How can you possibly be musically original?

This is something I struggle with when composing something. Everytime I start composing something, it starts sounding simular to something that's already been done before. Whether it sounds simular to a video game song, a song by a musical artist or whatever, whenever I get a good musical idea, it starts sounding like something else. I just don't see how it's possible to be musically original when every chord progression, melody and bassline has probably already been done in some song, somewhere. It's possible to have a style "inspired" by someone's, but is it really possible to be musically original? I don't know. I especially hate when I'm asked to compose something "simular" to something and am expected to be original.

I have participated in a project two years in a row in which you are given a model work and have to write a response to it. The first year there were 14 participants and this year there were 8 and everybody always presented completely unique and individual responses to the same work.

I would be interested to know what sort of music you write...

We used a work by Schoenberg this year, it is easy to spring back from a work like that with inspired originality, but perhaps you have trouble because of the genre of music you are writing. If people write in Baroque or Classical style it is often difficult to sound very original because they have already been thoroughly explored...

Honestly?

Who cares.

There.

Jeeze, just write what you want to write.

If you have musical talent, it will end up eventually being a reflection of who YOU are as a person, and even if it sounds a bit like someone else, it will STILL sound like "you".

One of the best ways to understand other composers' styles is to consciously imitate them, using the same techniques. We had to do that during our composition and theory lessons at university. It's a great way to understand the mechanics of how another composer dealt with issues. But then, you move on to something else, and little bits and pieces of everything you've learnt remain behind, and they become assimilated into your own musical identity.

So just write, and forget about whether it's original or not.

Oh, and stop listening to film music. You won't learn anything there.

I dont get that at all. I dont know why, buyt i guess i know the classical pieces so well that I know how not to make mine sound like theres.

And I love Qccowboy's thought of "Who cares."

We're composers, we write what we feel or see through music.

One of the best ways to understand other composers' styles is to consciously imitate them,

I agree completely.

All you need to do is examine all the music that has passed and grow out of that. Don't reject old music to try to be individual, embrace it.

Within any artistically mind lies a common truth. You have influences. Qccowby is right by saying simply. "who cares". Your influences will naturally impose on your writing style. Look at camilla's point. The idea that you choose to write in a style, your work will begin to sound like something that came before. That is simply because to compose a particular style, you ave to follow the rules laid down by your musical peers from history. Try not to concentrate on the problem of sounding like something done before, and concentrate on doing something thats means something to you.

You will perhaps find that your own distinct influences will provide a certain level of originality in your work.

Oh, and stop listening to film music. You won't learn anything there.

That comment just cracks me up. :toothygrin:

A composer wiser than i once said that "if you haven't done anything truly new, how can you say you've done anything?" -- which i consider a good question. That somehow sums up my views on most of the film music out there. :D

Still, I think the wisest advice here is Qcc's. When you're still a student, you really shouldn't expect too much of yourself too early. When you are in a process of learning, composing unoriginal music is better than not composing music at all. Actually, even composing bad music is better than not composing at all.

I don't believe most composers "come into their own" until they approach their late 20's or early 30's.

BTW, I don't mean to demean film music (I have a rather vast library of OSTs here) by my comment, but rather that in film music, the goal is NOT to create a unique sense of that composer's identity, but to fulfill the musical needs of the film.

A single film composer, within the same score, can pass through a half dozen quite distinct styles, most of them contradictory. And chances are, NONE of those styles are an actual reflection of that composer's identity. They are simply a mishmash of the various styles he's learned to put together for the wanted effects in a film's context.

Yes, certain composers have their unique "signatures" when they write a filmscore. But that's not learned from studying how they copied other styles. In other words, don't copy someone whose style already consists of copies of other composers' styles!

This is something I struggle with when composing something. Everytime I start composing something, it starts sounding simular to something that's already been done before. Whether it sounds simular to a video game song, a song by a musical artist or whatever, whenever I get a good musical idea, it starts sounding like something else. I just don't see how it's possible to be musically original when every chord progression, melody and bassline has probably already been done in some song, somewhere. It's possible to have a style "inspired" by someone's, but is it really possible to be musically original? I don't know. I especially hate when I'm asked to compose something "simular" to something and am expected to be original.

Originality is like a finger print. You will not make something that is so radically different you won't find something similar to it that has already been done.

