How important is originality?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=107600
Printed Date: August 20 2025 at 16:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: How important is originality?
Posted By: paganinio
Subject: How important is originality?
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 05:07
 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.Here's my argument. 1. How the hell do you know if it's original in the first place? I've heard people say that In the Court of the Crimson King is an original album that "came out of nowhere in 1969" ( http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=1903" rel="nofollow - see the first review on this page ). Really? Have you heard every album and every music work before 1969? If you haven't, how do you know if another band didn't record a similar album and possibly even inspired King Crimson? For the record I'm not saying that such a band existed, I'm just saying, it's impossible to know. It's not even likely that anyone here has heard all 100 albums on the PA Top 100. There are simply too many albums to listen to. If you think something is original based on what you have heard in your life, then there's a good chance that it's not original at all. Therefore it's laughable to judge a new album based on "originality". 2. Consistency is also a highly valuable quality that no one seems to talk much about. When I buy an Opeth album, I expect to hear the exact same genre, same style, same guitar, drums and growling vocals that I heard on Still Life, Blackwater Park, etc.. I expect the album to be 0% original, and 100% staying true to the classic Opeth sound. If the album sounds original, I'm disappointed because that's not what I spent money to hear. 3. It doesn't affect the enjoyment! Would In the Court of the Crimson King have been any less enjoyable to listen to, if there had been 10 similar albums before it? Most likely not! It's good music on its own merit. On the other hand, imagine Wish You Were Here and Selling England by the Pound were debut albums and they were original. Would that make them better albums? I seriously doubt it. So simply put, "originality" is a quality that is neither good nor bad. It is what it is, but it isn't what everyone believes it is. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: DDPascalDD
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 05:23
|
This will be an interesting discussion, and I'll jot down my thoughts later today. ------------- |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 06:03
| Depends on what is meant by originality in the first place. I will give you an example. Recently, somebody blew off cricket writer Ed Smith's cover, revealing that he borrowed pretty generously from an article appearing in The Economist to write one of his own. He did change a few words here and there but it was more of a clever precis than an article borne out of his own thoughts. I THINK that is what people have in mind when they talk about originality. The source material is the same for all and there is nothing new under the sun but the presentation has to be your own. If it's too much like somebody else's style, you are not speaking in your own voice. It is extremely subjective, of course, but I also don't see anything wrong if listeners/critics decide to opine on it. (a)They have a right to and (b) In any case, nearly everything that pertains to music is subjective so in that case we might as well not discuss anything at all. A conclusion that some people do arrive at but not me; I think we just have to retain some measure of curiosity, open mindedness and a thick skin to get through such discussions. It is really not as hard to just talk about music as people sometimes make it out to be and besides if you never talk and more importantly never listen to another perspective on music, how do you hope to ever get to learn of something different from what you are exposed to? And I hope that that is an exciting rather than an irritating prospect? |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 06:07
|
Good topic! I'd distinguish qualities that make an album great for me personally from qualities that I'd say make an album great so that I'd appreciate it as a reviewer. I can take more individual points of view or points of view that seem to be more "general" to me, where I try to appreciate qualities that can be explained and discussed in a way that may appeal and be informative to others. I could call this a more "objective" point of view, but I'm aware that I can't be really objective (and nobody can) even when trying to take a more "general" point of view. Still, it's at least an attempt to get closer to the essentially unreachable "objectivity" ideal. (Actually taking this point of view and also reading/hearing what others write about music helps my individual emotional taste, too, because it makes me see qualities at times that I would've missed otherwise.) Now when it comes to originality, something fresh appeals to me generally, something that makes me see things from a different angle, something that opens a new world of listening to me. This also works in a direct emotional way. But you're obviously right about the fact that there's a difference between what seems to me original because I hadn't heard anything like this before, and what is really original because indeed there was absolutely nothing like this before. Still, if the crowd intelligence of lots of people on the internet tells me that ITCOTKC was really original and this resonates with my personal impression, I'm prepared to believe it, whereas I know very well that Manfred Mann's Earth Band's Watch is not terribly original despite being my first prog experience and therefore sounding pretty much like the most original album I've ever heard. I know that I have a tendency to appreciate most the first album(s) of a band that I've heard (be them the first or most generally appreciated of the band or not) because these sounded most original to me, but I can take the more generalist point of view and see that I'm biased there. In any case, originality "feels" like a good quality to me (unless of course I come across something original that doesn't sound good to me). And then this doesn't mean I can't value consistency, and also it's still original enough and certainly worthwhile to put some effort into letting a good original idea grow and mature, rather than chunking out something totally new all the time. David Bowie's Low is undoubtedly very original, but I'd think that had he developed this kind of stuff over four albums, I'd have liked the end result more. A further aspect is that some people may have ideas that others had before but they weren't aware of that, and the freshness quality of originality of those who came first and those who did something similar later that was totally new for themselves could still be the same. I think Karl Kraus once said "It's not important who had an idea first, it's important who has it best." And then: "On the other hand, imagine Wish You Were Here and Selling England by the Pound were debut albums and they were original. Would that make them better albums? I seriously doubt it." But every album has a story behind it and doesn't appear out of nowhere. These two albums were not debut albums and behind them is the whole earlier history of the bands that made them get there. They couldn't have been debut albums in this world, only in a world turned upside down, and nobody knows what rules would hold in that world. |
Posted By: mechanicalflattery
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 06:50
I think I disagree with most of these points. No work becomes good strictly because it is original, but I have an expectation for any artist to possess a distinctive voice separable from other artists. Furthermore, each album should be reasonably distinct from another. To enter a work of art with any expectations, and to then judge the work based on similarities to those expectations, rather than actual art, disregards the will of the artist and transforms the work into nothing more than a functioning product. While there are certain genres and tones I might be personally biased to, almost all of my favorite albums are important strictly in that they presented something unexpectedly great and changed the way I thought about music. To simply say, "I want more Opeth-metal, therefore this new Opeth album must fulfill my preconceived wants of what Opeth-metal is" simply forces artificial limitations on the ambition of artists. No great artist has ever simply produced what people think they want, but rather produces what the audience may not have even realized they ever wanted before. Innovation is key. A great deal of music has been ruined for me by not being original. Most neo-prog suffers from simply sounding like inferior retreads of the past (no, not all new music is bad, but what music looks like decade to decade changes, and one's listening ought to reflect that). The ending to Pendragon's The Window of Life, for instance, immediately from the first listen reminded me of the ending to The Gates of Delirium. Naturally, the composition and performance is gravely inferior to that original Yes piece, so I find the that Pendragon track (and much of the album overall) stale and generic. Artists that make creative decisions based on what improves the work generally make the greater albums. Those that simply recycle what they've only heard others play before do not. It is not my place to make a demand as to the content of an album, except that it be worth my time. How they fill that time is their choice. This applies to any medium. No great work has ever been "more of the same."
