Are you original?

Do you think your own compositions are original? If so, what makes them original to you? And finally, is "originality" something that can be objectively determined, subjectively determined, or a combination of both?

I see my own music as original because nobody has arranged all the notes I choose in exactly the way I have chosen to arrange them ever before. I may borrow stylistic elements, but even those elements are spun out in a new way.

However I do not STRIVE for originality. All I strive for is BEAUTY. The more beautiful/satisfying/awesome the music I make, the better.

Does originality necessarily mean "good" or "beautiful?" No. So why would anyone strive for it? Rather odd, don't you think?

YOUR FACE'S ORIGINAL!!!

Sorry bout that, couldn't resist. Seriously though, I kinda think my pieces are original. But then, in my case, originality kinda cuts out that "Not-crud" factor. So i gotta work on my own originality.

However, a pieces originality is really just based on the magnitude of the twist that seperates it from the casual element of the genre, myes.

Originality is your fingerprint. Everybody has it no matter how much they like the old masters.

I think my music is original, but I will leave that up to the other composers on this site to determine that. I have never been a good judge of my own work :)

- Jen

I write in established idioms, but I do things with those well-worn tools that no-one has ever done before.

I don't know how to answer your last question. That will require some thought.

I think for any beginner composer to sound original is not only hard to do, but poor. Every good composer sounds like someone when they begin and eventually develop their own style. Right now I have been told that I sound a lot like Wagner and Brahms, a strange mix, especially since I have only composed piano music. And yes, originality is objective because originality is whether or not you sound like someone who has come before you.

I had an interesting discussion happen in my comp class today, about who composers write for. Do you write for yourself, for an audience, or for a combination of both?

Excellent point, J.Br. I still compose in the idioms of romantic composers, but i can't quite put my finger on who. I think my own style is roughly just getting on it's training wheels to get going here :P

I had an interesting discussion happen in my comp class today, about who composers write for. Do you write for yourself, for an audience, or for a combination of both?

I know who I sound like : Brahms. I've been told that a lot.

Who do I write for? Whoever will listen...

As a new Composer in the "Composing World", I feel my attempts to compose have been extremely origional and unique. I have many favorite music arrangers and composers, though my favorite is definately with out a doubt Richard Carpenter. His composing/arranging is so original and beautiful-- it truely comes from his heart. My music composing attempts are no more than satisfactory, but I feel they are original. In my compositions I like the idea of having both the components of jazz with a classical feel. I prefer to write pieces for Competitive Marching bands, though I am sure I could conjure some other genres of music for other ensembles. Everyone is original in their own way...

And finally, is "originality" something that can be objectively determined, subjectively determined, or a combination of both?

Technically even if your influenced by things around you it still reqires the mind to process and analize everything into a what it sees as a logical form of expression.

I recall an incident when I was in college. I wrote a piece for Trumpet Quaret, Arched Etudes, that I had the privelege of listening to my college's Trumpet Quartet group actually practice through. One of the players remarked that if they were actually able to perform it, everyone would know that I wrote it.

I confess that while I am still fond of this older work of mine in the sense that one fondly recalls something done long ago, my style has matured since then. I no longer weild my chords like a drunked ox. ;)

I have sought out to deliberately adopt certain romantic era styles into my music, as I did with my Piano Concerto (I've posted a revision there!). But I still feel that there are certain harmonic twists that I like to employ that makes my work original, and recognizable as my own.

Most major composers have them. Often you can listen to a piece of music and pick out who the composer is even if you've never heard the piece before. Now when you can do that, it's really neat!

I consider the vast majority of my serious music to be original.

gently caress originality.

Originality is good most definatly. Its that extra push that sets you apart. Those like quirks make music fun and ultimatly someone will look at your music, adapt your style with changes. Then someone will do the same to their music. Originality is the force behind musical revolutions, and to some people that isnt important, but to me it feels great to do something daring that could be a brick in building a new style. (even though i have yet to do anything remotly that great, but im trying!).

It doesnt matter if your for the big picture or love the nit-picky details, we need something that is fresh and exciting - like a bebop song in the middle of a classical playlist =)

Are you original?

Yes.

I think I'm usually quite unoriginal, though often intentionally (Lud's Wig, for example, has no ambitions to be an original composition whatsoever).

However, sometimes, especially with my larger pieces (orchestral) I think I can be quite original e.g. Apline Overture, Nest of the Black Pearl, Rejoice...

I think quality of music has to go before originality but both are important.

Only machines aren't original.

That's an interesting thought.

Yeah but we know what the OP means when he uses the term 'original'. It's all down to degrees of originality. Nobody can have no originality, but they can have very little.

originality is all what i look for but it is indeed very difficult in the initial stages. iam an indian and naturally cinema songs influence us a lot than classicals ... still can we be in our own style?

gently caress originality.

Which I can appreciate because I forever have to fight certain influences and wonder if I should bother to avoid them. Pride makes me want to say something original or in an original way rather than plagiarise. But past experiences in creative matters has shown (to me personally, it may affect others differently) that working through things usually puts them behind me.

M

I think my most original period was when I was experimenting with microtonality.

Thing is, all of the microtonal stuff I attempted sucked. I'm no great shakes at normal composition, and that level of originality simply didn't give me enough basis to create anything that sounded like anything.

Strangely I think my attempts to copy other styles has helped pave my originality.

I don't know if I'm original or not, it seems I tend to mix a bunch of styles together, the idea seems original but I'm not sure since they are previously mastered styles.

I don't know if I'm original or not, it seems I tend to mix a bunch of styles together, the idea seems original but I'm not sure since they are previously mastered styles.

Originality may for the most part be a Hybrid thing.

A Mix of many styles and your own that become one

through you.

Jeremy