# Is originality a determing factor in greatness?



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

Hi folks, this is my first post in the forum, and I just wanted to say how much I've enjoyed the various conversations I've skimmed through so far.

Anyways, as a music lover, this particular question has been on my mind for a while now. Let me try to explain. It seems to me a common view that "originality" is a very important factor in determining the greatness of a composer. And yet, and this completely blows my mind, western music from renaissance music to modern avant-garde, from classicism to romanticism are based around the same 12 notes. Only 12. Not to add that throughout most of history western music has been dominated by scales of 8 notes (or you know, 7 and the 8th repeated). It seems almost impossible that so much variety has been obtained from such parameters. As amazing as that seems to me, what concerns me here is how often unamiously great composers use _unoriginal material. We can all name hundreds of instances of quotations, variations, transformations. Bizet did not "create" the famous habanera in Carmen, he based it off a Spanish song called El arreglito. In turn, the famous second theme in Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony is a transformation of a tune in Carmen. Some of Brahms most famous compositions are variations on themes by other composers. And how many quotations of folk songs? Endless. The last movement of Haydn's 104th symphony for example.

With all that in mind, is originality (if that's even completely possible) really what makes the great composers so great in our mind? And if not...what is it exactly that makes them so great, seeing that so many of them base their greatest works on the work of others?_


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> And how many quotations of folk songs? Endless. The last movement of Haydn's 104th symphony for example.


Interesting question. Re the last movement of Haydn's 104, that's a supposition and not a fact. A story: A professor wandered the hills of central Europe looking for the folk songs on which Haydn based his works. He used a phonograph to play the works. The peasants soon learned that they could earn tips by saying, "Yes, that's a folk song of our village!"

And to this day, the peasants sing the songs that the professor taught them.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

The notes used in the melodies don't have to be original, but the way the composer uses them in the context of their own music is where originality plays its most important part.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

As long as it doesn't tend to absurdity.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The notes used in the melodies don't have to be original, but the way the composer uses them in the context of their own music is where originality plays its most important part.


Agreed, the application is more important than the material itself in terms of originality.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Crudblud said:


> Agreed, the application is more important than the material itself in terms of originality.


I third that.. Borrowing is a theme You can find with just about any composer since the start of music & time!

/ptr


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2013)

I'd say 'transformation' rather than 'application' and not 'originality' - but it's meant as a subtle nudge, not an alternative.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The notes used in the melodies don't have to be original, but the way the composer uses them in the context of their own music is where originality plays its most important part.


Yes, I'd say that the ability to take something created by another and make it one's own is one indicator of "greatness". Back in the Renaissance, composers wishing to display their talents would quite deliberately make use of unoriginal material - think of all those cantus firmus masses based on _L'homme armé_.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

We have decided, for some time, on that 12 pitch set of tones, but between rhythm, what notes are chosen, what meter they are cast in, the possibilities are nearly 'infinite.' Add to that set of elements silence, time, the various instruments, alone or in combination and all their timbres, and mixed timbres.... What is done with it, then, is what makes the difference between something sounding derivative, not 'vital' -- fresh and alive.

There are but 26 letters in our alphabet, yet English has more words, many near the same meaning with shades of meaning within, than any other language: there are 27 or so plots, the last handful of those already a sort of mix of elements of the first handful, yet we have multitudes of stories.

There are three primary colors, yet......

All those observations are often made, often by one 'newer' to looking into, listening to the arts which use the various media. Still, speaking as an 'official' geezer, it is not beyond a geezer to still sometimes marvel at what seems such a minimum of material to work with, and the myriad ways the truly creative come up with works which seem 'new' and 'fresh.'

It is always 'what is done with it,' that makes the difference between something forgettable and something memorable.

I find 'original,' far too overemphasized or 'glamorized' at present. I prefer 'fresh' and or 'vital,' which seem to cover that bill and are, just maybe, more at the core of what is valued as 'important,' or 'of genius.'


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I'm really impressed. The OP was posted at EXACTLY midnight.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> I'm really impressed. The OP was posted at EXACTLY midnight.


5:00 PM AEST for what I can see....


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> 5:00 PM AEST for what I can see....