|
paganinio wrote:Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 06:53
Originally is overrated, as people are drawn to what they're familiar with.  ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Magnum Vaeltaja
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 06:56
Haha, you'd think so, but just look at the sorts of reviews people give to In The Wake of Poseidon! I personally feel that originality, while not the most important consideration in an album, can still be a deciding factor in whether or not I'll buy something. I like to have variety in my music library, so I probably won't pick up 25 symphonic albums that all sound very similar; it would make things very boring when I put my library on shuffle. As far as a factor of enjoyment, originality doesn't play as much of a role, but it can be the difference between liking and loving an album. If an album is technically played, brimming with emotion and well-produced, but sounds very much like an earlier album (whether from the same group or otherwise), I won't like it as much as the album that's technically played, brimming with emotion and well-produced that also sounds like nothing else I've ever heard. Ultimately, I think that originality is becoming a more important thing to consider with modern releases. While there's a great volume of quality prog rock being produced nowadays, it's a lot more difficult to find unique albums that will stand on their own, of which there were plenty in the 70's before all the cliches had been developed and all the sonic experiments conducted. So is originality the most important thing? No. But does it matter? A little bit. ------------- when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents |
Posted By: Mascodagama
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 06:58
|
True originality is rare and as time goes on inevitably it's going to be rarer - we're about fifty years into the history of "progressive" rock music at this point. For me personally I'm always looking for something that sounds fresh, different from anything I've heard before - the music nerd's eternal quest! Happily I find this doesn't require true originality, just that the band/artist has their own "voice" - they might be combining elements and influences that are more or less easily identifiable, but they're doing it in their own particular way, putting an individual stamp on it. On the other hand I don't get much out of bands that don't seem to have assimilated their influences into something personal. Highly subjective of course, but for example I love Island's Pictures and the Sloche albums regardless of the fact that I can easily see what ingredients went into the blender, because they've got a recipe that has its own unique flavour. But if I turn to something like Circus's Movin' On, I'm immediately thinking "bassist wants to be Chris Squire, singer wants to be Greg Lake", and I lose interest quite rapidly. |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 08:05
|
^Nice post there Simon and I wholly concur. I have a hard time listening to bands that too openly embrace their icons...without putting their own stamp on the music. Originality in itself can be wondrous yet also completely unlistenable...it is all down to the ears of the belistener (hoho). For me personally it's also a question of the particular style which is being aped - or indeed whether or not it's a style that has been reproduced a thousand times over ie the ol Genesis formula: twelve string guitars, mellotron, Hackett leads and a theatrical frontman. Then I very quickly get bored, but then again the same goes for 90% of the so-called Berlin Schule connoisseurs who practically have been dishing out Rubycon/Stratosfear part 2 (more like part 24542859) the past 4 decades. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 08:13
| I predict a Starcastle album will dethrone Close To The Edge as the most popular album on here any day now |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 08:59
Actually if I vice versa this entire para, it would sum up the reason why I can't be bothered collecting AC DC or Motorhead's discography even though I absolutely love the sound of these bands. But it's the same sound on every album, so why should I collect every album to listen to the same sound over and over again? I would rather watch them live, much more fun. I would rather even buy live albums than studio albums in such a case. A new studio album is equivalent to a new movie or a new novel. The idea is that it is different at some level from the previous one by the same artist. If it has nothing different to offer, there's no reason to buy it if I already have the previous one.
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 09:13
+one. I love The Rolling Stones...up to a certain point where they just started making the same album over and over again. I don't like movie directors that make the same movie nor writers that continue to write the same book. Originality can be many different things though...but when we're talking of a particular band/artist/director/writer I do expect some freshness afoot - or else I'll just turn to the past for a kick. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: maryes
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 10:56
| Very good discussion, I think which originality and virtuosity are very important, but.... the great "ingredient" is inspiration, because without inspiration is much more difficult create a good quality music ! |
Posted By: DDPascalDD
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 12:32
|
Warning: this may not look like an answer directly to the points you noted in the OP, but it will probably answer your question/disagreement (partially). It's namely not just the sound and notes which makes you like, love or disgust musics. Like ALotOfBottle explained http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=107071&PID=5340894#5340894" rel="nofollow - here as well and what hasn't been mentioned before (original content is important, isn't it?  ) is very important: it's about how you interpret music.
Conclusion: sound is a part (for the lack of a better word) which makes us love music, just like originality does. This is so because we are taught to appreciate this by other people and ourselves.
Conclusion II: By looking to music in a more horizontal way, one can appreciate things like originality more. I hope this clears some things up for you. Anyway it made it clearer for me  Seriously, I truly hope you do appreciate music which is very original because it's a musicians quality. BTW a thread you may want to check is "my" thread about the question if it is still possible to make original music: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=105253" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=105253
------------- |
Posted By: Mascodagama
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 12:46
Absolutely. There are bands where I want to own all the albums, bands where two or three good 'uns are enough, and bands where one representative album is all I need. And conversely, some of the best and most important bands are highly inconsistent. Case in point KC 1969-74. Never the same lineup for two albums, and capable of almost schizophrenic inconsistency even in the course of one album, ITCOCK for example. Apart from the (let's be honest) mis-step of ITWOP, they were always pushing towards new territory.
|
Posted By: Mascodagama
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 12:55
Oh yeah - and let's be honest, half the current crop of RIO/avant bands are quite retro in their own way, they're just harking back to stuff I still can't get enough of  Now, when am I going to get an Eskaton ripoff band that gigs in London, I'd so be there.
