# Finding Originality



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I am making this thread to challenge the notion that composers have to listen to a wide variety of music to be original.

What if you listen to one or two Artists, but just have a strong sense of individuality which helps bring about an original sound.

What do you think?


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Depends on training.

An entirely untrained composer will be original, because there will be no antecedents.

A composer trained in Bach only will tend to write like Bach, because that's all she knows.

A composer trained in a wide variety of music can weave her way between the various musical antecedents, finding her own originality along the way.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

I think it's possible but improbable. Most of what we call originality in the arts is really just taking what's already been done before, mixing that with something else that's already been done before, and in that mixture creating a dish that tastes very different as a whole than their ingredients in isolation. My favorite example to use is Orson Welles's Citizen Kane. If we're talking true originality, as in something that Welles invented that hadn't been done at all before him, there's relatively little of that in Citizen Kane. Rather, what made Kane so groundbreaking was that it was almost like a compendium of every cinematic technique that had been used up to that point, and what those techniques could be used for. 

I'm sure there are some composers who didn't listen to a "wide variety of music" but still found an original voice, but I would guess they're a rarity. I can certainly think of authors and filmmakers I consider quite original even though they hadn't read widely or watched a great many films. I can't immediately think of any examples in classical music, but that's partly just because I don't how much we know about the listening habits of composers, especially older ones.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

NoCoPilot said:


> Depends on training.
> 
> An entirely untrained composer will be original, because there will be no antecedents.
> 
> ...


I see the point your are making. That the untrained composer will be more original compared to the other two examples you provided.

However, I don't think a composer trained in one Artist will necessarily sound like them, I think they can be very original if they have a lot of individuality.

Likewise, for your third example, I don't think one must listen to a variety of composers to be original.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I am making this thread to challenge the notion that composers have to listen to a wide variety of music to be original.
> 
> What if you listen to one or two Artists, but just have a strong sense of individuality which helps bring about an original sound.
> 
> What do you think?


A child or a monkey at a keyboard will produce an original sound. The thing it lacks is a place in the tradition. And for that, it needs to be understood in the context of that tradition. That's partly about how it's received, about someone telling a story which makes it seem part of classical music from Machaut to now.

A composer who listens to lots of music and responds is more likely to be received positively.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> A child or a monkey at a keyboard will produce an original sound. The thing it lacks is a place in the tradition. And for that, it needs to be understood in the context of that tradition. That's partly about how it's received, about someone telling a story which makes it seem part of classical music from Machaut to now.
> 
> A composer who listens to lots of music and responds is more likely to be received positively.


Personally I'd rather listen to the child, or the monkey.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> A child or a monkey at a keyboard will produce an original sound. The thing it lacks is a place in the tradition. And for that, it needs to be understood in the context of that tradition. That's partly about how it's received, about someone telling a story which makes it seem part of classical music from Machaut to now.
> 
> A composer who listens to lots of music and responds is more likely to be received positively.


I'm not really seeing how your logic follows to your ultimate conclusion that a composer who listens to many Artists will be more positively received, probably.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Composing classical music that is original does not guarantee that it will be good music or that it will attract listeners. In fact, these days, IMO, trying to compose CM that is very original is more likely to result in music that few want to hear.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Personally I'd rather listen to the child, or the monkey.


There's plenty of that on the market, for those who wish it. Musical composition is a skill, like writing or building a house. That does not prevent "primitivists" from writing internet screeds or building thatch huts. There's a market for that.

But not among those familiar with more advanced architecture.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Composing classical music that is original does not guarantee that it will be good music or that it will attract listeners. In fact, these days, IMO, trying to compose CM that is very original is more likely to result in music that few want to hear.


That's definitely a point I was thinking about in the back of my head.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Each week I find new Classical works posted on YouTube. IMO there is not problem.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> Each week I find new Classical works posted on YouTube. IMO there is not problem.


I think you have missed the point of the thread. Did you read the OP?


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Any artist who is an "original" owes a heavy reliance upon the past, which the "original" artist has likely a great mastery of both in knowledge and practical skill. Beethoven was an "original", but he used the music system of Haydn and Mozart to accomplish his ends. Shakespeare was an "original," but he worked in a medium that dated back 2000 years to Aeschylus and Sophocles. Renoir was an "original", but he purchased canvasses and paints from the same sources as others who brushed paint onto canvas.