Somewhere, in one of the 24 time zones, that was 00:00 hrs. That means somewhere, it is always past my bed-time.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Yes, but originality needs to be defined better. I just think originality with the "soul of music" is more important than originality with a new gimmicky idea. But even that doesn't matter so much, as long as the music has heart or sound logic or both.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

All great music contains_ something _original. Something unique to _it_. 
Look at the 6 billion humans on earth. We all follow the same 'blueprint' and yet we are all 'originals'

All great music is original but not all original music is great!


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> All great music is original but not all original music is great!


I disagree. I think music can be great without being especially original. Mozart is frequently regarded this way. He didn't blaze any new paths stylistically or harmonically or with form, etc. but what he did was create music that was just better than his peers while remaining within the basic conventions of his era. So, excellence by itself can be greatness even in the absence of originality.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

"Great" still lacks a workable definition imo, no matter how many posts contain the word. 

If I look at my own preferences, originality is not a quality that is really important to decide whether I like a composition or not.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> In turn, the famous second theme in Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony is a transformation of a tune in Carmen.


I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with Carmen. Is this fact or merely conjecture? (re: Pathetique)

To answer your question, I don't feel it is a determining factor but certainly a worthy criterion. Beethoven's 9th was (quite obviously) an original and revolutionary work, but its greatness isn't simply because of the use of voices in a Symphony - rather, it is the artistic effect that he achieves through them that is key imo.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Andolink said:


> I disagree. I think music can be great without being especially original. Mozart is frequently regarded this way. He didn't blaze any new paths stylistically or harmonically or with form, etc. but what he did was create music that was just better than his peers while remaining within the basic conventions of his era. So, excellence by itself can be greatness even in the absence of originality.


Ah, but in his most celebrated compositions (of which there are many) the unmistakeable 'voice' is there. The reason he stands so far apart from many of his contemporaries is his music sounds so ....well...Mozartian.
It is possible to be original without breaking from convention entirely or 'blazing _new_ paths'. Just as it is possible to be an original looking human while still having a 'conventional' physiology. Besides, he did break with convention, or at least experiment with form in his Operas.

I too think music can be great without trying to explore entiely new ground or seek novelty. I suppose it come down to a definition of original.


----------



## Jimm (Jun 29, 2012)

For my own tastes, exploration & experimentation has always been a big draw for me, the wildly imaginative & progressive creative thinkers .. having your own unique voice is of paramount importance too. Combine this with insight, deep skills and raw talent and you have major potential to create something extremely fresh or even new that the world may remember you by. Looking at things in a segregated way .. examples of this in 'our time' .. Miles Davis to Jazz; Frank Zappa to Rock; Karlheinz Stockhausen to Classical Music.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Practially all art has some degree of imitation of previous works. Take any original work, like, say Rite of Spring, or Eroica, and you'll see that no matter how innovative, they borrow a lot from previous works. Almost all melodies sound similar to fragments of previous melodies. 

Originality exist when you do something a little more than just borrowing.


----------



## Bone (Jan 19, 2013)

For having a more-or-less finite number of notes and rhythms to work with in CPP compositions, it's amazing how much creativity and originality have occurred. Great minds have taken common themes and transformed them: whatever source materials existed, the new works always take on a new life. I think originality as some non-artistic types conceive of it is total hogwash - all art is full of the same themes repeated with endless variations. When a Schoenberg comes along, well, that is pretty danged unique....


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Originality can be one determining factor in greatness. But true greatness in art to me lies in the ability to communicate. Hence Mozart, though not terribly original in innovation, is one of the greatest. He took the forms he inherited to the highest possible level of genius.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Andolink said:


> ...Mozart... didn't blaze any new paths stylistically or harmonically or with form, etc.


Well, he did, but his music did not, in the historical perspective, make the _Über Dramatic_ splash / appearance of a Beethoven, or Stravinsky coming up with Le Sacre du Printemps).

The new paths as blazed by Mozart were not so obvious -- _but a profound subtlety is one prominent trait of Mozart's genius._ The cognoscenti of Mozart's time were well aware that with, as example, the K466 D minor piano concerto, that music had just been radically altered and would likely never be the same.... i.e. that piece was 'revolutionary.'


