How can you possibly be musically original?

There is just an many unorigianl atonal pieces as there are orginal atonal pieces. Using atonality does not guarantee automatic originality.

I'll have to give a big ditto and say, "who cares?"

"Originality is over-rated" - A. "xerox" Vivaldi.

by Tumababa

We know. Would you like a prize?

Would you like an award for the most irrelevance in this whole world?

Anyway, back to the subject. I agree with flint-wwrr. And I also believe that the only compositions now-a-days are mixtures of ideas from multiple composers' pieces.

...I was trying not to get involved, with my lopsided view, but anyway:

I think a lot can still be done when leaning towards improvisatory/creative music. Composers like Butch Morris, Anthony Braxton, John Zorn, William Parker et al use non-standard notation to extract the music from the performers. Pieces can often be interpreted in a myriad of ways, and that's where the originality comes in: finding new ways to shape/steer/control improvisation... and the afore mentioned colours hit that dead on.

....anyway... :whistling:

...I was trying not to get involved, with my lopsided view, but anyway:

I think a lot can still be done when leaning towards improvisatory/creative music. Composers like Butch Morris, John Zorn, William Parker et al use non-standard notation to extract the music from the performers. Pieces can often be interpreted in a myriad of ways, and that's where the originality comes in: finding new ways to shape/steer/control improvisation... and the afore mentioned colours hit that dead on.

....anyway... :whistling:

That's definitely true too to a certain extent. We can't analyze the situation perfectly, because everyone has a different opinion on it.

Though I don't have a problem with stealing ideas guiltily or accidentally.

Everything gets recycled, which is an amazing thing to live with. There are different versions of something previous. You can't make things from nothing.

Some people use natural ideas or ideas already produced as their basis in music.

Experimentalists take the natural ideas (or combinations) and build something different.

Music is blending all together. Though, it's not extremely noticable, because very new ways to produce sound come about (new instruments, chords, "fads," progress in language).

I can relate. One of the contemporary "ideas" I'm most excited about is music without a meter. That is to say, music that's either in zero time or music that is aleatoric. And I'm not talking about complete pieces written based on these concepts. I've finally begun to find ways to use them as a sort of a spice... if that makes any sense.

I've finally begun to find ways to use them as a sort of a spice... if that makes any sense.

Don't leave me hanging like that. :D Go on!

Well for example there's this piece by John Estacio(Robin has probably heard of him) that starts out in "no time". That is to say, there's no pulse throughout the entire opening. Players get their entrances from cues in their parts and the conductor. The piece is his "Farmer's Symphony".

Then there's Corigliano's first symphony. In the first movement for instance, there's a lot of parts where a given instrument will repeat a sequence of notes out of time until cued or until a destination point in time.

It's an amazingly fresh sound. I'm very much in love with it.

Hey, when you go atonal you'll write something that is very different of anything out there.

No, your piece will just sound exactly the same as every other atonal piece.

No, your piece will just sound exactly the same as every other atonal piece.

That is really a weird, and rather not well thought out comment.

Of course it does depend on what you call "atonal", but it's all about what the composer. I mean you can (with effort) write something atonal, and... romantic even.

Why this degrading on atonal music?

Tumababa:

I could argue, maittamaitta, that the reason we have the pitch system we have now is that said system is an approximation of the harmonic series. I could also argue that as the harmonic series is about as old as time itself, it is the most fundamental component of music. I must admit I'm ignorant in the area of world music, but I would be willing to bet that even cultures that have 41 notes per octave still have the harmonic series embedded in there somewhere.

Of course -- our 12-tone pitch system is very practical. But when compared to the "real thing", the approximation does sound awfully pale.

Derek:

disclaimer: not trying to contradict you here, this is purely my personal viewpoint. And, I'm an amateur, so take everything I say with a grain of salt:

Now that is a disclaimer I could write on every one of my posts. :)

So you think that just by vertically combining harmonic tones, this is how we achieve new color in music? (by inserting microtones, etc.) Personally, I think the analogy is something like painting. We have a set of colors, and we can mix those colors. The more of those colors you mix, the "browner" you get. In music, the "browner" is more dissonant. Therefore, where does actual variety come from? (not to imply that harmony isn't important of course.. my point is going to be that it is not AS important) Rhythm and phrasing. To me, this is how you arrange and mix colors in music. You can make an elaborate painting out of just three colors. And, you can make an elaborate painting out of color combinations, and darker "browner" or blacker colors. It is how it is arranged in a dimension...in painting, space, in music, time, that really produces new colors I believe.

Rather, I was referring to the physical foundation -- the overtone series. The major triad is the brightest element in the palette (now that I give my analogy more thinking, it does have serious ontological problems... :whistling:), and the minor triad is its inversion. Of course it is possible to make a masterpiece with prime colours -- by working with syntax, ie. the art of combining things to make a structure (what is exactly what classical tonal music is about).

It's just that for example much of popular music doesn't rely that much on the syntax, but indeed relies heavily on the triads -- and this goes for a lot of big budget film scores also (now that were at it).

