What is true originality (later, what music IS)

After a few replies I'll let you know what I think.

Hmm, I don't quite believe in "true" originality anymore - after all, does music come forth by conception and sheer willpower alone?

True originality, in my humble opinion, is successfully composing a piece of music which either breaks new ground (representing a step forward in music as a whole), or says something which hasn't been said before. When I was starting out, trying to find my own sound, I tried to look for "gaps" in music - things which hadn't been done or said before. By said I mean expressed through music. It would be very interesting to hear more views though.

P.S. Moving this topic to Composer's Headquarters.

In order for me to discuss my feelings about originality adequately I would like to cover a few fundamental things.

There are two main dimensions in music:

1) The acoustics of sound, which cannot be changed unless you are God himself and re-write the laws of physics. An octave will always sound like an octave, to any person you ever meet.

2) The way these sounds are organized through time, by a human mind, using a physical device, also designed by the human mind.

This second dimension contains some sub dimensions:

1) harmony

This dimension is the only one that can be pinned down theoretically. A major chord will always sound like a major chord, a harmonic minor scale will always sound like a harmonic minor scale

2) Rhythm

This is the most variable and infinite of all musical dimensions, and the most direct result of the mind of the composer.

3) Melody

A melody uses both harmony and rhythm. Most classical melodies have certain similar apsects to them such as cadential progressions, etc.

What makes a melody truly unique is the rhythm it employs.

Now my discussion about originality:

I think most everyone will agree that using more and more dissonant harmonies is most decidedly not the path to true originality. That practice is now so common, it cannot be said to be unique anymore.

Beyond that we have people like John Cage, which can hardly be said to be composers at all. They are creative sound technicians, discovering (perhaps) interesting timbres, who may or may not have also written some half decent new age music on a prepared piano.

I think everyone can agree that this isn't originality. It is playing with the definitions of words, and it is writing half decent New Age Music.

So if originality isn't shocking people with dissonance or sticking erasers and other objects in the piano, what indeed IS originality?

Originality is:

Excellent craftsmanship---representing a recombination of as many styles and ways of doing things musically as possible. True originality is achieved by musicians aware of everything I've mentioned above. They do not care to shock, they do not change the definition of music. They write REAL MUSIC, and though there are many familiar elements to their music, it has a sound as unique to it as the mannerisms of a human being's personality.

I actually believe that true originality is unavoidable by anyone who obsessively works at writing their own music for a long period of time.

Is origianlity something one should STRIVE for?

No, it is not. Why do we feel compelled to write music? Because we have been inspired by someone else's music, of course! Then it is natural we would use elements of that person's music in our own. Whether or not our craftsmanship rises to the level of true originality matters FAR less than whether we are truly enjoying ourselves as composers! Isn't that what music is all about? Joy?

"As far as I'm concerned, the last thing you should try to be is original. If you sound like 80,000 others, as long as you don't imitate, it's still music." - Keith Jarrett

Keith Jarrett himself was an original, of course. Improvising for 45 minutes without a plan or melody in mind is practically unheard of in Western music. The actual music he played though represents what I would consider true originality: excellent craftsmanship through the absorption of a large number of styles and a high degree of accomplishment in each as well as a noticable personal stamp.

Originality is:

Excellent craftsmanship---representing a recombination of as many styles and ways of doing things musically as possible. True originality is achieved by musicians aware of everything I've mentioned above. They do not care to shock, they do not change the definition of music. They write REAL MUSIC, and

"as many styles and ways of doing things musically, as possible." <<< I meant to put a comma there. I didn't mean the subjective form of the word. I meant as many objective ways of doing things such as tonality, atonality, polytonality, polyrhythms, techniques, etc. etc. etc.

I should have said

"as many ways of employing musical devices/techniques"

And this is my definition of real music:

1) sound organized by a human mind for the purpose of enjoyment and/or intellectual satisfaction.

you no longer have music when:

1) there is too high a degree of randomness in a work so that the presence of a mind can no longer be detected.

2) there is no sound at all (Cage's 4'33" quote "composition" unquote)

3) the work is found to move only the composer and a few elitists. This is not music, it is self deception. I do not intend to suggest there isn't some degree of irrationality present in all appreciation of art, but this is where it is taken to its most extreme and perverse.

I agree with most of what Derek said, except that "music" is not actually music if "the work is found to move only the composer and a few elitists". Music should move the composer first and foremost, and therefore regardless of whether 1000 or 10 people enjoy a piece, it can still be music. In other words, popularity is not an indicator of what is and isn't music.