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mozart's contemporaries (and competitors) were acutely aware of his genius. When Mozart died, Kozeluch said: "Of course it's too bad about such a great genius, but it's good for us that he's dead. Because if he had lived longer, really the world would not have given a single piece of bread for our compositions."

Re Haydn's genius, another story with the same characters. Kozeluch had assured Mozart that he would never compose a quartet the way Haydn had, to which Mozart replied: “Nor would I, but do you know why? Because neither you nor I would have had so good an idea.”


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> ...and this completely blows my mind, western music from renaissance music to modern avant-garde, from classicism to romanticism are based around the same 12 notes.


It's quite unfortunate how few composers use microtones.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hello said:


> It's quite unfortunate how few composers use microtones.


Oh, dunno... but if you hum me a few bars....


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

Skilmarilion said:


> I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with Carmen. Is this fact or merely conjecture? (re: Pathetique)


I believe it's a documented fact that Tchaikovsky consciously recalled Don Jose's Flower aria from Carmen as the basis for his own theme.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

In order for me to care about a piece, the piece has to have its own unique identity. It has to be uniquely, originally itself. Otherwise it's just another pile of chords or timbres that isn't interesting enough for me to listen to repeatedly.

Mozart may have used standard building blocks, but what he built from them is totally unique and original. The 40th symphony, the 9th piano concerto, the Requiem, the arias from Marriage of Figaro and Magic Flute, Piano Sonata K. 330, even the little Minuet in F major K. 2 that I learned as "down-and-up please, down-and-up please, down-and-up please, curtsy"... they are so clearly delineated with their own shapes, their own characteristics, their own melodies.

Do we call great painters unoriginal because they use the same red, yellow, blue, black and white colors as other painters?


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Oh, dunno... but if you hum me a few bars....


What
I dun get it


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> Yes, but originality needs to be defined better. I just think originality with the "soul of music" is more important than originality with a new gimmicky idea. But even that doesn't matter so much, as long as the music has heart or sound logic or both.


Originality and novelty can be, often are two very different things, of very different worths and weights.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hello said:


> It's quite unfortunate how few composers use microtones.


Manuscript paper ready, pencils and ears sharpened?

Ready, set, go.

You are welcome to it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

hello said:


> It's quite unfortunate how few composers use microtones.


And likewise how many performers do. :lol:


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Manuscript paper ready, pencils and ears sharpened?
> 
> Ready, set, go.
> 
> You are welcome to it.











I do not condone signatures or those who use them.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hello said:


> View attachment 17429
> 
> 
> I do not condone signatures or those who use them.


Ah, all the true humility of the medieval craftsman, or just another happy to hide behind the anonymity of the internet, the latter oblique, if not obtuse, by its very nature.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Is originality a determing factor in greatness?: 
Yes.


----------



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

What's an originality?..


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

MichaelSolo said:


> What's an originality?..


Just like a singularlity but different


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2013)

MichaelSolo said:


> What's an originality?..


Isn't it an abstract noun...like '_a _love' or '_an _obtuseness'?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Re originality. Attrbuted to Samuel Johnson: "Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."


----------



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Just like a singularlity but different


Aha. Got it. Intriguing.


----------



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Isn't it an abstract noun...like '_a _love' or '_an _obtuseness'?


Why in the world would an abstract noun be a part of a speech left alone a question? I have difficulties with abstract nouns. I am usually lost in them.


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2013)

MichaelSolo said:


> Why in the world would an abstract noun be a part of a speech left alone a question? I have difficulties with abstract nouns. I am usually lost in them.


Well, stop using it with the indefinite article ('_an _originality')...that might help.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Great music very often has an originality about it but the converse is not necessarily: original music does not necessarily lead to great music. A lot of experimental music, minimalism, noise music - all might be original but as far as I am concerned, are juvenile stuff.


----------



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Well, stop using it with the indefinite article ('_an _originality')...that might help.


Would that also prevent others from using them?


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Re originality. Attrbuted to Samuel Johnson: "Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."


Ah, Doctor Johnson - my hero!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Re originality. Attrbuted to Samuel Johnson: "Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."


Sounds like a generic review for 1001 film scores, original, but....


