The Myth Of Originality?

My biggest problem when it comes to composing is the fear that what I write "sounds like something else" or as soon as I start, it "reminds me of something else".

My intellect tells me that there are thousands if not tens of thousands of classical period works that have elements that sound alike - Alberti Bass, triadic melody, etc.

Yet I can't help this feeling that I should not be regurgitating the same old stuff.

What's funny is, when I'm "songwriting" popular style music, I could care less in many cases.

I think what happens is, certain things become "non-issues" for me. I'm much more likely to try to write a Surf or Western style song and when I do, I WANT to incorporate all the cliches! And if the chord progression in my Surf tune is I-bVII-bVI-V, I don't care because it's part and parcel of the style - it's almost as if you you *have* to have a progression like that, but because it's such a part of the style, it's a non-issue.

In other words, it's not my fault I incorporated that aspect because basically, it's expected.

But when I'm "composing", I think I fall into this trap of "I have to be original" - but I know, I can't *really* be original because my choices are informed by my experiences.

So I was messing around tonight with a little melody and accompaniment (see - already falling into an "expected" trap!)

The accompaniment was an "expansion and contraction" in eve note values, like so:

Db-C-Db-D-Eb-D-Eb-F

Ab-A-Ab-G-Gb-G-Gb-F

So essentially the two parts moving in opposite motion in semitone increments, expanding and contracting.

When I got to the F I put a 4th in the melody and then paired the melody with the inner voice and did the same pattern and then the melody went to the remaing voice. One could continue a cycle like this for a while.

The melody itself was just diatonic initial - with an intent on picking notes that weren't already part of the dyad being played primarily.

So this is nice, but it reminds me of many of the turn of the century (to 20th century) Russian composers - Stravinksy - maybe some little Khatchaturian piano pieces.

So suddenly I'm like "well it sounds like that".

I like it because it doesn't sound "too classical", and sounds "more modern", but at the same time, it sounds "dated" to me.

But someone like Khatchaturian (if I'm remembering who it was correctly) had a slew of these little piano pieces with a diatonic melody and chromatic accompanament (mabe they were all inspired by the Chopin Em Prelude). So obviously these guys didn't necessarily feel like they were stealing from themselves (though on some level, it might have been their "thing").

But if I do it, I feel like it's a cheap imitation.

I have written what one might call "purpose" pieces - you know, I want to write something that sounds like "a film intro" ("epic" style) and I do. Or a little string 4tet thing that sounds like what you might hear during some drug commercial (classical style). Or I might do a harpsichord fugue or something (in Baroque style).

But I'm just doing that to make something that sounds like something else.

So when I'm trying to compose "my own" stuff, I don't want it to sound like these other things. I guess, I just don't have the skill set to "have my own voice" but I also feel like much of the music I gravitate to is what we might call "popular classical", including film scores that are essentially Romantic Period leftovers (though I do like a lot of modernistic music, and electronic composition (not EDM) and so on).

What i need is for this "it sounds like something else" to become a non-issue, like when I'm doing "intentionally trying to sound like" music.

Does anyone else struggle with this?

If so, what helps you to get around it? I realize finding one's own voice is the most difficult thing of course, but this "it sounds like something I've heard before" issue is basically keeping me from writing anything "origianal" and all I can get done is cheap imitations of music I'm intentionally writing to make people go "hey that sounds like...".

Thoughts?

Finding one's voice takes time, years, decades even. And when you do its not going to be completely original. Your voice is a culmination of all that you have experienced arranged in a way to identifies you. Its going to harken back to previous things and someone will ALWAYS say its sounds like something else, even if you never intended it to. 

When it comes to originality, this is a struggle I've had and have seen in young composers. Its not so much a myth, but the way we think of it is. Originality does not come from melody and harmony alone. All originality comes from how those elements are treated. You have to look at your music in a bigger picture and not just in trying to create that most original melody. This is true with all composers. Beethoven's first two symphonies were almost direct Haydn copies, he made them his by putting his stamp on how the material is developed. Even his last symphony borrows liberally from Bach, but the way he treats it makes it his own. This pattern of borrowing something else from what came before and developing it is how you will develop your voice, because you will never make perfect copies of anything you hear. As you grow as a composer, your natural tendencies will come up more and more to the surface and the traits that feel like mimicry will begin to fade. Just remember the big picture and the development of ideas and focus less on making original melodies or harmonies. 

All I can say is: "Good writers borrow, great writers steal" 

***

My biggest problem when it comes to composing is the fear that what I write "sounds like something else" or as soon as I start, it "reminds me of something else".