To summarise what originality is in my mind, it is the capacity to act or think independently, not be directly influenced by the music of predecessors, etc.. Seems like a straight forward question really, as "originality" itself is a defined term.

2) there is no sound at all (Cage's 4'33" quote "composition" unquote)

I HAVE to disagree with that statement. When you write music you put rest don't you? If the rest is part of the music then why can't a song filled with rests be music? I believe the point cage was trying to make(which you obivously didn't get) is that sounds are all around us and no matter how silent it is, sounds will live on. That is music to me.

I agree with most of what Derek said, except that "music" is not actually music if "the work is found to move only the composer and a few elitists".

Perhaps I went a little far with my assertion there. I agree wholeheartedly that popularity is not a requirement for a particular work to be considered music.

I HAVE to disagree with that statement. When you write music you put rest don't you? If the rest is part of the music then why can't a song filled with rests be music? I believe the point cage was trying to make(which you obivously didn't get) is that sounds are all around us and no matter how silent it is, sounds will live on. That is music to me.

This "music" has not been organized by a mind. It is just ambient sound. What you are doing is changing the definition of a word which has a very real meaning. If that amuses you, that's fine with me. But it doesn't change what music is.

If the word "music" can mean something OTHER than sound organized by a mind, then it becomes a synonym for ambient sound or noise of any kind. How is that useful or how does that provide insight? I don't see that at all.

However, saying that for example the sounds of birds is musical is very different. That is saying that a sound is LIKE something organized by a human mind, but is not in fact organized by a mind.

I think everything's becoming waaay too black and white, and the whole idea of creating this thread could seem to some as condescending.

Cage's 4:33, or at least my interpretation of it, is not about sound at all. It's about no sound. That's the whole reason by it. If a composer writes something and HE calls it music, it is music. Music is such a relative term, you cannot put it so simply in any term. A composer is one who writes music. What he writes are HIS OWN compositions. Cage WROTE 4:33. That's his handwriting on the original score. Yes, there are no staves or notes or meters or keys like in most other music, but it is music because a composer crafted it himself, and declared it such by having it performed in concert.

I think the assertation that music is music because a human mind crafted it is also a little too constrained. Patterns and pitches and rhythms can occur from anything. Glass breaking, a building collapsing, moving pots and pans around, a group of babies crying, etc. These are not organized, yet can produce very musical sounds and can be listened to just as we listen to the greats of composition.

But back onto originality. Any music that does not entirely mimic an existing piece is original. That's that. There are guidelines such as pitches that have been laid down, and a certain number(although vast) of combinations between pitch, rhythm, timbre, and such that there are bound to be repeats in history. Sounding like someone else doesn't make you unoriginal! Using melodies of other composers, or from the past of your own compositions does not make you unoriginal, as long as the piece is different in other aspects. Originality in the common sense, the more figurative sense, seems to be hard to describe. It depends on opinions the most, which you cannot really generalize.

My view of the figurative 'originality' in music? Not being bound by any precedents(not not using precedents and following rules, but not being restricted). That's all. As long as it's truly YOUR music(as in, you wrote it exactly how you wanted to write it), you are being an original.

I think everything's becoming waaay too black and white, and the whole idea of creating this thread could seem to some as condescending.

Cage's 4:33, or at least my interpretation of it, is not about sound at all. It's about no sound. That's the whole reason by it. If a composer writes something and HE calls it music, it is music. Music is such a relative term, you cannot put it so simply in any term. A composer is one who writes music. What he writes are HIS OWN compositions. Cage WROTE 4:33. That's his handwriting on the original score. Yes, there are no staves or notes or meters or keys like in most other music, but it is music because a composer crafted it himself, and declared it such by having it performed in concert.

I think the assertation that music is music because a human mind crafted it is also a little too constrained. Patterns and pitches and rhythms can occur from anything. Glass breaking, a building collapsing, moving pots and pans around, a group of babies crying, etc. These are not organized, yet can produce very musical sounds and can be listened to just as we listen to the greats of composition.

Well you're entitled to your opinions of course, but anyone who finds ambient sound as moving and intellectually satisfying as say Rach's 2nd Piano Concerto (or countless of other amazing works by the great composers), is, in my opinion, insane. That is grotesque and extreme self deception.

Finally, to say that Cage CRAFTED 4' 33", an act which took absolutely NO craftsmanship or effort whatsoever...... .. gahh. I can't even think of how to respond to this.