|
Posted By: aglasshouse
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 15:56
|
Originality is important, but I don't consider band recycling some musical themes as being unoriginal. They usually create something rather different with them. ------------- http://fryingpanmedia.com |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 16:46
|
I appreciate originality, but the lack of it doesn't necessarily make me enjoy an album any less. In fact, since there won't be any more classic 70s prog albums, I wouldn't mind new bands making new albums like them. If there was a band that sounded exactly like classic King Crimson or VDGG (and actually wrote good songs, unlike most retro bands), I'd probably love them. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 16:57
|
Bull. Originality is always a good thing, is what human expression is all about, and is responsible for moving art, if not man, forward. Original does not mean wholly unique, nor does it mean "from out of nowhere". That confuses original with alien. Everything comes from something. Not likely anyone has heard all Top PA 100s? Guess again. Consistency? Yeah, consistently original. I will give you your third point about enjoyment, but your remarks about Opeth are unfortunate. And I suspect the guys in Opeth wouldn't like it either. I'm sorry, art (unlike love) must always move forward in order to survive. It is the very essence of human creation. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 18:42
|
^ well said, Atavachron. As far as the Top 100 albums, i have heard them all and own all but two. There's probably only about 5 in the top 250, mostly newer releases that i haven't heard as well. I agree that originality is a great thing and that always wins points for me, but it's also true that a band who is a first at some style in particular doesn't mean that they'll go down in history as doing it best. The 60s prog scene was sort of the exception to the rule where evolution just spontaneously gifted us with a big band of explosive talent but more often than not, music is like inventing a machine in which new parts are added to old systems to give it a new function. There are many bands that are fairly unique, some i've even reviewed such as Satanique Samba Trio and Vienna Vegetable Orchestra but they are so different and weird and original that no one is paying much attentin to them and they'll probably be cited as an influence for someone more successful 20 years down the road. Totally don't get your King Crimson comments. One person doesn't have to listen to every single album to understand music history. If something like In The Court came out before it would have been written about and word of mouth alone would have spread it like wild fire. If something was put out on a label then it got reviewed by someone. If someone made a similar album as Court in say, 1961, or something, then it never saw the light of day even if it was already created and had zero effect in the influence of something else that sounded similar. There is also such a thing called convergent evolution where several artists come to the same conclusions independently. True originality rarely exists. If that was the case then everyone who wanted to be totally original would have to a) create totally new instruments b) create a unique language for lyrics and c) create a whole new system of musical relationships via chords, scales, tones etc. Highly unlikely until the grey aliens finally reveal themselves  |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 20:35
|
Good, possibly. Important, No. Not at all important to me. If I like an album, I couldn't give two sh*ts whether someone finds it original or whether it sounds like something recorded 40 years ago. Originality is fine, it's great if someone releases an album that is original. But it doesn't mean I'll like it any better than a different new release that is not original. Some bands will try to break new ground, other bands will record their songs and not pay much attention to new ground. Both could be great in my book and both could suck. And a possible irony is, in the madness to try to release something original, or something that people like us will find "progressive", a band may actually junk some great ideas and beautiful melodies because they worry about crap like this. That's potentially a tragedy. I want to hear a band's best material, not necessarily their most "original/progressive." JMO. ------------- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sQD8uhpWXCw" rel="nofollow - It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood...Road Rage Edition |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 21:33
Well, any band that would actually do that have no conviction in their material anyway and are unlikely to come up with a great album either way. Robert Fripp summed it up best, "A great guitarist is one who is true to the moment he finds himself in". Makes it sound so simple (though it isn't). If you don't consciously try to imitate someone or some existing style, you are improving your odds to come up with something distinct. But most bands find it daunting to compose music at that level where they can draw from existing sources and still speak in their own voice. That is why, in the fullness of time, most of them are forgotten and only the work of a handful resonates with future generations. This does not mean that all the original bands are remembered or only the original ones are; our sorting is inherently flawed because it is subjective. But as a general rule, the bands that brought a fresh insight (and they brought it because they were searching for it deep within rather in the sounds of everybody else's music) stand up to the test of time better than the ones who only wanted to ride the wave and go with the flow.
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: August 21 2016 at 21:43
|
Perhaps. You seem to be speaking more in terms of legacy and in that case I do see your point. I was answering it as regards my personal enjoyment. Not sure how he intended his question. ------------- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sQD8uhpWXCw" rel="nofollow - It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood...Road Rage Edition |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 22 2016 at 00:32
It works at both levels. A legacy is after all built on the back of a number of albums that have found a receptive audience. My take is a band that tries to 'game' the process instead of being true to itself is going to struggle to come up with a great album, irrespective of whether originality or being progressive is part of their goals or not. An artist tries to express something through an album (or a novel or a movie as applicable). If it is made consciously keeping the expectations of the audience in mind, that puts a ceiling on how fresh it can be. Freshness only comes through taking risks, and risks not for the sake of taking risks because the music seems to dictate taking such risks and the artist backs his hunches rather than chickening out.
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 22 2016 at 03:47
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 22 2016 at 04:06
|
Not that important ultimately because what matters is if the arrangement of the notes appeals to you... in other words do you like the song or not?? There's not much original music around these days anyway as I far as I can hear, prog or otherwise. As far as prog goes I have no interest in hearing modern bands that try to recapture the magic of old. I've got hundreds of old albums I can play if I want o hear how it used to be done. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: August 22 2016 at 08:02
Hi Roger. That make sense and it is great when a band takes risks, no disagreement there. I appreciate freshness when I hear it as well. All I'm saying is, originality and "progressiveness" are in no way requisite for my enjoyment of music. Thus, it isn't an important factor to me, it isn't something I'm thinking about when I choose an album, play an album, or decide to go see a band. I've seen hundreds of live shows. Many of those shows brought absolutely nothing "new" to the table, and yet were very enjoyable and even moving. Human emotion, energy, good melodies, kickass-ness, beauty, these attributes are relatively timeless and they are the things that matter to me, both on stage or on album. Not whether the artist is doing something I find "original". Original is a nice extra feather, but has little bearing on what I like. ------------- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sQD8uhpWXCw" rel="nofollow - It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood...Road Rage Edition |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 22 2016 at 08:22
|
Whenever someone comments on originality I'm always reminded of a remark Declan MacManus made in a 1989 interview in Sounds titled "Who the El does Costello think he is?": "I know it's not very original," he admitted. "but neither's John." ------------- What? |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 22 2016 at 09:10
I don't disagree with this and I also don't think about how original an album is when I am listening to it (rather, the conclusion that it is perhaps not so original/fresh is a reaction to finding it stale or jaded). But that isn't what the OP is saying. The OP says originality doesn't mean anything at all. I think that is pretty hard to agree with.