***

The key word in that sentence is fear. And it's not a good thing. It's a remnant of what's left in the wake of Modernism, where originality trumps every other aspect of music. It forces us all to be unique or to be nothing. A lousy choice. There is no middle ground. You must lose this pesky irritant that peeks over your shoulder when you are writing. Don't be afraid of being derivative. People will not judge you harshly if you write something that sounds like something else if it is based on sound musical ideas and construction. You simply need to write, and write a lot, to get better. So if someone dismisses you or your music, you can always say, Sorry, I'm not a Modernist. And the irony of all this is that you WILL become original by not being original.

There are some very helpful and wise answers here!

This obsessive fear of redundancy to me is a carry-over from the post-war years when the artistic community as a whole had no patience for anything except that which was perceived as avant-garde. There is so much desperation in the music of that time and a lot of it is so original it literally hurts. Worse yet, this conquest for unexplored terrain is more often than not a shield that the mediocre can hide behind due to the fact that the premise of modern art makes it basically impervious to criticism (it is very Emperor's New Clothes). It's easy to avoid developing the necessary skills needed to be a competent composer when all you need to do is obfuscate your art enough so that it appears to have depth. Great composers that create works with an appealing style as well as rock solid architecture have nothing to fear from the ghosts of the past. It's of course necessary not to repeat things that you have heard verbatim because if you don't add anything personal there is no point in composing in the first place. I find that the separation between novice and master is most striking in the variation form, where you can't really hide behind anything.

i think originality developes over a longer period of ..measures. of course small phrases are the same in every type of music, but the answering phrases, or better pair of phrases starts to make it unique.

if complex melodies resamble with those of the past, then some weird transgenerational spirit transfer sh_t happened.

You cannot escape the fact many pieces sound similar to somebody else's music. You will never be fully original unless you invent something completely new. But you can certainly find your own voice inside the ocean of existing elements of music. Good luck!

You cannot escape the fact many pieces sound similar to somebody else's music. You will never be fully original unless you invent something completely new. But you can certainly find your own voice inside the ocean of existing elements of music. Good luck!

So, a question. Do you, as an experienced and successful composer, believe that the voice that one develops and has through their compositional flavor stays the same throughout their entire compositional career/life, do you believe it changes subtly, or do you believe that it can change drastically over time? And do you believe that the composer himself chooses to change it or do you think it's more or less a natural progression? 

I figure that seems like a redundant question, but what I'm getting at is something like this. For example, Penderecki for the first half of his compositional career was known as an avant gardist, then later switched to a way more conservative style. Does that result in a complete changeover in his musical "voice" or does the voice stay the same, but the style simply changes? Are the two independent of each other, or not at all, in your opinion?

Do you believe that the voice that one develops and has through their compositional flavor stays the same throughout their entire compositional career/life, do you believe it changes subtly, or do you believe that it can change drastically over time?

 

...

 

Does that result in a complete changeover in his musical "voice" or does the voice stay the same, but the style simply changes? Are the two independent of each other, or not at all, in your opinion?

To me, it's like any spoken/oral language. There's the language itself, along with various dialects and accents, and then, finally our own individual (literal) voices. You may learn a different language, or adopt a new accent over time, but your voice will always remain the same. 

You cannot escape the fact many pieces sound similar to somebody else's music. You will never be fully original unless you invent something completely new. But you can certainly find your own voice inside the ocean of existing elements of music. Good luck!

Perhaps originality is something bestowed on a composer by critics and academics, the same ones who delineate stylistic periods after the fact. Composers are pragmatic artists. Our main concern is making our works work, not starting trends. Even if we wanted to we could not start a trend. We don't have that power. 

To me, it's like any spoken/oral language. There's the language itself, along with various dialects and accents, and then, finally our own individual (literal) voices. You may learn a different language, or adopt a new accent over time, but your voice will always remain the same. 

Wow, that's actually a rather fantastic analogy. I suppose ultimately we decide and carve our musical language throughout our lifetimes, varying with what we listen to, study, or compose during a certain "phase" or "era". It's probably just human nature to personally move on and explore new horizons with your abilities and to break the barriers that you had set for yourself previously. However, with all of that, our purpose with music and why we do it may or may not change, yet our voice will not. 

Huh. :P

So much music has been made, and is readily available, it's pretty hard to  come up with something completely new.. Write what comes out.. don't worry about 'being totally original'...  cause you really can't..  The music part of our brain, is full of data, rules, what sounds good, scales, melodic forms it likes etc.. It takes all that's stored in it, and something comes out.  Sometimes, it feels like music comes 'thru' us and we are only the conduit.. 

