like toilet humor and fart jokes?   

SteveG wrote: Dean wrote: Dispelling The Myths:       Mozart didn't die poor, it was common practice to be buried in a simple grave due to land shortages in Vienna at the time but it was not a pauper's grave as the film suggests. He was paid handsomely for the many works he completed in 1791 (including The Magic Flute and received an advance payment for the unfinished Requiem). Mozart didn't dictate the Requiem score Salieri. Mozart may have dictated some notes to Süssmayr but many were written in his own hand. Mozart's operas Marriage of Figaro and Don Giovanni were not box-office flops. No one ever said "Too many notes".     This is excellent bio of Mozart and Salieri , as well as the relevant music and it's characteristics. But you didn't comment on one important point: Did Mozart really like toilet humor and fart jokes?

If you're refusing "different" without even trying it (although how would you know that it's different vs fresh without listening to it?) then you are potentially missing out on some good music.

paganinio wrote: I love fresh music. But I don't like different music. If there's a new album out in 2016, I'm most certainly gonna be listening to it. But if this new album is trying to do something different, that I have never heard this kind of music before, then I will refuse to listen to it.

Yeah I too have spent far too much time with metal friends of mine sporting that very same attitude towards music...and it always leaves me with a somewhat acrid taste in my mouth.