This actually ties in with what I said earlier in the thread. A live show is a different ballgame from a studio album. I have never found a studio album to have the same energy or infectiousness of a live performance that I have watched in person. This is more so the case when applied to contemporary recordings which have got more and more polished and edit out 'mistakes' until it no longer sounds very human anymore. So I differ with you there in that I don't apply the same yardsticks to a live performance and a studio album. Concept is of essence in a studio album. There's a pile of them and an album that has nothing new to say is just piling on. A live performance is far more intimate and resonates much more with the listener (provided it's a good performance, of course).
|
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: August 22 2016 at 13:57
|
Can't say very. Originally will always get bonus points but that could very little if the product is so substandard to begin with. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Run Home Slow
Date Posted: August 22 2016 at 14:31
|
paganinio I expect the album to be 0% original, and 100% staying true to the classic Opeth sound. If the album sounds original, I'm disappointed because that's not what I spent money to hear. maryes I think which originality and virtuosity are very important, but.... the great "ingredient" is inspiration, because without inspiration is much more difficult create a good quality music ! An exemple for me would be Van Der Graaf and their classic period that we can call true to their classic sound, and then they came back with a true original album The Quiet Zone, that album blew me away, so different sound and music, but true inspiration in it, great album! ------------- If you got ears, you gotta listen — Captain Beefheart |
Posted By: hellogoodbye
Date Posted: August 22 2016 at 14:39
Depends how original the listener is 
|
Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: August 22 2016 at 16:27
Music, being the most wide spread beast, whatever seems new to you original or not that is all that matters. I agree with this. Nicely said. All in the eye of the beholder. ------------- Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣 |
Posted By: twosteves
Date Posted: August 22 2016 at 22:31
| I was attracted to prog because of the original fresh sounds I was hearing---especially rock that was not all blues based----music like Yes popped out of the radio and grabbed my attention---so originality is very important to me----if I hear music that brings nothing new to the table--Circa comes to mind----it's just not essential music for me---will listen to it but not revisit it too often. |
Posted By: RoeDent
Date Posted: August 23 2016 at 07:46
| We must banish the idea that lack of "originality" (whatever that even means) is bad. Every band is doing what it wants to do. If bands want to make prog rock inspired by the first golden age bands, let them. If they want to do something different, let them. And let us fans who enjoy that music, however much it owes to music of the past, enjoy it. The more the merrier is what I say. There is always new music out there waiting to be discovered. |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: August 23 2016 at 09:40
I'd think this is original, too, if not quite to the same amount than doing something totally new. I don't like being too black/white about originality, like saying "something truly original is extremely rare". Many things are a bit original and sometimes that bit makes all the difference. |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: August 23 2016 at 15:43
|
I have two questions: First - where is the tolerance line of what is original and a total ripoff? There is obviously a grey area where total originality becomes influences and then becomes plagiarism Secondly - who would you consider the most original? There are many artists who burst onto the scene when no one saw it coming. Hendrix comes to mind as does Magma, Catherine Ribeiro & Alpes, Pink Floyd at various stages. Popularity DOES seem to point to originality as a factor in some musical moments. Although the 90s which pushed Nirvana and recycled post punk as a more polished pop punk was the opposite indeed
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 23 2016 at 17:30
|
^ There is a quality, a nuance, that is evident in the most original bands who were also heavily influenced by what came before-- you cite Pink Floyd; yet they were a blues band ~ a blues band ~ of white middle-class art students disillusioned by the static art scene and highly impacted by the blues players and Surf guitar music of the United States. Somehow, through some unseen alchemic magic almost overnight, it became psychedelic rock. But it was arty blues/Surf until some imperceptible change occurred one day. Drugs? Syd Barrett's lunacy? The serendipity of coming of age in 1960s England? Maybe. But they had the guts to do it, to try it out of sheer creative desperation, and a desire to have fun and surprise people. In other words, the Floyd did what they wanted to do (along with cats like Sabbath, Jimi, CSN) knowing full well that it could've been, and in many ways was, a disaster. Another example might be Genesis. Anyone who's paid attention to the early lyrics can see the band had no love for showbiz or the way the British music industry worked. They simply didn't care anymore and started doing the music they wanted to do, successful or not. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: BrufordFreak
Date Posted: August 23 2016 at 18:05
Respectfully yours, Drew Fisher ------------- Drew Fisher https://progisaliveandwell.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 23 2016 at 20:19
|
Evidently paganinio hasn't visited since ten minutes after he started this thread. Too bad, he'd have a satisfying read. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Modrigue
Date Posted: August 24 2016 at 01:49
|
It depends on the time period.  ------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqf2srRfppHAslEmHBn8QP6d_eoanh0eW" rel="nofollow - My compositions |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 24 2016 at 04:01
|
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: August 24 2016 at 09:27
|
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. |
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: August 24 2016 at 09:42
Not that I wouldn't say In the Wake does nothing novel--after all, what on the first album sounds like "Cat Food"?--but I definitely agree that the first album was used more or less as a template for the second. The second just connects with me a lot more overall, it doesn't have something equivalent to the way-too-long, way-too-noodly bits of "Moonchild", etc. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: August 24 2016 at 22:38
That is the fact, when it comes to popular music and top ten. But I seriously doubt that this is the reality for what we have termed as "progressive music" in the past 45 years. I think it depends on your point of view of music, and how you see it. If we look at the many posts in this board, so many of them are "top ten" oriented, from the best of this or that, to the top albums in a given year and so forth, and sometimes, many of the albums also fit the sales discussion, and not necessarily the "progressive music" discussion. If we expand this idea, and look at music history, do we say that it was original with Beethoven, and not Mozart, and not Bach? Simply because we have heard it enough and can not discuss it as "music" within a historical context. I think, that in many ways, a lot of rock music, does not fit the "original" ideas or concepts, because of its simplicity, when compared to an average opera with 20 or more staffs in its main work for the incredible variety of instruments, and they are not all playing the same thing ... which much of rock music is! The perfect example is the idea that the bass and drums have to set down the carpet that the guitarist and keyboard player stand on, for you and I to enjoy. Can you say that about Beethoven? Mozart? No, and you would not even consider it. All in all, this is a good discussion, but it needs to be placed within its proper context, or its discussion becomes rather futile, and not specially worthy of a "music" discussion. And lastly, many of us, myself included, would need to listen to many other things ... so that this discussion could elevate itself into a realm that helps define "originality". As an example, a fun movie to watch, is "Amadeus", and how Mozart is describing which notes to use to Salieri, who more than once says ... are you sure? ... because in those days (in a fun/film sort of way), music was "serious", and what Mozart was doing with the notes, was odd and not something that the academic standards (then) would have liked or appreciated. I'm not sure that we are defining originality in music, first ... so we have an idea of how to apply the ideas to some rock music. And yes, in my book ITCOTCK is by far one of the most original albums ever, that should be on par with Sgt Pepper's and the like. AND, surprisingly enough, the KC album was not on my original list until around 1975, as I had not exactly heard it yet, though I was already slightly familiar with Robert Fripp. If his band does not, he will be remembered as one of the most original guitarists, and experimentalists, much work of which is found in his solo work and with Eno, and others. There are not many musicians that can claim that ability! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 25 2016 at 00:59
How many times do I have to explain to you that 'Amadeus' is a fictionalised account. The film is wrong and your interpretation of it and your understanding of 18th century music is so completely wrong that wrong has now achieved hitherto unimaginable levels of total wrongness it would take the fictional computer Deep Thought seven and a half million years to calculate just how fu*king wrong it is.  ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 25 2016 at 03:39
^ 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 Music:
(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.