When Paul McCartney first wrote 'Yesterday' (it was called Scrambled Eggs). He said the melody came to him as a fragment from a dream.. He walked around for a week or two, playing it for everyone he knew, being pretty sure at the time, it was something he heard from someone else, and not totally his own. When he was satisfied no one knew what it was, then he felt it was his own..

After you've got a concept out with your creative 'subjective' brain.. Be analytical about it, did you steal something.. Or are you just using a compositional tool, other composers have used.. Sometimes I just jam a melodic part out.. Than cut/paste/move segments around, until it sounds unique, and not like a melody I would commonly write.. 

Being 67 and very versed in popular music (I took music lessons from 30's - 60's fake books).. I can hear so much borrowing, stealing, manipulation of something old, outright copyright infringement.  I sometimes think if I was a music lawyer, I could make a living on music copyright infringement alone.. A lot of cable stations, cater their commercials to cities, even segments of the population, so a fair amount of these commercials are 'home made' by younger musicians.. I've heard popular music songs, just barely altered and used as original music. (I used to compose for OmniMusic Library).    Back in the 90's I had to do 16 songs in 3 weeks.. I bought and  used Band in a box.. to speed up the process. It's a clever piece of software.. But once you use it enough you start to recognize chord progressions and melodic segments it uses. Imagine my surprise to hear a moderate amount of generic music used in commercials, industrial soundtracks, that I knew the original ideas came from Band in a Box..  

Write what you like.. if you feel like you 'regurgitating' someone else's music it's OK.. You got to get it out of your system, then sub-consciously you will move on..  Since so much (all?) classical music is public domain, don't worry about it.

good luck, keep making music.

Don't worry at all. I actually encourage you to copy other composers. That's what Mozart did with Abel and JC Bach, and what Haydn did with CPE Bach, and what Beethoven did with Haydn. And before long, they found their own voice whether they were aware of it or not.

^ what he said.

Originality is overrated anyway. Authenticity (being true to oneself's art) is what really matters.

Of course we're not going to be completely original. The idea that all pieces of new 'classical' music must be utterly unique is just absurd to me, and it's annoying to find people saying that all the time online. I am just a novice composer, but I have been finding that there are so many techniques available to composers that finding "your own sound" is more about emphasizing and balancing in your own way the techniques that you find aesthetically pleasing.

I have been finding that using liberal chromaticism within a more conservative tonal framework is what I've been gravitating toward. It sounds lighthearted and occasionally goofy and it isn't what I envisioned for myself when I started 'seriously' composing a little more than a year ago. It may be a passing phase, but right now it feels natural so I'm sticking with it.

Well there are only 12 notes, and mathematically only certain chords, notes are the most pleasing..  To me originality, is that we learn a lot of things, techniques, then we 'synthesize' these processes, into something different. 

It's really hard to be original at this point, because so many people before use have covered the most pleasant and striking musical processes..  With all these sampled 'libraries' now..  We hear it in TV and movies, that don't have a big budget..  

But a lot of this music is like 'Leggo'  music..  Actually a real composer who has access to an orchestra is in a great situation.. When I was younger, (and dumber)  I didn't want to go to Berklee music, or the Conservatory in Boston. Cause I wanted my music to be original..  I worked in one of Bostons first 3 multi-track studios.. We got a lot of Berklee musicians, and man they all sounded the same..  However looking back, I realize we were all students back the, so they were learning the basic music tools.. With experience and time, then they could make use of all these processes, they learnt an mold it into something unique.. 

Sometimes sounding not 'original' opens the door to opportunities, and then you can later move to more unique original music.. Unlike most people here, I don't come from a classical background..  I realize The Beatles, did hundreds and hundreds of covers in their early years, and then incorporated all these ideas, into their own original music..  Frank Zappa was even more out there of his passion, for avant gard classical, and just weird rock.  His later stuff took on a much more serious turn.. although much of it is too out there for my taste.. But he did create something original.. 

I wouldn't 'fear' not being original.. but if it keeps coming up for you then yes, you need to make changes.. Listen to different things, and don't be afraid to cross your own self-imposed musical boundaries (we all have them).. 

I love the internet for that reason. You can quick research music from all over the world, and hear what different musicians are doing.. And there is an amount of 'original' sounding. though at this point, original is a new blend of different ideas..

Does anyone know if bandora is also like band in a box in this regard? https://bandora.com/en/