While we're at it, I think spectralism, Murail, Grisey, Saariaho, that lot, (ie. generating harmonies out of harmonic series) was one of the healthiest things to happen to new music. Along with Webern, Berio and Lutoslawski, that has been one of the great innovations of 20th-century in thinking about the "color" (chord) itself -- its structure.

Put it a different way, say we did use some new tuning system and played a mozart piece in it using the new scale system. It would sound weird harmonically, but you'd still hear the same rhythmic and melodic interest present in the mozart piece.

I honestly think we should spare poor old Amadeus from that treatment...

And to put it a final way (from my personal perspective) often I have listened to some piece or other (usually something that uses our same old 12 tone system with major and minor triads throughout the piece) and thought "wow, this part has such a fresh and new atmosphere to it!" Then I picked it out on the piano and found it was exactly the same harmonic progression X that I'd seen many times before. Therefore, what was producing the new atmosphere? The "when." So, in sum, I think that viewing music from a purely harmonic perspective when searching for something original may not be the most productive approach. Instead we should look into rhythm and melody, where the possibilities have been and always will be infinite.

The harmonic progression described as (abstracted) chords doesn't in itself really define much of what's going on in much of classical music. I mean there might be the same chords in a progression from a Mendelssohn piece and in a piece by an average rock band, but the counterpoint makes a difference. (And I've really know clue why I even bothered to mention that on a forum for (mostly classical) composers, but anyway.)

And don't get me started on rhythm! I've just spent the whole day tring to make an Elliott Carter pastiche (and my brains hurt)! :D And rhythm does indeed seem to get a whole new dimension when harmony is added to the game.

Now, I'm not much of a composer, I'll admit that much. But I've tried to keep a broad mind, and to listen to a wide range of stuff. And I've given some thought on the whole "originality" -issue. (And for the record, I didn't get there. I'm thinking that I should probably first succeed in writing a piece that someone else than my girlfriend would be interested in playing. :toothygrin:)

I thought I might contribute something instead of just criticizing others.

I've tried to solve the problem of "meaningful but original new music" using two different strategies. The first was getting to know psychoacoustics. Which was cool. All of a sudden music theory makes a lot more sense to me. Unfortunately this didn't work out for me, or at least didn't bring so much new stuff to the table. Let's face it -- psychoacoustics can offer only little new after several hundred years of counterpoint and voice-leading, if we're dealing with the perception of harmony.

As a plan B, I started familiarizing myself with folkmusic all over the world. Think about it -- all this great, innovative, diverse stuff, that just spontaneously happened -- now that's what I call evidence for the empirical mind.

There's your spectral music in Central Asia. There's your polyrhythmic textures in Central Africa. There's perplexing time signatures in the Balkan. And there's free pulsating rhythm all over Asia. What else is there, that has been thought differently than we've used to think?

Now some might call this imperialism/exoticism/orientalism, but it is a fact, that there is a lot of music out there, that sounds like nothing most of people ever heard, and which has grown as organically as music can. I've learned a lot.

And yeah, I know, tl/dr.

Originality is something very difficult to acheive. But I can guarantee that it doesn`t have much to do with talent, but more with how much you have dug into your mind.

You can guarantee that? Really? How?

How do you be musically original?

In my humble opinion, meditation.

What is meditation?

Quieting the mind. Transcending the mind. Becoming the silent witness of the mind (and of your body and of everything around you). Totally still, like an undisturbed lake. Reconnecting with your Soul and the Universal energy of Creativity which you are a part of.

The way I see it, where does all beautiful music come from? Every beautiful SOUND even, where did it come from?

It came from Silence.

If you don't know Silence, you're fucked. :P

Be still, be quiet, breathe very deeply, and allow the musical creativity to flow through you.

In my opinion, the mind will get you nowhere, the mind destroys music.

Learning musical theory and studying other musicians/composers is great, it will provide you with incredible tools to express your creativity, but that's all they are; tools.

For me, meditation is the key to not getting lost in theory, or in an imcomplete work, or in constant ANALysing. For me, it's all about taking a step back, and FEELING.

Chris.

This is an interesting conversation here and being new I'll throw in my opinion. I agree that being original shouldn't be the focus of your composing, but it is something that I find myself considering. I do believe that there are still lots of things in the "world" of music still to be explored. I use the word world purposefully because we live in a time when anyone (at least anyone with an internet connection) can listen to and study an enormous variety of musical styles and sounds. The world of Western music tradition is a fantistic treasure of styles, sounds and compostitional techniques, but other musical traditions have an equally vast areas to explore. A composer today can learn Japanese forms and can work them using African sounds and Western compostitional techniques. The possibilities are endless and worth being explored. We live in an era where our musical influences can be more varied than ever before. The musical heritage of the entire planet sits before us waiting to be explored.

You can be original by just being yourself. Write what you want to write and just express yourself. Every person has their own sort of way of doing things, and being influenced by your surroundings is what makes good RELEVANT music. I'm incredibly influenced by all sounds I hear, sounds I like or even dislike. I don't think about "Has this been done before?" because that isn't the point. Chances are you'll be original if you don't lie to yourself and just be...well...yourself