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.
So as you can see there was a degree of overlap from one era to another, just as you'd expect there to be. What was popular or fashionable didn't change overnight. Notes on terminology:
Dispelling The Myths:
SO... Mozart and Salieri were composing music at a time when Baroque music was considered to be old-fashioned, overly complex and inelegant. Being six years older than Mozart Salieri was more established but he was not "the establishment", nor did he represent it. Mozart's early letters (being critical of Salieri and his Italian contemporaries) were a frustrated tantrum against the popularity of Italian composers over German composers at the time. However, despite being Italian, Salieri's approach to music composition was seen to be closer to that of Gluck and other German and Austrian composer in style (which is why he was popular in Vienna). In Vienna he adopted the Style Galant for some of his instrumental works and was at the forefront of the new Classical Style for his operatic works as a rejection of Baroque complexity - in modern terms Salieri was a progressive. If Salieri was ever critical of Mozart's music (and this isn't certain that he was) then it would be because he saw it as being retrogressive and not modern enough: it would not have been because he didn't understand what Mozart was doing, quite the reverse in fact - he would have understood it easily and recognised it as being a return to Baroque complexity and therefore unoriginal. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: August 25 2016 at 07:23
| Really all you need to do in order to stress that Amadeus is fiction is (a) note that it's a film, and (b) note that it's not a documentary. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 25 2016 at 07:38
|
^ yeah, I've tried that several time to no avail, but feel free to have a go yourself ------------- What? |
Posted By: klockwerk
Date Posted: August 25 2016 at 14:29
And looking forward to buying and enjoying Rubycon/Stratosfear part 24542860.
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 26 2016 at 04:41
|
Posted By: hellogoodbye
Date Posted: August 26 2016 at 05:14
Oliver Messiaen said of Mozart's music that it smiled  |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 26 2016 at 05:52
The evidence suggests that he did: ------------- What? |
Posted By: paganinio
Date Posted: August 26 2016 at 07:50
Obviously I have 1000+ posts here on this website. But my Internet access isn't what it used to be. It takes a long time to open a thread and longer (three minutes) to post a reply. I try to post as much as I can. And I will certainly read the entire thread. So to prove that I'm still here and I'm not stopping after 1240 posts -- 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. It's like the Late Show with Stephen Colbert. I could watch that show every night (fresh episodes) and not get bored. I used to watch David Letterman every night and never got bored once. But it's highly unlikely that I will start watching a new TV show. Fresh vs. different. In some of the metal sub-genres, you don't try new things. You aren't allowed to. If you try a new idea in your music, you're not True and you're not pure. "Traditional doom metal", for example, has to be traditional. If you're not making your music in the Traditional way, then obviously it can no longer be called Traditional Doom Metal. And I think this is a fairly common ideology in the metal community. Progressive metal is heavily influenced by this mindset. And you should know that I came from a metal background. The only reason I got into prog at all was metal. Many important metal bands in the 2000s were making progressive metal music, that's how I got into prog. My mindset will always be with metal, so I'm committed to one sound and that's it. No originality for me. I want my new Opeth to sound exactly like the early 2000s Opeth. That's the sound that I'm used to. That's what I already know and love. I'm committed to it. -------------
|
Posted By: Jeffro
Date Posted: August 26 2016 at 07:53
| 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. |
Posted By: Jeffro
Date Posted: August 26 2016 at 07:56
Wow, that's.........interesting. I've been accused of being a creature of habit but it sounds like you're are taking it to a whole new level.
|
Posted By: mechanicalflattery
Date Posted: August 26 2016 at 09:41
I don't want to seem disrespectful or anything, but this is just... immensely saddening that someone would think and operate in such a manner.
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 26 2016 at 22:35
But not surprising coming from a tr00 metalhead. I used to be into metal music a lot but drifted out of it because I found this "never change"mindset incompatible with how I look at music and also it made for extreme repetition that got boring.
