How important is originality?

Dean wrote: Is this directed at me? I don't recall saying anything like that.

It was for Friday 13th, who had posted just prior to that post. He suggested a thought experiment involving putting a note-for-note "Close to the Edge" right after a note-for-note Beethoven's 9th.

Dean wrote: When you think of the bazillions of songs written around the three-chord trick or based on 12-bar blues, and while they perhaps don't appeal to us erudite elitists,

Woah, leave me out of that. I love blues, blues rock, boogie rock, etc., and I'm not at all an elitist.

there is still a high degree of originality within what can be done with such a restricted set of rules

Right. And not to make this discussion too philosophical, but I'm what's called a "nominalist" philosophically. Nominalists believe that there are only unique particulars. So even when we're talking about two copies of a Close to the Edge CD, they're not actually identical. Of course, people composing 12 bar blues tunes aren't doing anything nearly as similar as two copies of a Close to the Edge CD. And an important part of listening to and understanding music in my opinion is being able to hear subtleties/nuances, which blues, blues rock, boogie rock, etc. are full of, as is all music.

paganinio wrote:  One of the things I hear about frequently and disagree with the most, is that "progressive rock (or any type of music for that matter) is better if it's original". This is just wrong. Of course it's a subjective matter and everyone can have their opinion. But, the thing is, I have never heard anyone say "originality doesn't mean anything". It's like being original is always a good thing, which is just not true at all. So I feel that somebody needs to say it.

Originality is crucial; if you are apeing someone who came before, but doing nothing different, then there's no real point to publishing "new" music. Just for example, the worst-conceived covers of a classic tune try to at least add something unique or personal (ie original ) -- or why even bother?

Admittedly, the definition of "original" may be in question.  But if you are Rob Reed, doing an Oldfield or Genesis knockoff with new/different melodies, yet contriving ways of reproducing old sounds (Mellotron) with new technology, then you're possibly being inventive -- still, however,  not terribly original artistically speaking

I would make the grand, sweeping statement that music made in a progressive context (metal, rock, folk, whatever) is not truly progressive without some sort of personal stamp on it, unique to the artist in question....

However, that would probably reduce the neo-prog genre to about a tenth its present size


Edited by CapnBearbossa - September 07 2016 at 11:22

mechanicalflattery wrote: CapnBearbossa wrote: However, that would probably reduce the neo-prog genre to about a tenth its present size A TENTH?! .... .... WAY too optimistic there

Yeah, probably more like a hundredth, and that's allowing for Marillion's categorization as neo-prog (which I don't entirely agree with, principally on terms of their long evinced originality).

Someone famous, I don't remember who, said "There's nothing new under the sun."  I'm not a musician, but I think that new instruments and new musical technology can push music forward.  However, it seems like the notes/chords/harmonies have already been discovered.  Music now is a matter of combining them in interesting ways.  However, I think that's what "progressive" means when it's applied to music - combining elements in different and interesting ways.

Terrapin Station wrote: Who here who is both a songwriter/composer and a big music fan, who has been at it for many years, hasn't occasionally written something, or had a band member write something, where only sometime later you realized "Holy crap--that bit was basically lifted from such and such." The lifted bit is in your "subconscious" mind, basically, and you inadvertently recreate aspects of it while composing.

I once inadvertently wrote (?) and worse recorded (!) two numbers which were upon inspection the same. The verses from Another One Bites The Dust. Sigh.

I once went through some airport or other (LAX it was, yes) and the band in an upstairs day gig were playing a UFO number. Of course they did not know this at the time as they only shared the verse melodies (Looking Out For No. 1 I think) but the choruses belong to different songs. Which ones they are I have yet to find out. 

P.S. UFO might be band that prog "elitists" have heard about when looking for centrefolds of Greg Lake but I assure you don't worry, some tracks do have orchestration.

P.P.S. The three chord thing contains all the notes in a standard diatonic scale. Now what's wrong with that? A solution easily resolved into a problem.

To me it's one of the most important factors in music. I do value not-that-original albums if they are near perfect in other factors. I will remember forever something really original to me, but i won't if it's derivative even if the performances and arrangements are impeccable.

I think people say that you have to be original so you can explore more stuff. Let's say, there is a band that wants to make a song, they need inspiration for that song. So they will take ideas from other songs from other bands/artists and they will fuse the elements of these songs into a single track. So there you have a song that sounds like a fusion of other songs.

What about Captain Beefheart? He wanted to make an album with a lot of originality. And there you have it, it's called Trout Mask Replica. Critics around the world call this album a masterpiece for being original. But this album is like Marmite, because you'll either love it or hate it. Casual listeners will find this album weird and hard to listen to. I think he created a lot of ideas thanks to the fact that he decided to make an album without the cliches of rock music from these days. If you listen to 'Houses in Motion' by Talking Heads, you can hear Captain Beefheart's influence on that song. It sounds like 'Ella guru' but more accessible and with loop samples.
For me, originality is something that let's art be different. A different work can be either better or worse than the original work it is based on.

DDPascalDD wrote: ^ I completely understand your thinking, but sound is defenitely not the only way music can evolve at the moment. It may seem so if you listen to new music, but original things can be done eternally with composition.

moshkito wrote: DDPascalDD wrote: ^ I completely understand your thinking, but sound is defenitely not the only way music can evolve at the moment. It may seem so if you listen to new music, but original things can be done eternally with composition. The statement is the problem.  You can go to a computer, and find all the permutations possible with the notes A, B, C, D, E, F and G and its variants, and then even create a piece of music off it.