Originality is never a completely new thing. Rather, it is generally a component or partial thing added to art. Beethoven expanded form and emotional content into music. Shakespeare added an element of "realness" to his human characters, writing characters who didn't say things in order to move a plot forward but rather said things that made for a plot to happen. Renoir rethought light, color and brush strokes for creating visual imitation.

An "original" cannot be preordained in advance. Rather, an "original" is one who has a thought no one else has ever had, or at least a thought that no one else has ever put into practice. But it is always within a larger context of a long, well-established tradition.

Those of you interested in this particular thread might greatly enjoy the short story "Unaccompanied Sonata" by masterful American writer Orson Scott Card. The story was first published in the March, 1979 issue of _Omni _magazine, where I first read it. It appears in Card's short story collections _Unaccompanied Sonata and Other Stories_ and _Maps in a Mirror_. It was nominated in 1979 for the Nebula Award for Best Short Story and in 1980 for the Hugo Award for Best Short Story.

Here is a portion of the plot summary as given on Wikipedia. (I will avoid spoiling the ending.) "A child is brought up to be a musical prodigy. He is raised alone in a cabin by unsinging servants, in order to guarantee that his only musical influences are natural. He plays on a complicated instrument capable of a wide range of sound, but is absolutely disallowed from hearing the music of others, for, he is told, that would corrupt his originality and make his work derivative. At some point he is, against the wishes of his keepers, introduced to the music of Bach," and his art and his life is changed forever.

A great story, this one is, with much to ponder.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

NoCoPilot said:


> There's plenty of that on the market, for those who wish it. Musical composition is a skill, like writing or building a house. That does not prevent "primitivists" from writing internet screeds or building thatch huts. There's a market for that.
> 
> But not among those familiar with more advanced architecture.


Ok bro. Let's agree to disagree. You take your Shostakovich and Britten and Vaughn Williams, I'll take my monkey.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Was Cheetah a great melodist Ben?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

It's worth considering the impact of technical prowess on originality, rather than mere influence. Learning and mastering technique can be a gateway to originality because it will hone any natural inclinations and gifts by supporting them with a solid foundation of know how. As a result, any expressive goal is achievable. It's fair to say that natural ability is decisive too when considering originality and to some extent I agree with the Cap'n about individuality. It's not enough in itself for some forms of music though.

Influence is important and can even be a pain in the ***, but learning technique is (somewhat ironically), one sure way of finding out if a composer has the capacity for originality.


----------



## Tarneem (Jan 3, 2022)

DaveM said:


> Composing classical music that is original does not guarantee that it will be good music or that it will attract listeners. In fact, these days, IMO, trying to compose CM that is very original is more likely to result in music that few want to hear.


EXACTLY! nowadays composers tend to be original more than being genuine. and a lot of contemporary classical music tend to be a show


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

How to define originality is the first paradox to start with this question. To put originality above everything else would be delusional. It should be treated as a common criterion for all features, components of a work in question. Like the originality of the theme, the melody, the text, the modal character, most of the time, these features are very subtle, go beyond the immediate enjoyment of the music to the realm of historiological and theoretical aspects of the contexts. But in terms of immediate enjoyment, the originality will become either extremely obscure or instinctive today, because you can not really heard anything of bad plagiary of another work you have never heard, and the terms of plagiary is also controversial itself. But a good piece of music can always bring some immediate enjoyment, and the originality there is the uniqueness of voice, freshness of the melody, and the idea that you believe that this is a song composed by the artist himself/herself. But looking into many modern artists, rockers have co-writters often, so should one stop listen to them? not me. I am tended to look at the piece of work itself, treating the work entirely on its own right. Then originality for me is how I subjectively take the work to be in my own context of listening, originality therefore can be as subjective as it is objective, it depends how the audiences take it and understand it. 

