DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: Music: Unoriginality is important!!!

Electric guitars, Classical guitars, Guitar amps and more.

zZounds.com offers recording equipment for starting and experienced musicians. Find the best prices on electric guitars, acoustic guitars, classical guitars and more.

Forums > Music

Unoriginality is important!!!

Snoogans775	Date: September 22, 2006 @ 12:39 AM the first time I ever posted a cover on this site, a good DCompatriate of mine told me, "make sure you let me know if you ever feeling like losing the Western obsession with originality again". it was a good song, it was a good version of a good song, but yet, every time I write something that sounds like Radiohead, I'm happy, but... if someone tells me that my guitar technique sounded like Johnny Greenwood on a particular day, a little voice in my brain jumps and says, "that's all you're good for!?" that's pretty lame, and I'm currently putting a lot of effeort forward to understand, where, why, how, and when we all develop an idea that we should be totally unique, and even an interpretation of an excellent song will never be as good as the straight-forward and artless performance of a song written by ourselves. It seems sort of obvious, but that's why I'm looking into it...
hantu	Date: September 22, 2006 @ 12:42 AM Ya just gotta have fun!
TonsOfFun	Date: September 22, 2006 @ 1:10 AM If you're interpreting a song you're setting a cap to your creativity. You're just changing little things but it has little to do with your own musical identity. There are millions of songs that lack all sorts of creativity, but it's also incredibly difficult to do something that's noticeably original. I'd say something you made, if you're any good at composing at all, will always reflect 100% of your own originality, or at least a whole lot moreso than redoing somebody else's song.
leedsquietman	Date: September 22, 2006 @ 3:08 AM Just have fun - we are all derivative to a greater or lesser degree, even those who make weird experimental music, it's all been done before (maybe with more primitive musical gear and recordings) - writing your own material and developing a ground breaking technique happens to 0.1% of musicians about twice a decade, the rest of us just get on with doing our thing !
evansorchid	Date: September 22, 2006 @ 10:11 AM Who's Johnny Greenwood? ...and for that matter...Who's Radiohead. My God, I'm so outta touch.
leedsquietman	Date: September 22, 2006 @ 4:29 PM Listen to 'The Bends' or 'OK Computer' albums by Radiohead, cool albums although I don't think their stuff since has lived up to it. They are one of the top bands in Britain/Europe and have been for 10 years, but their success in North America is much less. Coldplay who sound like a cheap second hand copy of Radiohead have had more success here. Actually the song Americans seem to know best is 'Creep' from their first album 'Pablo Honey'. I would say they sound a bit like a hybrid of Pink Floyd/Beatles/Shoegazing/Indie Rock sometimes with a grungy element thrown in, they vary thier canvases from acoustic to clean electric and overdriven sounds (often in the same song!). Their vocalist Thom Yorke is famous for having an artificial eye and for his high pitched vocals.
Fraser	Date: September 22, 2006 @ 4:41 PM evan.... Im out of touch, Im out of time!
EchoMinor	Date: September 22, 2006 @ 6:48 PM my favorite radiohead song has always been Planet Telos, correct spelling? but ya thats my favorite.
leedsquietman	Date: September 22, 2006 @ 8:06 PM Street Spirit (Fade Out) is my fave, followed by Fake Plastic Trees, My Iron Lung, Black Star, No Surprises, Just, Let Down and Lucky. Planet Telex is the song I think you refer to, the opening song on 'The Bends', mostly all the tracks on The Bends and OK Computer are cool.
Woof	Date: September 22, 2006 @ 10:52 PM Many years ago, I used to read Melody Maker every week. I've long since forgotten who said it, but one day I read an interview with some English performer who mentioned that the main difference between American and English bands was that American bands tend to try to sound like whatever's popular at the time, and English bands actually consider it an insult when someone tells them that they sound like some other band. I have no idea how true that is today, but reading this left me with the feeling that it was really important to create musical concepts that were different than what anybody else was doing. It occurred to me that, unless I could offer something done in a way that was unusual, people might as well listen to the artist who originally performed in the style I'm emulating. Occasionally, I find it really rewarding to pay tribute to an old favorite number... mostly because I feel it hasn't gotten enough attention at a given time, so I'll try and dig up something in a style or genre that most others aren't using. Bowie did a good job of giving his own stylistic turns to cover songs on his "Pinups" album; Todd Rundgren was appreciably less successful in attempting a half-album of covers on his "Faithful" album, mostly because Todd's covers sounded exactly like the originals, only with better studio chops. So I guess my point is, I think it's really valuable to look inside oneself, and find one's own individual style and voice. Not an easy thing to do, which is why some bands work their asses off to produce an album that gets labelled as derivative. I've struggled with this concept for years, and still can't escape all of my influences. But I think it's a goal to strive for, even if it's never met. Excellent topic, by the way... and I hope this helps. PS. I do believe that combining old ideas in an original way also qualifies as original. The KLF managed to do a pretty good job in that area...
TonsOfFun	Date: September 23, 2006 @ 12:09 AM One of the best ways to make songs trite and derivative is to follow a verse/chorus/verse/chorus structure (a cyclic structure, if you will). I've not heard a completely linear song (that is, parts rarely repeated) that was more boring than a cyclic song. It's bad because using verses and choruses makes you rely far too much on two parts for the song to be good, and if one part isn't that great it can really ruin the song. For example, the Decemberists have some really great songs, especially in the verses, but a ton of their choruses are shit. It's like somebody forced it to be there because they thought it had to be there, rather than relying on musical dynamics and variety to up the value and enjoyability of the song. Music has to be interesting. I know a lot of people won't agree because I'm one of the pickiest people in the world when it comes to music (I know too much theory to back up my fussiness). But listen to a band called Anathallo. They rarely repeat parts in their songs and it's very impressive to see how creative these people are. There is probably five times as much musical composition in one of their songs than most other rock-derived groups (I say rock-derived because for more technical music like Jazz it's a whole different story). Those are just my thoughts, though. Oh, and from a theory standpoint, Coldplay sounds very little like Radiohead.