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I thought the very restrictions of convention are what inspires great art, the creativity needs to be created in a dialogue with those within a tradition for it to have as much meaning and power.


----------



## MJongo (Aug 6, 2011)

Personally, I don't consider originality at all when evaluating "greatness" of a musical work. I am of the opinion that a piece of music should be evaluated in a vacuum, with zero weight given to references outside of itself. However, to be a "great" composer in my opinion, originality in some form is a must.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Is originality a determining factor in greatness?


This is a difficult question, with two ambiguous words in one sentence.

Anyways, I believe originality is _a_ determining factor, but only when combined with excellence. Excellence, on the other hand (like Andolink said), can be greatness by itself.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> I thought the very restrictions of convention are what inspires great art, the creativity needs to be created in a dialogue with those within a tradition for it to have as much meaning and power.


There is a line, of the familiar, the seemingly 'natural' forms and shapes people generally and quickly recognize, the semiotic matrix.

Go much past that, push it too far, and the work may be brilliant, of true genius and great merit, but few will follow, at least in the time it is written. Beethoven said of one piece that he did not care if it took another fifty years before a little of the listening public caught on to what he was doing -- that fifty years was going to be after his death, even if he had lived longer.

Man certain of the worth of his work, and a man of convictions.

Other composers work more 'neatly' within the currently recognized formats, while still pushing it forward, Mozart a good example of that.

Yet others are generating 'new cliches' of the sort which are near redundant to works extant in the same time-frame. Those works too, are 'original music.' -- this is why I have trouble with a word which has such a wide latitude of qualities, each and all being 'original.'

The most derivative well-written and forgettable film score is 'original music,' after all.

But I do think 'great' works are redolent with some originality in one or more of the more valued aspects of the meaning of the word, and that the 'not great' works are not.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MJongo said:


> Personally, I don't consider originality at all when evaluating "greatness" of a musical work. I am of the opinion that a piece of music should be evaluated in a vacuum, with zero weight given to references outside of itself. However, to be a "great" composer in my opinion, originality in some form is a must.


LOL, in a vacuum, there is no sound


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

Rapide said:


> A lot of experimental music, minimalism, noise music - all might be original but as far as I am concerned, are juvenile stuff.


Minimalism and noise music have been going on since the 60s, they can hardly be called "original" at this point...


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Obviously some pieces don't sound very fresh, but often that is more because the musical ideas, construction and development are weak rather than because they aren't groundbreaking. The originality can lie with someone simply finding their style and their own voice within it, it doesn't necessarily have to be completely groundbreaking. Maybe from the 19th century onwards with the whole romantic image that was the new ideology composers were encouraged to say they were being vastly original even if they actually weren't being as original as they claimed.


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2013)

A while back, in a thread exploring the specifics of 'greatness', I offered four possible criteria for 'greatness'.

http://www.talkclassical.com/21728-greatest-vs-favourite-6.html#post365627


> A composer could be deemed to have achieved greatness if his or her output is regarded by a significant majority of qualified listeners as consistently meeting the following criteria:
> Form follows function - complexity or simplicity, whichever is appropriate.
> It has a demonstrable capacity to carry meaning _to _the listener - and carry meaning _for _the listener.
> Such meaning and appeal that it has is carried beyond the age in which it was produced.
> It contains an element of innovation, or at least reinvention.


I see no reason to change those four. Of course, it introduces other terms that need defining (and were, to some extent, defined in that thread - 'qualified listener' for example).

So, 'originality' - no, not in the sense of 'completely new'.


----------



## PouBelle (May 6, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> Yes, I'd say that the ability to take something created by another and make it one's own .....


Making something one's own, that's what it comes down to in life in general.
That's why we have molars with which to chew food properly so that it can be fully digested and become part of our system.
Repeating is also a way of making something one's own, the idea behind the saying _repetitio est mater studiorum_.
My daughter likes to write her own songs, but as much as she sometimes would like to sing and play something from someone else, she's somewhat reluctant in doing that. I always say to her that doing a "cover" is as good as making her own song, if she can make it truly her own. More original than that is not possible.