In terms of aesthetics, sometimes human purposes should make way for the art itself like :"...everything useful is ugly, for it expresses a need, and the needs of man are disgusting and ignoble, like his poor weak nature." --Theophile Gaultier

David Bowie says about popular music that it needs something dangerous to be a good piece of work. I have to agree with both ideas, they imply where originality should weigh: not on the artist`s personal needs or trivias, not inspired by his own matters of no much concern to the art itself. Say, maybe his techniques? his devotion? his philosophies? when people try to look into the work to find the image of the artist, some want to see his/her personal life, some his/her ideas, some both. If all fitting togather into an original character of a personality that is relevant to people who appreciate him/her, than it is OK. Therefore in general, there are many criteria of originality: subjective appreciation on the part of audience, objective contextual attributes and features, artistic techniques, relevant artistic ethics, relevance to different groups of audiences and other related philosophies or conventions. 

We should not take originality in all kinds of artistic works irrationally inflated like we treat in daily associations of people: "Oh, that guy is cool, he is so funny, I like him."--or the contrary. Of course we can enjoy a work instinctively for originality but critically, we must not conflate the two. 

Certainly, it is necessary to distance the originality of the work from the originality of the creator, how to connect the two originalities, it depends on different ways of appreciation.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ariasexta said:


> How to define originality is the first paradox to start with this question. To put originality above everything else would be delusional. It should be treated as a common criterion for all features, components of a work in question. Like the originality of the theme, the melody, the text, the modal character, most of the time, these features are very subtle, go beyond the immediate enjoyment of the music to the realm of historiological and theoretical aspects of the contexts. But in terms of immediate enjoyment, the originality will become either extremely obscure or instinctive today, because you can not really heard anything of bad plagiary of another work you have never heard, and the terms of plagiary is also controversial itself. But a good piece of music can always bring some immediate enjoyment, and the originality there is the uniqueness of voice, freshness of the melody, and the idea that you believe that this is a song composed by the artist himself/herself. But looking into many modern artists, rockers have co-writters often, so should one stop listen to them? not me. I am tended to look at the piece of work itself, treating the work entirely on its own right. Then originality for me is how I subjectively take the work to be in my own context of listening, originality therefore can be as subjective as it is objective, it depends how the audiences take it and understand it.
> 
> In terms of aesthetics, sometimes human purposes should make way for the art itself like :"...everything useful is ugly, for it expresses a need, and the needs of man are disgusting and ignoble, like his poor weak nature." --Theophile Gaultier
> 
> ...


This is a highly complex post. I'll have to read it carefully later and give a proper response, which I will do when Mozart isn't occupying my attention.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

mikeh375 said:


> It's worth considering the impact of technical prowess on originality, rather than mere influence. Learning and mastering technique can be a gateway to originality because it will hone any natural inclinations and gifts by supporting them with a solid foundation of know how. As a result, any expressive goal is achievable. It's fair to say that natural ability is decisive too when considering originality and to some extent I agree with the Cap'n about individuality. It's not enough in itself for some forms of music though.
> 
> Influence is important and can even be a pain in the ***, but learning technique is (somewhat ironically), one sure way of finding out if a composer has the capacity for originality.


An interesting proposition concerning improved_ technique_ as a causeway to originality. I agree. Certainly Paganini and Liszt were originals, based upon the expansion of technique they provided for their respective instruments. In their own day many of their compositions were virtually unplayable by others who lacked the composers' technique prowess. But cannot one of pure imagination (and lacking technical prowess on an instrument) conceive of "original" statements in music? We often hear about composers such as Beethoven who wrote things that were impossible to play. Surely there is music out there that is virtually impossible to play, and perhaps no amount of human technique can handle such requirements (perhaps electronic means can). Is not this also worthy of consideration for originality?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ariasexta said:


> How to define originality is the first paradox to start with this question. To put originality above everything else would be delusional. It should be treated as a common criterion for all features, components of a work in question. Like the originality of the theme, the melody, the text, the modal character, most of the time, these features are very subtle, go beyond the immediate enjoyment of the music to the realm of historiological and theoretical aspects of the contexts. But in terms of immediate enjoyment, the originality will become either extremely obscure or instinctive today, because you can not really heard anything of bad plagiary of another work you have never heard, and the terms of plagiary is also controversial itself. But a good piece of music can always bring some immediate enjoyment, and the originality there is the uniqueness of voice, freshness of the melody, and the idea that you believe that this is a song composed by the artist himself/herself. But looking into many modern artists, rockers have co-writters often, so should one stop listen to them? not me. I am tended to look at the piece of work itself, treating the work entirely on its own right. Then originality for me is how I subjectively take the work to be in my own context of listening, originality therefore can be as subjective as it is objective, it depends how the audiences take it and understand it.
> 
> In terms of aesthetics, sometimes human purposes should make way for the art itself like :"...everything useful is ugly, for it expresses a need, and the needs of man are disgusting and ignoble, like his poor weak nature." --Theophile Gaultier
> 
> ...