PrincessTast...	Date: September 23, 2006 @ 9:37 AM Except you can sorta make out the words. Thom Yorke has an acute case of mush-mouth and refuses to make printed lyrics available, just to spite us.
TonsOfFun	Date: September 23, 2006 @ 11:16 AM Not too mention a crazy case of the bug-eye.
leedsquietman	Date: September 23, 2006 @ 3:28 PM Holy crap, bow down to the lord of theory Coldplay sound very influenced by Radiohead IMHO, esp. songs like 'The Scientist' and 'God Put A Smile Upon Your Face' they both sound like songs which could have been on 'The Bends' although Coldplay are more poppy and commercial orientated and their first album was more shoegazing influenced (esp. 'Yellow'), like early Ride and Teenage Fanclub etc, they don't go off into many progressive or improvised breaks like Radiohead sometimes do (i.e. Paranoid Android). I could easily imagine Coldplay covering songs like 'High And Dry' and 'Karma Police' very effectively. So I respectfully disagree with you, as I definately here some Radiohead influences in Coldplay's music. Believe it or not, many other people are selective about their music and have fundamental, intermediate or advanced knowledge of theory too !!
TonsOfFun	Date: September 23, 2006 @ 3:44 PM Haha, I wasn't trying to put myself on a pedestal. I'm just saying I'm horribly picky, but I can justify why I don't like what I don't like. I'm by no means trying to argue, but I think a lot of people mistake Coldplay's 'influence by Radiohead' with 'copying Radiohead.' But it's not like it's a big deal.
leedsquietman	Date: September 23, 2006 @ 6:56 PM True, no big deal - I agree that they are not just ripping off Radiohead, just that the influence is there !
Snoogans775	Date: September 26, 2006 @ 11:02 PM yeah, I've caught myself saying the same ignorant rabble about Coldplay too, but it's just not true, but as far as theory is concerned, tone and timbre IS a part of music theory, and those are the biggest similarities. and back to track A I really like the feel of non-cyclical music, Mogwai really does a great job of developing themes rather than repeating them, in the same way classical and baroque composers were so great at manipulating and intertwing a theme(or several). buuuut.. like Evan and Sham so dutifully pointed out, music is fun, and even when one takes a journey into one's own creative faculties(like woof was mentioning), there remains the fact that making music is the process of translating A to B A: abso-fuckin-lutely anything B:noises, sounds, ideas, electro-magnetic, and the process of making a bass beat resonate through someone's sternum. so, I think a simplification of woof's comment would be that because everyone is unique, if we express ourselves to the most personal level, our music will be totally UNIQUE regardless of any arbitrary connections our emotional product has with previous or concurring art. "simplification", my ass. but I tried.
MonnieB	Date: October 21, 2006 @ 12:49 AM Well, for me, I have no way of knowing how to do remakes... I've tried and failed... All I'm good at is being as original as I can... It probably makes me that much less of a 'real' musician than most who can do remakes, but even without formal training and no experience with real instruments, I'm able to develop chords and harmonies, I know my beats and can put everything together... And as far as being compared to someone else is concerned, I take it as a huge compliment, but on the other hand, I like to hear people say that I have my own style more or that they like my style even more than that... Everything that's been said has been said well... Very well... Just do what you can do and enjoy doing it... That's the only way to survive and that's the only way music can flow...
bmccosar	Date: October 25, 2006 @ 9:36 PM To segue rather ungently back to the underlying theme of this post =blam= .... I believe people speak in comparisons because we do not have adequate vocabulary to express musical ideas in a written medium. We can do it for pictures and art--there's a huge vocabulary for describing colors, shapes, textures, patterns, etc. But music tends to be more subjective, and therefore, falls back on the pattern of common experience. A similar argument can be made for smell. Can you really describe it in words that don't compare it to something else? Of course, "Your music stinks" is universally understood . . . . OK, too many deep thoughts. Time to return to Tierra del Fuego with FitzRoy.
plungerboy	Date: October 26, 2006 @ 8:21 AM Originality comes naturally. If it you don't have it you might as well join pennywise or the backstreet boys. I find that creativity brings in a whole different set of rules, because if your trying to duplicate something your actually duplicating your interperetation of it, which is uniquelly yours. However, some poeple who "worship" one group/band/dj/singer tend to become infatuated with duplicating that style, and fail in being creative at it. I do listen to lots of music and ask myself, why does that particular thing sound good? Once you get to understanding how it all fits in you make your own interpratations and your being original. The fact is that you can't be 100% original, because chances are someone played the same riff/drumbeat/whatever that you did before. Listen to the radio for a few minutes and you will realise that most of the pop music copy methods from NIN/Tool and other alternative genius. Which brings me to the point that , if your going to be original, don't expect to be popular, but expect everyone who isn't original to copy your style, and become so good at doing it that they are more succesful than you are.
PrincessTast...	Date: November 4, 2006 @ 10:49 AM Hey man, nothing wrong with being influenced by an artist or musician you like. The trick is to give it your own spin, so it's not out-and-out copying. Y'know, reinterpret it.
leedsquietman	Date: November 4, 2006 @ 5:14 PM I wouldn't say Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera or whichever boy band is the hot new thing in pop sounded like NIN or Tool, but they would be a lot more interesting if they did !!