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 01:53
|
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. Come to think of it, I know quite a few peeps into hip hop who feel the exact same about their music. I tried getting them into Death Grips and it was like getting a child to eat olives and use cutlery at the same time: Eeeeww I don't get it - I just really don't. Music is the spice of life, why restrict oneself to one flavour? ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 03:11
|
^ People often find something they're comfortable with and never look back, it's unfortunate but I suppose I understand; I don't like eating things I won't enjoy, though it is the only way to learn . ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 05:45
|
Obviously, in music everyone has a right to their taste, and there's nothing bad in trying to get more of the stuff you know you like. Still, this attitude looks very worrying to me:
How very dogmatic, and how very bad for the people in the community who dare to feel something slightly different from the community mainstream and who may even consider expressing it! This looks to me like how extremist religion works. Express some doubts and you are an outcast and may even be the worst enemy. OK, these metalheads will not normally bring war to others, but still... On a different note, I also sometimes think that many approaches and ideas in music are not played out enough and not allowed to mature enough because too many people (of those who are at least adventurous enough to try out these ideas once and have therefore the potential to let them mature) think they've got to do something more original and delve into something else rather than developing mastery in one area that still has all too much space for such mastery. |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 06:08
|
Everyone's a product of their influences (speaking musically). So originality can only really be defined by the band or artist's own individual definition of originality. Well communicated strong music works fine. I think there may be a subtext to the "original" idea that everyone should be trying to reinvent all the wheels that are out there. Anyway "originality" is a consumer's expressed view of their own experience that is superimposed by the speaker or their audience's understanding (or otherwise) of the terms. It's always up to the individual to define their own terms not have others do that. |
Posted By: hellogoodbye
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 06:10
| When I show my wantlist to a record seller, first time he says : "Well, hum, I don't know a thing. Sorry." Second time : " You have already shown this to me. I told you I didn't know these bands." Third time : "You always ask me impossible things to find ! Don't try again ! ". Morality : Originality is a disease of loneliness, shame and isolation. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 06:27
|
I don't fully understand why people have such a stick up their butts over this. Metal is a genre with a myriad of subgenres and subsubgenres and that is how it evolves and progresses and that is how bands and artists within it also progress and evolve. A hybrid becomes a new species, an exploration becomes a new species and a departure from accepted convention becomes a new species. The taxonomy of metal that sets boundaries and defined limits does not constrain evolution, it drives it forward because it makes it far easier to identify when something has changed - when an album music doesn't fit to the prescribed blueprint then it is instantly recognised as something different, and when it doesn't fit any of the prescribed blueprints then it is instantly recognised as something new. That way Metalheads don't get bogged down in esoteric arguments over whether a band is this or that, all they have to do is agree that it is Metal and the band can join the Metal club ... so if a band's album doesn't fit into this subsubsubgenre or that subsubsubgenre then it must a new subsubsubgenre and everyone is happy again. By comparison our Prog approach seems more restrictive because it is so ill-defined - it's a "you can do anything you like..." attitude that causes so many pointless inclusive/exclusive, Progressive is not progressive arguments because it has a hidden "...but you can't do that" clause that no one can agree on. With possibly a few insignificant exceptions every Metal band has evolved from one subsubgenre into another as their musical journey has progressed from album to album. Of course fans will lament and breast-beat that their favourite band no longer makes the flavour of Metal they like but that's the band's choice to make, not theirs - fans of Death Metal Marduk simply don't buy Black Metal Marduk albums if they don't like Black Metal and honestly how different is this from Prog Genesis fans not liking Pop Genesis albums and vice-versa? Die-hard Thrash Metal Metallica fans decry the 'black album' but it sold more copies than their previous "troo" albums put together and introduced more people to Metal than just about any other Metal album ever made.. I seriously doubt we would have the richness of Metal if it didn't develop in this way, because despite having strict rules it is far more organic and natural than any forced evolution that claims to have no rules or boundaries... ------------- What? |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 06:56
|
Dean: If this is meant to refer to my posting, I was discussing the attitude that I quoted from paganinio; I didn't mean to say anything about metal in general and certainly not about metal fans who have an attitude different from the quoted one. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 07:30
Yeah, and to be clear, I wasn't targeting the music itself (except to the extent that this kind of mentality prevailing among lots of fans forces band to herd around certain sounds and styles) but I absolutely HAVE met metalheads who are not just intolerant of variety in the music they listen to but intolerant of variety in the music their friends listen to. I had a guy try to mock my taste just because I once happened to post a ghazal - I am from India - and that was the day I drew the line. So if I have a stick up my butt for saying that, wham, bham, thank you, I don't care; maybe some metalheads should get their head out of their ass for a change and dump their whiny puritanism.
|
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 07:42
|
What exactly is 'originality' anyway..? Most of the 'newer' prog bands I listen to sound like they were influenced by other classic prog bands from the past. How many bands are truly original..? Can someone please name some truly original prog bands and specifically why they are so original...? ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 07:48
Well, by the yardstick of influence, there's never been anything original since the day early man realised he could create sound in a way that seemed to evoke a pattern. I'd say originality is taking that influence and then making something distinct and different with that. Whether it takes music forwards, backwards or sideways is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. BUT there is a difference in the level of originality a Kate Bush brings to the table vis a vis a Wolfmother. How much different again is subjective but there is a difference. So, coming to your question, I don't know very many bands that do something original these days but two, both from the sub genre I monitor, that immediately come to mind are Bent Knee and Twombley Burwash.
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 07:53
This happened to a friend of mine too! He was actually banned from a brick and mortar store for bringing in too many "special order" requests. ------------- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sQD8uhpWXCw" rel="nofollow - It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood...Road Rage Edition |
Posted By: Quinino
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 08:15
|
Important, no - Fundamental ! If I wanted to repetitively listen to the same (kind of) music I'd rather go back to the original that I appreciated in the first place (which I do all the time, btw) than to waste my time with a duplication . So, to me NEW means ORIGINAL, in the sense that once a creative door is opened the next to come thru is but a "follower", not the true "creator". I guess real artists are always struggling to make their work progress, therefore seeking originality (in my view this obviously does not exclude personal style consistency and general inspiration/influences). |
Posted By: hellogoodbye
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 08:15
 |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 12:57
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 13:02
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Mascodagama
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 13:12
I only know that I like 90% of the things that I do like (whether it be in food, music, books, or whatever) because at some point I was willing to take a chance on something that I didn't know whether or I'd like or not. Not only that, quite a lot of the things I now like, I actively disliked at first trial - but decided to persevere because I knew other people found something in it, and I wanted to know what it was. I'd like to think that I'm willing to go through some discomfort and puzzlement to see if I can find that out. I can understand comfort zone thinking, and like pretty much everyone I've fallen into that in some regards. But on a personal level I have to say that enduring the "shock of the new", when I have done it, has proved overwhelmingly worthwhile. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 13:18
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Mascodagama
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 13:29
Apologies, I did understand that from your posts and didn't intend to imply the contrary. Just adding my 2c... |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 27 2016 at 13:36
|
^No problem. We're on the same track but moving at different speeds, as my old Mum used to say!