And greatness? What is greatness? Compared to what, compared to whom?
Is just being yourself enough to be great? I believe it is or should be. That's the only way to stand out in the crowd and be excellent, literally speaking. 
Pleasing the crowd and being popular is not my idea of being great or excellent. Maybe that's why I think Glenn Gould stopped his public performances. It was too easy for him, maybe even boring.

So the way I see it, originality, in the sense of being yourself, IS greatness!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

This thread is essentially a litmus test: how dedicated to modernism are you? 

Way back in the old days, innovation was NOT a virtue in music. Sure, the music evolved, but it did so accidentally. The musician's goal was to play the music it was supposed to be played, not to find a new way to play it. That was especially important when the music had something to do with religious ritual. You want to get in touch with the divine, you do what you're told. 

But then along comes the Renaissance, and then the Enlightenment, and so on, with the idea of progress and the glorification of novelty, and everyone is trying to do something his teacher or father didn't do. Now God is dead, we're all free, everything is permitted, we're solving our own problems, and our cultures are fractured. 

I'm a fan of the plurality of virtues. If innovation is your thing, then do it! If tradition is your thing, then do it! The only thing I'm not a fan of is looking around at what other people are doing and saying, "Hey, you're doing it wrong. The only right way is mine." Tolerate everything but intolerance - which is not so much a paradox as an imperative of freedom.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Keep testing I say and eventually they will get it................


----------



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

science said:


> This thread is essentially a litmus test: how dedicated to modernism are you?
> 
> Way back in the old days, innovation was NOT a virtue in music. Sure, the music evolved, but it did so accidentally. The musician's goal was to play the music it was supposed to be played, not to find a new way to play it. That was especially important when the music had something to do with religious ritual. You want to get in touch with the divine, you do what you're told.


I am not sure I completely buy into that. I am not sure today we have enough evidence to make this (or opposite, for that matter) conclusion. I'd venture to suppose that, maybe, the common secular music at that time carried more variety and allowed more expressive freedom to the interpreter.



science said:


> But then along comes the Renaissance, and then the Enlightenment, and so on, with the idea of progress and the glorification of novelty, and everyone is trying to do something his teacher or father didn't do. Now God is dead, we're all free, everything is permitted, we're solving our own problems, and our cultures are fractured.


I buy into that even less. For one, abandonement of God came way after the Renaissance, closer to time of Russo and de Cart. I also do not think changes in perceptions and wider acceptance of variety of expressions that came, incidentally, after the deaths of many caused by the great plauges, result in the fracturing of cultures. The European culture, as opposed, for example, to cultures of Islam or Hinduism, began developing more variety - of every kind, straight along its mainstream.



science said:


> I'm a fan of the plurality of virtues. If innovation is your thing, then do it! If tradition is your thing, then do it! The only thing I'm not a fan of is looking around at what other people are doing and saying, "Hey, you're doing it wrong. The only right way is mine." Tolerate everything but intolerance - which is not so much a paradox as an imperative of freedom.


Indeed, a judgement has nothing to do with creativity, and plurality in itself is a virtue. This virtue, however, does not seem to be related to the virtue of creating a work of art.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

science said:


> This thread is essentially a litmus test: how dedicated to modernism are you?


But modernism has it's own tradition now it's been going for a long time, and it's dominating period may have ended by 87 or so.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Was that 1887 or 1987 I'm sure some will have differing views on this.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

haha definitely not the 19th century


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Just checking - Note the WIGs amoung us would most likely view that differently


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Just checking - Note the WIGs amoung us would most likely view that differently


Yes. 1787. I mean, that late Mozart...who can listen to it?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> This thread is essentially a litmus test: how dedicated to modernism are you?
> 
> Way back in the old days, innovation was NOT a virtue in music. Sure, the music evolved, but it did so accidentally. The musician's goal was to play the music it was supposed to be played, not to find a new way to play it. That was especially important when the music had something to do with religious ritual. You want to get in touch with the divine, you do what you're told.
> 
> ...


I think you are over-reacting: since when has 'original' meant 'innovative?' Original means, at the least, 'fresh' and not wholly derivative of what stands around. In music history of the past, when often there was one predominant style in an era, the criterion for better / best was then those works which stood out more as 'fresh' than 'just another....'

