Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
- with regards to music.
look harder! there always is something original... and its often considerably better than anything remotely un-original.
I like the idea of making mixtapes of all the "influences" an artist has used.
...it's a bit difficult to see where it's all going to go next I suppose, I think the last ten years have been quite stagnant creatively although lots has been really good there hasn't been the massive push that characterised the decade before and the one before that etc. With regards to originality I think that because of this stagnat situation, endless nostalgia and blatant regurgitation of ideas it's easy to think the originality has run out....
I’d heard nothing like ‘I Luv You’ by Dizzee Rascal prior to me hearing it for the first time and this was only a few years ago – I don’t think I’ve had such a cataclysmic ‘what the fuck’ moment since then, but I’m confident I feel very soon.
to think of two things off the top of my head
are completely exactly the same as everything that's gone before them
...people thinking too broadly about genres and not artists. An original artist isn't necessarily part of a genre hence doesn't fit snugly into any theorising about originality.
came from somthing that vaugly sounded like it beofore though its the way it works.
...writing essays on originality, theorising about originality etc doesn't really breed it, it just views it through the lens of a particular lifestyle or academic standpoint which is basically the antithesis of orginality.
I agree for sure
its just the way things progress
is a cultural impossibility, other than if you grow a child completely contained within an insular world, then give them a few instruments. Even then, they will probably develop a familiar musicality based around mathematics, or intrinsic human feeling
what i'm saying is this: nothing comes totally out of the blue. There was a stage where musical technique and sound was not fully explored - i think most of those connections have already been made on some level, so even if someone comes up with something outside of anything they've heard, it's likely that it has unheard peers or at least comes from some known set of circumstances
There will be music verging on pure originality, i'm sure. But at the current stage of musical endeavour i think most of the bases have been covered. Saying that, you have to be completely original yourself if you want to see the new bases
complete orginality IS an impossibility but obviously this can't stop original music being made. if enough elements of a certain bands music are unique to anything done before, then you can call them original, despite a conformance to some common or at least unoriginal ideas. i don't beleive it's possible to have every element of music to be completely 100% original, it just isn't logical.
even seeminly original music might not actually be that original after all, just because you've never heard anything like it before doesn't mean the type of music simply doesn't exist. there has been so much music over the course of time, that it isn't possible to know.
music that uses certain levels/types of technology will obviously be impossible to produce before said technology was available, therefore a band is more likely to be original, if they're taking advantage of the latest music equipment.
You could easily say that when Juan Atkins invented techon all he was doing is mixing Kraftwerk with Funkadelic. And it a way that'd be true but it doesn't detract from the fact that he made something totally new, revolutionary and life changing out of existing influences. And to me that is originality.
- this is basically what I was getting at, albeit in a much less articulate manner.
just of the top of my head xiu xiu and animal collective, I cant pin down what is original about them but I think they are
and all art for that matter and prety much everything ever...
develops in tiney little steps building on what went on before it. So if you look way back in time and hear that music with fuzzy nostalga magic moon glasses about how ground breaking it was, then you aint seeing it how it was at the time.
Everything progresses slowly and as we are livingwith these change in music the jump just doesnt seem as big as we persive the ones in the past to be, as we haven't seen those in contex...
I don't think we can appreciate the changes while we're experiencing them.
just not as easily
we just need to step back sometimes and look at what we have I guess.
but its the preparedness or capacity of the public to pick it up which progresses in tiny steps
what is genuinely new or original tends to get dismissed as unlistenable
when Stravisky first performed the Rite of Spring there was a riot and 95 years later it is still challenging the vast majority of listeners
Though you think Pink Moon is shit. I'm deducting points for that.
should take into account that no music is devoid of another musical influence. On the whole, I think the biggest problem with this argument is way that different people define the term 'originailty'.
(err, yeah, quantum means very very small)
However I completely agree with your point. I sometimes come up with stuff that I think sounds crap, and other people think sounds crap....yet I wonder whether if people heard it in 50 years time could it be viewed as exciting and original and LISTENABLE ? I'm not sure...
about them being original, as someone might claim that they are. nevermind.
a waste of time arguing about how original things are. It seems to me it is much more worthwhile debating the quality of music regardless of its originality. However that is just my opinion so it is worth very little.