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Jeffro
Date Posted: August 29 2016 at 05:54
Agreed. Can't imagine being locked into a kind of music to the point where I reject anything new. Or to put it another way,
|
Posted By: Friday13th
Date Posted: August 29 2016 at 09:47
|
Anyone who says originality has no bearing on the level of quality or enjoyment could not possibly be consistent. The knowledge of its originality is another issue, but the lack of complete knowledge doesn't negate what happens when we do know something is unoriginal. EXTREME SCENARIO USED TO PROVE A POINT: Let's say I tell you and another guy I'm the greatest composer of all time. I have an entire orchestra play what you recognize to be Beethoven's ninth symphony, and then it ends with an orchestral take of the final half of "Close to the Edge" by Yes. The guy next to you claps and says it was the most moving piece of music that he had ever heard and that I am a "genius." Though I happened to play a medley of your two favorite pieces quite proficiently, you aren't so impressed. You ask me how playing a Beethoven/Yes medley justifies my claim to being the greatest composer. I tell you "Don't be so dogmatic! I call that one 'Ode to the Edge' and it apparently moved other members of the audience. You keep bringing up these arbitrary comparisons. Yes, I was influenced by Beethoven and Yes, but every composer is influenced by someone else. My song is roughly as original as anyone else's." Obviously, originality would be the only reason you would not be impressed by someone who puts together medleys of admittedly great tunes and masquerades as a prolific composer. Your objections on the basis of not having complete knowledge is absurd. The same argument could be made about anything we claim to know. How do we know anything is real? Do you claim to know everything that could be tricking you into thinking something is true? I mean please.
|
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: August 29 2016 at 09:53
|
Anything I play is a result of me listening to music for 40 years. I have an inbuilt catalogue of ideas, and these ideas have all come from somewhere. Most of them sit there in my subconscious and just come up from time to time. How do I know what's subconscious repetition and what's original ? Actually, I don't. And that's as a musician. Is originality important ? Only if you want it to be. Is this thread an original idea ? Nope. Someone's thought of it before. :-) ------------- |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: August 29 2016 at 11:59
So, out of curiosity, why don't you apply your "knowledge" to the progressive music, and stop this personal attack, on an example that was done more for fun, than it was meant to be serious? Or, like me, are you getting so old that humor is passing us by? ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 29 2016 at 12:23
Because I try to avoid lecturing people like you do, I only react to things I read that are made-upisums and distorted half-truths and try to give the balanced, fact-based, rationalised counter-argument to them. If you continue to proliferate this fictionalised Hollywood version of history as an alternative to the facts that we actually know then I will continue to rip each of your posts into a snow-storm of pieces and serve them up to you on plate. If in the process of doing that I offend you in anyway then tough- titty, try to avoid using this amusing and entertaining but otherwise woefully inaccurate film to illustrate all the subjective opinions you have and I promise you you'll find my reactions a hell of a lot less offensive to your delicate soul/ego/persona. Why did the chicken cross the road? ------------- What? |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: August 30 2016 at 00:48
|
Another throwaway thought. Once someone writes music which is genre specific, ie "prog rock", it becomes difficult to write something original as you have to conform to the basics of the genre.... in order to get the label. ------------- |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: August 30 2016 at 00:55
|
PS Pedro ? Dean is absolutely correct about "Amadeus". It's a film. And fiction. And fictionalised. You may want to stop using it for examples, but having read some of your film reviews on your website, I don't think you should use your interpretation of any film as an example for anything, to be honest. You seem to view them in a most..... individual.... way. ------------- |
Posted By: miamiscot
Date Posted: August 30 2016 at 14:45
| And yet I love Neal Morse... |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: September 01 2016 at 04:40
|
Oh yes. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Nothing I found more puritanical (pure and tyrannical) than the metal nut. Remember "Death to False Metal"? Not worth remembering, but if you do it was just as banal and obstreperous as those who objected to my liking Cream but not ACDC the then true metal - until Metallica etc usw. People, well metalheads anyway, would get their balls in an uproar when told that Judas Priest used guitar synths. Progressive? No, the only change respected is speed and volume. Makes the rather curious anti-Dream Theater-isms seem as mild as they are often comic. Of course now you get fans saying ACDC are not metal but "classic" rock as if that is a style. Mind you, here on PA we get Sabbath's Technical Ecstasy put down because it is merely "hard rock" than "true" metal. Still if you ever want the stench of all that up close 'n' personal and in excess, be in your 20s and in a metal band. Bliss.  |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: September 01 2016 at 04:52
Well Moshkito did say "in a fun/ film kind of way" which tells me the comment was not meant as a direct historical observation. |
Posted By: paganinio
Date Posted: September 01 2016 at 08:32
That's exactly what I've been saying. You need to conform to the established genre and style. You need to be consistent. Some bands stick to one genre throughout their career, whether that genre is prog rock, prog metal, or any combination of different genres. That's consistent. That's their sound. However, some bands abandon their sound, change from progressive metal to something else, and that is not consistent. That is a sign of short attention span and lack of dedication. Still, good music can come from this too. Originality is a quality that is unrelated to how good the music is. -------------
|
Posted By: mechanicalflattery
Date Posted: September 01 2016 at 09:05
This is the first time I've ever seen "conform" used in a positive context, and the first I've seen learning, adapting, and ultimately changing depicted as "lack of dedication." I really struggle to understand where this comes from. "Do only as others do, do not stray into something else, do not change" With all due respect of course... |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 01 2016 at 09:12
Yeah, because there was progressive metal in the 19th century for dear paganino, right? Do you realise that some artists and some listeners, both groups, took chances to help music evolve instead of remaining stuck in one place? The very fact that you have found something to like that is not totally mainstream itself underscores the importance of originality. Originality creates a wider array of musical offerings to satisfy individual tastes.
|
Posted By: Friday13th
Date Posted: September 01 2016 at 09:41
| Paganinio, what's your response to my post at the end of page 4? How can you still say originality has nothing to do with music being good? |
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: September 01 2016 at 10:05
Re appending "Close to the Edge" to it, that's going to depend on whether I think the to pieces work well together. What it won't have anything to do with is whether you really wrote it or whether you're copying something note for note. I couldn't care less who really wrote something or whether someone is copying someone else note for note. I only care whether I like the sounds coming from my speakers or wherever they're coming from. However, re my earlier comment about novelty: what would matter to me is if everyone were simply copying Beethoven's Ninth. Not because they're copying it, but because if that's all that anyone is doing, if I'm just hearing that one piece over and over and over, then I'm going to get sick of it and desire something different. That would even be the case if I were to put on the Ninth where it's attributed to Beethoven and listen to it over and over. So again, it doesn't matter to me who is credited with something or whether someone was being copied from or not (again, this is from a perspective of listening enjoyment). And this even goes for things that aren't exactly the same but just that are similar in a lot of respects--I get sick of hearing similar things over and over.