Innovation, i.e. composing something near radically different from your last piece, became to be an expectation as Beethoven, often enough, did just that. It got carried to an extreme in the 1950's - 60's in academic and critical circles... your next piece had to be a completely different essay into an entirely different aspect of harmony and form compared to the one just finished, in essence, demanding that the artist nearly fully re-invent themselves from work to work. Thankfully, that is now 'over.'

If you want the trend, amplified, always look to the grist mill of the popular culture. A new gimmick, whether theatrical presentation or one little twist within a very set genre, is what distinguishes you from all the others, and both agents, artists and the public are all following / buying that premise.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I think you are over-reacting: since when has 'original' meant 'innovative?'


Since I said it did?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Since I said it did?


Lol... For the sake of distinguishing 'Original' from 'Innovative,' I offer Samuel Barber's Piano Concerto, premiered in 1962, and garnering the 1963 Pulitzer Prize. 




(The Pulitzer of 1960 went to Elliott Carter's String Quartet No. 2,




an innovative work... which the Barber, without maligning it, is not.)

The Barber is 'conservative' by measure of the 'innovative' work going on at the same time.

That did not seem to give much pause to the Poobahs of the Pulitzer prize committee, or John Browning, the soloist for whom it was written, or other conductors, orchestras and performers who were later happy to perform it, or those audiences still able to like 'less innovative modern' music.

The piece is, as a concert pianist chum says, "a helluva piece and a helluva concerto" while not being the most innovative kid on the block. The middle movement, in fact, is a re-working by Barber of an earlier piece, 'Canzone' for flute -- and or Viollin -- and piano.

It is 'vital' 'fresh' (for Barber as well as for the rest of us) and is still imo holding up quite well fifty years later.

It is 'original' and not truly, in context of what was in the air at the time, very 'innovative' at all.


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Lol... For the sake of distinguishing 'Original' from 'Innovative,' I offer Samuel Barber's Piano Concerto, premiered in 1962, and garnering the 1963 Pulitzer Prize.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, don't have time at present to listen to these pieces in full - though thanks for the links, will try over the weekend.

But I'll just resort to Askoxford



> *3*not dependent on other people's ideas; inventive or novel:
> _a subtle and original thinker_


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/original?q=original

and



> adjective
> 
> (of a product, idea, etc.) featuring new methods; advanced and original:_innovative designs__innovative ways to help unemployed people_
> 
> (of a person) introducing new ideas; original and creative in thinking:_writers who are now viewed as innovative_


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/innovative?q=innovative


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Just checking - Note the WIGs amoung us would most likely view that differently


I'd advocate taking off the damned wig and letting a little fresh air get closer to the brain


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Well, don't have time at present to listen to these pieces in full - though thanks for the links, will try over the weekend.
> 
> But I'll just resort to Askoxford
> 
> ...


Might not pertain to American English usage and American composers! 
...just 'having you on,' there


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

The creative mind is original even when it is not trying to be. That's what creativity is.

Originality is _not_ the same as innovation.

How many innovative novels have you read this year?
How many innovative movies have you seen this year?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Well, don't have time at present to listen to these pieces in full - though thanks for the links, will try over the weekend.
> 
> But I'll just resort to Askoxford
> http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/original?q=original
> ...


Essentially, by this defintion of _original_ as framed in the AskOxford as 'the' condition of greatness, we can then summarily relegate Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams, Vivaldi, Bruch, Elgar, Sibelius, Rachmaninov, R. Strauss, Ravel and a good handful of others straight into the trash bin... and consider maybe only Debussy, Ives, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Beethoven, Mozart, Liszt, Chopin, Wagner, Verdi, Bach, Rameau, Monteverdi and a few others in 'the running' at all !?!

Oh, my good colleague, 
"Apocalyptic All consuming Flame War on Talk Classical!" ...film at eleven;-) 
Ha, Haaa, Haaaaa, Haaaaaaa.....