But consider how many ways you can arrange three notes. Make them longer or shorter. Use different pitches, different rhythms. Now think of 4 notes. Now think of an entire melody. Now an entire composition. The number of combinations is so mind bogglingly immense, it is almost impossible NOT to come up with something new when you compose. It might sound familiar, but the chances of that exact thing having been composed by someone are extremely slim.

I think of the "Nocturne" genre. John Field was supposedly the first guy to coin the term and write nocturnes for the piano. But in earlier music you can find similar sorts of vocal lines in keyboard music, against simple chords or arpeggios (I can think of some pieces by Bach and other baroque guys). There's some similarity there. John Field probably thought of himself as unoriginal. Then Chopin took after John Field and wrote his own nocturnes. Some of them have familiar elements from John Field, but have a personality all their own. It's like a finger print. on the surface it might seem really familiar, but once you listen you realize there's tremendous variety.

so my advice is, just keep composing, and try to be more random (and I don't necessarily mean atonal or something like that, though I do like that style as well as tonal stuff). If you try to force your composition too much, and idolize composers of the past too much, you'll compare yourself so much to them that you'll feel like anything that doesn't sound like your favorite composer is crap. And that couldn't be further from the truth. Once you realize just how infinite the musical landscape is, you'll never run out of ideas.

I wouldn't suggest, though, that you try to be random in fear of being hung up on the past. That's not how it's done. When a great composer of the past made a hugely original innovation, it wasn't after flipping a coin.

I don't mean be random and not still try to make something beautiful. I guess I meant to say "balance chaos with order" instead.

I actually have to disagree that everything has been done already. By now, it does seem like everything has been done, what with Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Impressionist, atonal, pandiatonic, etc. all around already, but in the Baroque era, none of the following ideas had been realized (note: the list isn't meant to be entirely chronological). History basically tells us that there's always something new, and by definition we can't know what it is or even that it exists until it is discovered. I mean, just examine the fact that the assumption that there are only twelve notes is incorrect. The future of music may deal extensively with quarter tones, or quartal harmony, or some other musical invention that has yet to be unveiled.

Worst comes to worst, you can just combine modes of limited transposition, set theory, and quartal harmony. Something interesting is bound to come up.

Where set theory comes in I have no idea, but I think I may just ponder the possibilities for the rest of this evening. :D

I actually have to disagree that everything has been done already. By now, it does seem like everything has been done, what with Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Impressionist, atonal, pandiatonic, etc. all around already, but in the Baroque era, none of the following ideas had been realized (note: the list isn't meant to be entirely chronological). History basically tells us that there's always something new, and by definition we can't know what it is or even that it exists until it is discovered. I mean, just examine the fact that the assumption that there are only twelve notes is incorrect. The future of music may deal extensively with quarter tones, or quartal harmony, or some other musical invention that has yet to be unveiled.

Worst comes to worst, you can just combine modes of limited transposition, set theory, and quartal harmony. Something interesting is bound to come up.

For some reason I have the premonition that music fairly well into the future will be microtonal and excessively contrapuntal, and often fairly fast-moving.

It's true that anything musical like chord progressions, rhythms and note combinations have already been thought up and used more than 60 years ago but somehow musicians still try to make new music. The only thing we can try to create is new sounds. Music has been around long before the human race existed so all we can do is try to use it in different ways. The only reason we considered rock music new when it came out was because it had a new sound.

You will never be able to write to your own satisfaction if your constantly worried that your music sounds like something else. Just write! If you try to be unique more often than not you won't. So just write. Your best work will come from something your having fun with and being completely concentrated on just that.

It's true that anything musical like chord progressions, rhythms and note combinations have already been thought up and used more than 60 years ago but somehow musicians still try to make new music. The only thing we can try to create is new sounds. Music has been around long before the human race existed so all we can do is try to use it in different ways. The only reason we considered rock music new when it came out was because it had a new sound.

Hrm.... I'm not sure how much I agree with you. I think that once you start saying that everything down a particular path has been discovered you stop growing down that path. That, in my opinion, can only be bad.

I don't even understand what people mean when they say everything has been discovered. What are "things" in music. Harmonies, melodies, and rhythms, right? Which one of these is static? Harmony. Nobody will ever be called original because they use a C major chord. It's just there, in nature, like a color.

Now let's move on to melody. Now we can use those colors like C major and many hundreds of other colors and arrange them in order through time, which immediately connects us to rhythm. Are there any limits on rhythm?

Can you think of any music theory books which treat rhythm alone, and NEVER mention harmony or melody?

Why is it that so many music theory texts and so much music theory discussion ONLY discusses harmony?