|
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 01 2016 at 10:07
|
As an artist, you can't win. Let's suppose you stay in the canon. "Booooring" says everyone, "they're just doing the same thing over and over again." So you release something different. Your established audience throw their hands up in mute horror and say "This is different, I don't like it. What happened to the old stuff ? " Believe it or not, most audiences do NOT like change. Perhaps a few individual members do, but most audiences are not as "progressive" as they like to think. Most audiences want the same thing time and time again. AC/DC being a case in point. Same chords, three or four decades on. If they tried to do something else, they'd be stoned off stage. Prog rock fans, dear reader, are no different when compared to heavy metallers: there is an established genre, established fields of thought and most people will stick to that samizdat view. Prog rockers do tend to be a bit more open minded than a few other music genre fans, but, however, most people follow the crowd - it's human nature. Yes, as an individual listener, you may like something new or have an open mind. The vast majority of an audience do not. If you went to see Hawkwind and they played like King Crimson, you'd be disappointed. (Actually, I'd be delighted. The audience wouldn't. The audience want endless re-runs of Silver Machine. And that's my point.) As an artist, being original will cost you album sales. Remember, everything you hear which has made it to the stage where it attracts a volume audience is a commercial proposition. Do you (a) retain your artistic integrity, produce new stuff and fail to pay the bills as sales tail off ? or (b) keep churning out the same stuff and keep a roof over your head ??? Of course, many people here will say "I value originality ", so take a look through your record collection, tell me what you've bought. You may have bought a lot of eclectic stuff.... that's you. Contrast and compare with your friends' record collection. Probably less "animated". That's the norm. I recently brought out some stuff in a completely different style as I have a day job and don't need to worry about paying bills via music. Guess what ? Divided audience. That's taking a risk. Oh yeah, edited to put a point in. Fans don't tell musicians what to do. Not proper ones. Some fans think that their opinion about music greatly matters to a musician and that their reviews and views make a difference. Afraid not. Proper musicians PLAY first, they play what they like and what they feel. In commercial music, where the "musicians" are producing product, they'll probably respond to fans' ideas, demands, etc if enough volume exists. But that's from a commercial viewpoint, and I don't regard players of commercial music as proper musicians. That's a controversial view, but hey ho, there y'go, and I'm a musician, so there. ;-) If anyone should like to tell me what to write next, fine, I'll prostitute myself and write it..... providing you buy it first. ;-)
------------- |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 01 2016 at 10:30
That isn't a "get out of jail free" card. That's like prefixing a racist comment with 'I'm not a racist but...' it does not absolve the comment maker from blame or spare him from any admonishment due. Any other film and any other point then I may have overlooked it but using that film to illustrate that point is something he has done before and I have corrected him on it before, so prefixing it with a tacky "get out of jail free" clause is never going to stop me correcting him again and again and again. Is there anything else you'd like to raise since I am in such a good mood? ------------- What? |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: September 01 2016 at 12:02
Nope. |
Posted By: CosmicVibration
Date Posted: September 01 2016 at 15:22
|
For me it’s more about sounding unique verses being original.
The Doors stole from everyone and made
it their own while sounding very different. |
Posted By: Friday13th
Date Posted: September 01 2016 at 20:00
Yes, let's assume for argument's sake that Beethoven's Ninth sounds heavenly in a medley with Close to the Edge. Here's why I can't follow that reasoning: Fictional rip-off song "Ode to the Edge" = good music Me, the fictional composer who spliced Beethoven and Yes = bad composer Thus, a bad composer writes a good song. ?????????????
|
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: September 02 2016 at 06:44
You haven't actually so much "written" a good song but rather pieced it together out of stuff written by somebody else. As far as I'm concerned, if you actually manage to piece these two together in such a way that I like it (and prefer listening to it at least at times to listening to both the original compositions on their own), I'd consider this as quite an achievement and even original in some sense. I don't see you achieving this any time soon though. I agree with your general point but your "for argument's sake" story can develop its own dynamic and won't exactly nail down the point you want to make. |
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: September 02 2016 at 10:25
I wouldn't say you're a bad composer in that case. I'd not really say that you were a composer at all. If I weren't familiar with Beethoven and Yes and you didn't credit them, I'd say "Wow--this guy is an amazing composer!" But then when I find out that you didn't really write it but just lifted two things that you sewed together in a playlist, I'd say "Oh, he wasn't the composer after all." I wouldn't say you were a bad composer--you'd need to be a composer in order to be a bad one. Likewise, imagine if historical evidence were to come to light that Beethoven actually wrote nothing that we currently believe he did. Instead, he kept a guy named Johann Smegstein locked up in his basement. Smegstein wrote everything. Beethoven just put his name on it. In that case we'd just say that Beethoven wasn't a composer after all. |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 02 2016 at 10:51
|
Originality is objective, not subjective. If it "sounds original to you", then that doesn't mean to say it is. The balance of probability, given the limitations of musical scales and rhythms, is that it is NOT original. This is very much like a (tedious) thread where the question was is Richie Blackmore better than Jimmy Page ? This was being debated over by non musicians. What they meant was "what do I prefer..... given I actually don't know the answer to the question as I actually don't play guitar ?" So what's being asked here is really a non-question: is originality important ? Answer, is it important to you and can you recognise it ? If so, yes. A lot of threads get created like this on this forum by people who seem to have too much time on their hands and want to get some kind of definition of music. "Which band is better, A or B ?" - are we talking musically better, in which case, ask a musician, or "better in my opinion ? " Music is art. It is for listening to, not categorising and dissecting. When I was at University, studying English, we all got taught to strip a novel down into basic symbolism and elements and then examine the elements. Guess what ? Horse droppings. The sum of the parts doesn't equal the whole. You can't dissect a novel like that. Art is not explainable by science. Neither is just putting up threads for the sake of asking a stupid question. ------------- |