After reading carefully, I must say this is an excellent thought out post. Introducing the notion of originality of the various parts of a work, rather than just the work as a whole (which can also be a way to appreciate the work).

You also introduced the notion of the subjective and objective nature of originality in which it highly depends on how the listener perceives the work, which I think there is a lot of truth in that statement.

Great post!

Thanks.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> An interesting proposition concerning improved_ technique_ as a causeway to originality. I agree. Certainly Paganini and Liszt were originals, based upon the expansion of technique they provided for their respective instruments. In their own day many of their compositions were virtually unplayable by others who lacked the composers' technique prowess. But cannot one of pure imagination (and lacking technical prowess on an instrument) conceive of "original" statements in music? We often hear about composers such as Beethoven who wrote things that were impossible to play. Surely there is music out there that is virtually impossible to play, and perhaps no amount of human technique can handle such requirements (perhaps electronic means can). Is not this also worthy of consideration for originality?


And to piggyback off this, what about works that require little virtuosity/technical skill, were created from a place of imagination but are yet very enjoyable. I think of Satie.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> And to piggyback off this, what about works that require little virtuosity/technical skill, were created from a place of imagination but are yet very enjoyable. I think of Satie.


I will agree that Satie qualifies as "an original".

Of course, the term "original" refers also to the one who came first. The piano music of Liszt and the violin music of Paganini (to return to my two examples) were once "impossible" to play. Today, many of the works of these two composers are mastered by youthful artists who haven't yet completed their musical degree studies. We don't term them originals. Meanwhile, a newer level of virtuosity has arisen, especially in the avant-garde, much of it with that look of impossibility. But we might suspect that this issue will resolve itself, too, with time and practicing musicians.

I would argue that Schoenberg is one of the great "originals". It isn't that his music is especially technically difficult. And we know there were "twelve-tone style" musical passages prior to Schoenberg. Charles Ives (another "original") provides some examples. But Schoenberg's originality springs from his conscious attempts to codify a twelve-tone technique of composition, to set down "rules" as are evident in the older tonal system, and to make the method justifiable artistically and not just a splash in the pan event, which is seldom a true mark of originality. Just because we can think up something crazy and stupid (like maybe playing Beethoven's "Moonlight" Sonata with tuned spoons) doesn't qualify as a credential of originality. Schoenberg's processes stemmed out of the tradition, expanding upon it but remaining firmly grounded in the work of a long past. Schoenberg proved his technical prowess as a composer in early works such as _Gurre-Lieder_ and could likely have lived out a long, successful life as a composer and composition instructor had he never dabbled with twelve-tone technique. We may have praised him highly. Yet, we might never have thought of him as "an original", an amorphously defined term we have a better intuitive sense of in terms of meaning than a purely logical and/or verbally defined one. Which itself is one of the characteristics of great or influential art.

Satie had the knowledge and skills to do most anything he wanted in terms of composition. He could have blended in with the plethora of fin de siècle French composers, most of whose names we barely know today, just by composing efficient, pleasing musical compositions for well-established salons and music-makers. Rather, he chose to go a more adventurous route with his strangely named, eccentrically harmonized and deceptively simple compositions, few of which were, by the given standard of the day, readily acceptable as legitimate forms by the properly musically informed, though a younger crop of would-be composers as yet unindoctrinated were listening well. Satie gave up musical respectability and sure performance opportunities in favor of expressing his own compelling voice. And we've come to agree with him.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> I will agree that Satie qualifies as "an original".
> 
> Of course, the term "original" refers also to the one who came first. The piano music of Liszt and the violin music of Paganini (to return to my two examples) were once "impossible" to play. Today, many of the works of these two composers are mastered by youthful artists who haven't yet completed their musical degree studies. We don't term them originals. Meanwhile, a newer level of virtuosity has arisen, especially in the avant-garde, much of it with that look of impossibility. But we might suspect that this issue will resolve itself, too, with time and practicing musicians.
> 
> ...


Excellent post!


----------