Because it can be pinned down, categorized, listed, and analyzed.

Rhythm is almost impossible to do this to. You can combine rhythms in so many different ways. The furthest anyone can go with rhythmic analyzation, I think, is to observe that some rhythm or other is "bouncy" or "is a polyrhythm" but to actually go into detail about why it is musically effective is nearly impossible. (if I'm wrong and there's tons of literature out there on this subject, someone please correct me and point me to some books). Music theory texts are usually exceedingly crude about rhythm. Pretty much the only comments I can think of about rhythm are : "the cadence is usually placed on a strong beat" "consonant harmonies are to be placed on a strong beat" that doesn't tell you anything, except what the habits of baroque and classical and early romantic composers were. it doesn't tell you anything about how to use rhythm.

How many times have you listened to some composition or other, and heard something that sounded "new" or "fresh." then you went to pick it out on the piano, thinking it was some new chord change you'd never thought of before. And holy CRAP! It's the same damn secondary dominant preparation you've heard ten billion times, but something IS making that composition sound new and fresh. It's the rhythm. It's the WHEN that thing actually happened. That's where real musical variety and originality come in, in my opinion. Not a single composer in history has been harmonically original. They've become bolder, and have combined more colors to get muddier, darker and more intriguing, but nobody has "originated" anything in harmony.

Rhythm is HUGE. No matter whether it be simple Mozartian rhythm, or complicated, free polyrhythmic modern stuff. It is huge. In fact, if you set yourself free rhythmically, it'll be damn hard not to develop your own personal sound.

As a side comment, I doubt that music will ever start using quarter tones and so forth as a basis for scales. People often point out indian music. But quarter tones in these styles (as far as I can tell) are not actually fretted out on a sitar for example, they are embellishments. Which you CAN hear. (again, correct me if I'm wrong!! I don't know all that much about that stuff) But it is like a waver in a voice. It isn't part of the SCALe. When you listen to this music, you hear lots of the same stuff we have. parts of pentatonic scales. major triads. harmonic minor scales. YES YES I know it isn't a tempered scale like ours, but who cares if the pitches are slightly purer. It's the same darn stuff. Human ears respond to these sounds, no matter what culture you're in.

As a side comment, I doubt that music will ever start using quarter tones and so forth as a basis for scales. People often point out indian music. But quarter tones in these styles (as far as I can tell) are not actually fretted out on a sitar for example, they are embellishments. Which you CAN hear. (again, correct me if I'm wrong!! I don't know all that much about that stuff) But it is like a waver in a voice. It isn't part of the SCALe. When you listen to this music, you hear lots of the same stuff we have. parts of pentatonic scales. major triads. harmonic minor scales. YES YES I know it isn't a tempered scale like ours, but who cares if the pitches are slightly purer. It's the same darn stuff. Human ears respond to these sounds, no matter what culture you're in.

Actually, there are many different scales that use microtonality as set notes and not just embellishments. Some styles of Persian music heavily use quarter tones in their scales. There are also quite a few systems that use more then just quarter tones. There is the 12 tone scale which we all recognize universally, there is the 19 and 31 tone scales which is more quarter tonal and there is the 43 tone scale frequently used by Harry Partch. There are many more but these seem to be the most "common" in the microtonal world. To an ear who hasn't heard this music it will sound weird at first but if you listen to a Harry Partch recording long enough, it starts to make sense. Many of these scales are used as a basis for many culture's music.

You discuss about techniques while you forget aesthetics and the composers filters.

Todays composers should write whatever they wish (considering they're not ignorant) and with their own filters, if they do their job correctly their works will sound for "today".

We live in a society with plenty of new features every single day. Technology has taken over our lives and I can be with my family 3000 miles away eating dinner, through a web camera (yes I've done it. My parents miss their grand children). People come back to life every day in hospitals, and so on...

No single technique, or no single advancement will be able to mirror the above.

It's not about technique. Sure all chords are done, all melodies are done, most microtonal stuff, electronics, etc are done (if not all), there doesn't appear to be anything left.

But still, when I listen a work I can tell if it's writen 2 years ago, or 70 years ago, even it uses the same techiques and the same orchestra (a classical one).

As long as composers strive to talk about something, to communicate, to express something, to say something, then if the composer IS living today (which is something that all institutions are making sure that they don't through awful educational systems) then it will sound new.

;)

"No single musical technique or advancement will be able to mirror the advancements in 'features' society has added every day."