Part of why I am so angry at these ideas is because in my WESTERN MUSIC HISTORY textbook, Rachmaninov is not so much as MENTIONED. But they have PLENTY OF SPACE for John Cage's 4' 33" and Shoenburg's hideous brain farts of temper tantrum. Speaking of Schoenburg, whose music is indeed organized by a mind (yes I do consider it music), I think if one were to arrange feces in a geometric pattern on the ground, it would have a similar aesthetic effect.

I really want to punch the author in the face. If you want non-music majors to start listening to classical music, for HEAVEN'S SAKE don't play them Schoenburg or Cage, play them the Rach 2!!!

The teacher in that class once said to us : "Does music have to be beautiful?"

In that class, I once raised my hand and said:

" I have an idea for a revolutionary question in the Culinary Arts. 'Does food have to taste good?' I would place several test subjects around a table and make them eat a pile of vomit, and see what the general consensus is."

The whole lecture hall, consisting of normal college students who listen to REAL MUSIC (such as rock and metal), burst out laughing. Man that was awesome.

On a less virulent note, I agree with what you say about originality.

Well you're entitled to your opinions of course, but anyone who finds ambient sound as moving and intellectually satisfying as say Rach's 2nd Piano Concerto (or countless of other amazing works by the great composers), is, in my opinion, insane. That is grotesque and extreme self deception.[/b]

What's grotesque and self-decepting? The fact that I do find some ambient music to be far more interesting than Rachmaninov? Or the fact that you are incredibly close-minded?

Finally, to say that Cage CRAFTED 4' 33", an act which took absolutely NO craftsmanship or effort whatsoever......  .. 

You probably won't see me expressing these views more than once on this forum, but every place needs a No-Spin zone! :lol:

"Which takes more thought-- breaking barriers, thinking outside the box, and completely disregarding centuries of theory and composition, or organizing several pitches to create a melody, and putting chords behind it(which is as you described it, music)?

I think the latter takes far more thought to do well such that it makes hundreds of millions of people say: "Wow. That was really beautiful."

Now again that isn't to say popularity = good. Not at all. Music is indeed largely subjective, but I believe there is also a very universal element to it.

So music is based on how much thought is put into it? How are you to judge this? Is music also based on how beautiful it is? IS atonal music not music, because it isn't a 9th by beethoven? That's a far-fetched idea! It is music and because you believe it isn't doesn't change the fact that it is music. Is music with less thought put into lesser music than music with more thought, despite how it sounds at the end?

So music is based on how much thought is put into it?

I think we deviated quite a bit from the (true) original(ity) topic to a near flame war :lol:. Or perhaps, it'd been better to have asked how important "true" originality is with respect to the composer.

Well, it seems to me that this thread's original meaning has been changed, for the maker of the thread himself has sparked the discussion that has grown into a 'flame-war'. And that we are flaming the thread-maker also helps. :lol: No offense to Derek, of course!

I mean no offense to any individuals on this page, but find some of the ideas expressed repulsive. I am good friends with many people who hold almost polar opposite opinions and worldviews from mine; we just don't talk about those issues :lol:

In that case then, I am sorry for calling you close-minded! (even though I'm still thinking it!) :lol:

You seem like a very patient and secure person, so I won't worry about offending you too much! ;)

I'll readily admit that i am closed minded! The only thing I am not closed minded about is how many techniques I use in composing my piano music. I just draw the line at 1) not playing anything at all and 2) putting debris into the piano. :lol:

Yes, but what you must realize is that some people consider that to be music. And what you are doing is actually attacking that music, and in turn(and sometimes directly), you are attacking the people that think that way. I don't mind you being close-minded, as I've dealt with it a lot, but I'm not suggesting you get help for it or bashing you because of it, and I'm not attacking the fact that you like Rach more than you do Schoenberg(even though I disagree).

I was about to post another message full of virulent vitriolic venom, but I decided against it. I don't want to make enemies :lol: I have the "crusader" impulse. But we're only talking about music, not religion or politics. ;)

Rargh. That could have been more interesting. The previous board here got kind of boring once everyone got friendly and stopped sharing opinions. But more important perhaps is "community" or something. Maybe if we argue violently but with lots of :lol: :D :D ;) 's...ewww.

What is true originality? Thinking of something that hasn't been thought of before, and implementing it. But Derek, you point at some sort of 'craftsmanship' criterion...is this best summed up with the question "How well does the composer succeed at what he's trying to do?"? Or, do you tend to think of "How well does this composer succeed at what I think every piece should do?", i.e. satisfy your preconceived notions of "good" music? We could probe at "craftsmanship" a bit more, but I see it as entirely distinct from "originality." Applying the Jarrett quote to Cage, as long as he did not imitate (surely he didn't?), what he wrote was music.