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Novelty and Originality are two related, but different things.
I would say that Novelty implies certain break with respect to past techniques, the development of a new framework. Certainly, this also will be Original, trivially. For example, Ligeti's micropolyphony technique, developed in the 60's as a response to serialism but also to the past, was something innovative (Novelty) and also Original.
But you can also take already existing techniques and styles and make your own twist. That would be Original.
For example, Rachmaninoff's style is Original, despite the fact of being a very late romantic. His russian melodies and his virtuoso writing for the keyboard are landmarks of him, very easily recognizable.
So, I will say that being Original, with or without Novelty, is something essential if you want to have your own name in the world of composition. Otherwise, your music will be just a copy of someone else.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I'd advocate taking of that damned wig and letting a little fresh air get closer to the brain


Agreed totally. My brain is full of fresh air!!! Some fresh ideas that were developed at least within the last 100 years would be good.

Note I said the Wigs amoung us. I was not referring to myself..................... :devil:


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> The creative mind is original even when it is not trying to be. That's what creativity is.
> 
> Originality is _not_ the same as innovation.
> 
> ...


To answer your question (though I'm not sure how it is relevant): none.

If originality is not the same as innovation, would you explain what you see as the difference between the two?



PetrB said:


> Essentially, by this defintion of _original_ as framed in the AskOxford as 'the' condition of greatness,


But _I'm _not putting the emphasis on the '_the_'.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Agreed totally. My brain is full of fresh air!!!


A sound physician might diagnose holes in the head. If this is the case, I can lend you one of my old wigs to make things less drafty if you like.

More on-topic, I find it hard to respond to a question (the thread title) that has two and maybe three totally undefined terms...


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2013)

KenOC said:


> A sound physician might diagnose holes in the head. If this is the case, I can lend you one of my old wigs to make things less drafty if you like.
> 
> More on-topic, I find it hard to respond to a question (the thread title) that has two and maybe three totally undefined terms...


And the three terms are...?

'Is' 'a' and 'in'?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Greatness is, like, reallyreallygood. Innovation is like, new.


----------



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

No, it's originality is, like, innovation..


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> If originality is not the same as innovation, would you explain what you see as the difference between the two?


I would say a movie like Pulp Fiction which I happen to have seen again recently on TV, is a very original film. I would doubt if it was very innovative.

This could just end up a discussion about definitions. Many threads do.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> I would say a movie like Pulp Fiction which I happen to have seen again recently on TV, is a very original film. I would doubt if it was very innovative.


Sorry - this doesn't help since, even if I'd seen Pulp Fiction, we'd still have to agree what made it original but not innovative. And if you're not into a discussion about definitions, I guess we'll not get very far!


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Sorry - this doesn't help since, even if I'd seen Pulp Fiction, we'd still have to agree what made it original but not innovative. And if you're not into a discussion about definitions, I guess we'll not get very far!


How about Ravel's Bolero? I think that is very original but not necessarily innovative.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

KenOC said:


> A sound physician might diagnose holes in the head. If this is the case, I can lend you one of my old wigs to make things less drafty if you like.
> 
> More on-topic, I find it hard to respond to a question (the thread title) that has two and maybe three totally undefined terms...


Holes - I've already got those as that's how the air got there . Wigs thankfully I still have most of my own hair to cover them up thanks- Oxygen is the force of life and power of thought you know!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Holes - I've already got those as that's how the air got there . Wigs thankfully I still have most of my own hair to cover them up thanks- Oxygen is the force of life and power of thought you know!


Just as well. My wigs come with lice and fleas. Who knows what those would do to your brain!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Just as well. My wigs come with lice and fleas. Who knows what those would do to your brain!


So that's the secret of being a wig, knew there had to be a reason behind such sugary sweet dusty old music...........


----------



## ChrisDevonshireEllis (May 12, 2013)

It depends about how one defines "originality". I think this is best expressed through life and natural experiences. Interpretation is important, and can introduce its own originality (jazz) and nothing wrong with that. 

Let's speed things up a bit, change the tango, I love Miles Davis "Jack Johnson" for example. Now that is original. It ain't classical, and it ain't jazz, but it takes stuff from both and makes a helluva noise. That's closer to Stravinsky than the blues, and someone should try listen to that. Miles does Rite, electrically and in a boxing ring. Cool. 

Otherwise, I think it's personal man. It's gotta have soul.


----------