That statement stands correctly I think. However, I can't believe that music has reached a dead end. All chords are NOT done. All melodies are NOT done, microtonal=NOT done, electronic=NOT done. And there is SO much stuff left. I feel like I discover something new with every piece I write.

Think about it this way...

No major advancement in music happened based on a single technique. Can you think of even one? It's usually a combination of developments that have already come to pass that someone manages to assemble into something coherent and inspiring. There are a few massive historical figures that challenge that viewpoint though, one that comes to mind would be Chopin. Can anybody think of a precedent for Chopin's piano writing?

Even guys like Beethoven... His harmony was all developped before him, as were the rhythms and orchestrations but he managed to take that all and do something really original.

We actually live in a great time for music. Right now, WE have the power. With the internet, we can reach an unprecedented number of people. The music industry is slowly and surely being brought to it's knees. If it crashes(And I hope it does) we will have a blank slate on which to build anew. It's a great time to be a musician.

Sorry if I was gushing but I just saw an AMAZING concert tonight that really inspired me.

The techniques themselves are done.

At some point someone said "hey! why not use something other than tones and semi-tones", thatwas the begining.

someone said "hey! Let's have a crossword and make music instead!" and thus twleve tone was born.

someone said "hey! Let's put 12 series in every aspect of music, and make awful music :P" and thus serialism was born!

There was said moments, with said people, who are the fathers of such things.

(the above is a huge generalisation and should not be taken for granted!)

The techniques are there. The how we use them can be new.

Electronics, are pretty much what they were 40-50 years ago, only muchos easier. No need for tape and... tape, just a computer. No need for huge flanger issues, and tape over tape over tape, just a plug-in. But the principals are the same, and what would be able to be done 50 years ago, can be done today, only easier. There's not much things that could not be done 50 years ago, that can today (again huge generalisation and lack of informatics in specifics).

It's what the composers write, that make things different.

And yes now,

WE have the power

We can make it!

which is good and bad :-/

Because now, every prick with a computer can claim they are composers, which does not really bother me, or threatens me at any level, but still it can be a bit annoying.

And we REALLY need to know A LOT about everything, which has nothing to do with music, in order to make anything of ourselves!

But let the loving industry crumble at last!

I will laugh on top of it's body!

I think there is some evidence that we are indeed reaching a large, impassable wall in the evolution of music. It seems to me that every new music style or genre that comes along doesn't evolve as fast as the last and as it evolves the newer ones tend to integrate and blend with other styles rather then evolve on their own. Compared to classical, jazz hasn't evolved as much and compared to jazz, rock has evolved even less. A lot of this has to do with technology and the media. These two things have made commercialization very easy and has bred a lot of musicians and composers to sound like the most popular musicians/composers.

Also, what makes anyone think that the music industry is coming to an end? It seems just as strong as it ever was even though it complains about stolen music etc. I don't think its going to crumble but its definitely splitting in two directions. It will become two different industries in the future with many of the upcoming Independent record labels leading one side.

Also, what makes anyone think that the music industry is coming to an end? It seems just as strong as it ever was even though it complains about stolen music etc. I don't think its going to crumble but its definitely splitting in two directions. It will become two different industries in the future with many of the upcoming Independent record labels leading one side.

Nope, it's not as strong!

Furthermore there is the simple fact that it's dead easy for anyone to make a record, make the tracks, master them, make them into CDs, or into mp3s and sell them themselves. No need for the industry no more!

while 10-15 years ago, there was virtually no way for the many to make the records, or distribute it, due to the lack of the Internet. ;)

One of the composition tutors at college recently said that originality often comes from incompetence of some kind, and we all laughed at her, thinking what crazy crap has she come out with this time... (including the other tutor sitting next to her)...

But then she explained that across all the arts many composers/architects/painters etc had all tried at some point to copy the great masters of the past, Cezanne tried to copy Da Vinci, Dali Monet etc. And the the problem was they couldn't do it, they didn't have the skill needed to recreate what the old masters were doing and instead their 'individuality' started to stick out. I think this is even the case with those who were quite good at copying, such as Picasso in his early years.

And it's the same for composers, you don't need to try to be individual, it's something you just can't get away from, whatever approach you take.

We actually live in a great time for music. Right now, WE have the power. With the internet, we can reach an unprecedented number of people. The music industry is slowly and surely being brought to it's knees. If it crashes(And I hope it does) we will have a blank slate on which to build anew. It's a great time to be a musician.

Inspiring :D