So back to originality - what if someone has thought of it first, but you don't know about it? THEN, are you still original?

Few more things. 1) "The acoustics of sound"? The acoustics of WHAT sound??? You need a source, an instrument, and the question, "How can an instrument produce sound?" is wide open, baby. You wouldn't believe all of the instruments that don't exist yet that I want to build. The entire western orchestra of instruments, piano included, is at some stage of stagnated innovation which baffles me yet. Even the harmonic series with its sacred octave is suspect in light of recent psychoacoustic experiments.

I REALIZE that by casting aside the possibilities in (1) gives us more time to think about (2) organization in time. If (2) is built on (1)'s foundation then do we not have a house of cards? Please at least let me eat away at your assumption that a major chord will always sound like a major chord; here is Pachelbel's canon tuned in a myriad of ways. Some are so warped that they cannot be called major; you may hate them for that, but at least acknowledge the presence of alternatives.

Why do people always assume that 4'33 is a 'piece' of music? Why don't they see it for what it is? It is a philosophical piece, not a musical piece, though it directly relates to music and is performed (excecuted may be a better choice of word) in the manner of a mainstream composition. The philosophical piece therefore relates to the way in which we listen to and perhaps the way in which we perform music. One may call it music (and indeed I do), but I don't call it a 'piece' of music or a 'composition'.

"Part of why I am so angry at these ideas is because in my WESTERN MUSIC HISTORY textbook, Rachmaninov is not so much as MENTIONED. But they have PLENTY OF SPACE for John Cage's 4' 33" and Shoenburg's [music]..."

"Hideous brain farts" aside, first of all: it's Schoenberg. Secondly, they may not class Russia as western world at the time Rachmaninov was writing. May it also have been a book with an emphasis on modern music? Don't get upset about your favourite composer not being mentioned: there are plenty of other books about him.

"I think if one were to arrange feces in a geometric pattern on the ground, it would have a similar aesthetic effect."

Now now, that's not very nice. Play nicely!

"I really want to punch the author in the face. If you want non-music majors to start listening to classical music, for HEAVEN'S SAKE don't play them Schoenburg or Cage, play them the Rach 2!!!"

I have thought for a long time that in order to get "non-music majors to start listening to classical music, we need to get rid of the arrogance and snobbishness that is so inherent in the so-called "classical music system". It's a great big put-off from the very start!

Rargh. That could have been more interesting. The previous board here got kind of boring once everyone got friendly and stopped sharing opinions. But more important perhaps is "community" or something. Maybe if we argue violently but with lots of  ;)  :D  :D  :D 's...ewww.

What is true originality? Thinking of something that hasn't been thought of before, and implementing it. But Derek, you point at some sort of 'craftsmanship' criterion...is this best summed up with the question "How well does the composer succeed at what he's trying to do?"? Or, do you tend to think of "How well does this composer succeed at what I think every piece should do?", i.e. satisfy your preconceived notions of "good" music? We could probe at "craftsmanship" a bit more, but I see it as entirely distinct from "originality." Applying the Jarrett quote to Cage, as long as he did not imitate (surely he didn't?), what he wrote was music.

So back to originality - what if someone has thought of it first, but you don't know about it? THEN, are you still original?

Few more things. 1) "The acoustics of sound"? The acoustics of WHAT sound??? You need a source, an instrument, and the question, "How can an instrument produce sound?" is wide open, baby. You wouldn't believe all of the instruments that don't exist yet that I want to build.  The entire western orchestra of instruments, piano included, is at some stage of stagnated innovation which baffles me yet.  Even the harmonic series with its sacred octave is suspect in light of recent psychoacoustic experiments.

I REALIZE that by casting aside the possibilities in (1) gives us more time to think about (2) organization in time.  If (2) is built on (1)'s foundation then do we not have a house of cards? Please at least let me eat away at your assumption that a major chord will always sound like a major chord; here is Pachelbel's canon tuned in a myriad of ways. Some are so warped that they cannot be called major; you may hate them for that, but at least acknowledge the presence of alternatives.

Wow, that's a neat site, Jacob! I especially enjoyed the "Blackjack" tunings :lol:. The problem with true originality is the "thinking of something that hasn't been thought before part" - you never can really know if (or more likely, who) thought of it before. If someone had already thought of it before, but someone else actually impliments it (independently), does it still count as "true" originality?