Originality

How important is the originality of a piece to you? Does it have to be a different sound, or at least a new twist on a previous idea, or do you prefer pieces that simply present a polished, perfect version of a style?

For me, the originality of a piece is important. However, this is a problem because in the "style" I write in, it's almost impossilbe to find an original theme. Sure, every once in a while, I'll come up with something that I could call original, but most of the time I've heard something that sounds too much like it before. I also hate using old ideas over again. I dunno, I usually think "If this theme didn't work the first time I tried it, whats the point of using it again and wasting time?" Well, there's my input on originality. :)

How important is the originality of a piece to you? ...do you prefer pieces that simply present a polished, perfect version of a style?

A perfect polished piece is lame.

Creativity and originality is everything that's important to me.

...

Personally I strive to do things that have been done before, but in new ways. That's the extent of my originality, and it's fine for me. I find it thrilling when someone can write, say, a classical symphony, fully recognisable as such, and yet do it in a way that surprises me pleasantly.

I can see why originality might be important to many, though. Many of us want to go somewhere no one has ever been and make our mark. That's getting more difficult to do as music progressess along its continuum.

There have been some people here at YC who, rather than just letting their creativity flow naturally, despair at not being able to create something that satisfies them as completely original. They produced very little, and hated everything they produced. I fail to see anything productive in that. Originality for its own sake is overrated. Better to strive for originality as part of your creative process than making it your raison d'etre.

Okay....I'l clarify

Originality and creativity are improtant - within your interpretation of anything. I have nothing against writing a symphony, and applaud anyone capable of doing it in a surprising or creative way.

A new perspective, or approach is as valid an original statement as any - and (as J.L.Graham pointed out) it is becoming more and more difficult to find completely original concepts.

I actually believe it's ALL been done, and the only way to be original is to import your personality/creativity/whatnot into a piece...

...

When I say a perfect, polished piece is lame, I mean a perfect polished replication of an exisiting piece/style with little/no original input. Recreating Mozart is lame...using Mozart as a springboard for an original and personal musical statment is not lame.

Recreating Mozart is lame...using Mozart as a springboard for an original and personal musical statment is not lame.

Very true, nicely put

I don't really believe in the idea of working on a new idea or formula and making it different/fit your ideals... I strive always to fully realize my creative ideas as they are - mine, free from other input and impression. Of course it's going to end up resembling something, somewhere, but that doesn't matter. It's still original as long as it's my idea. I've never really thought the whole idea of studying scores, like Beethoven or Bach is really beneficial, either. That's just looking at how other people wrote their ideas, which I think is counterproductive to how you should be writing yours. Every person needs their own voice, not an amalgamation of other people's voices molded neatly into a new shape, but a complete different voice on its own. I tend to favor the composers (Stravinsky, Copland, Adams) who have a distinct voice of their own, the composers where you only need to listen to 20 seconds of it to realize who it is. Just my opinion, anyway. :blush:

So, in summation, I think originality and uniqueness is the most important part of composition.

I prefer pieces that are polished and perfect, which is why Brahms is my favorite composer.

I prefer originality but I agree that you can use other composers as a "springboard". I strive to create original pieces but nearly everything has been done (especially in the past 100 years). I think the only way forward is to try and merge recent ideas and create something which is you.

Pieces that are polished and perfect have their place. If you want to portray a certain thought or idea, using familiar themes and motifs are probably the way to go.

But I agree mainly with what Nickthoven said. Sure, if someone heard a piece of mine and said, "that sounds like mozart!*", I'd appreciate the comment, I'd prefer it if someone heard a piece and said, "that sounds like Nigel!**"

~Kal

*None of my pieces sound anything like Mozart. He never used panflutes, andhe never wrote jazz

**Nigel WHO? That's my real name.

I think the only way forward is to try and merge recent ideas and create something which is you.

That's the right idea...by why recent, necessarily? Is it not possible to create something that is "you" using even older techniques?

Personally, I don't worry about being original. I get ideas, they may be an amalgamation of different styles I listen to that are subconsciously brought to the surface when I improvise or when I'm thinking of the music in my head.

I try to write what I would like to hear, or what I am feeling, or what mood I'm going for - keeping interest balanced by recognition(themes, chord placement, motifs etc). A fair amount of musical knowledge combines with the creative process to produce a result that some may recognise as "reminisant of X".

If at the end of the day I'm satisfied with my output in a piece of music, then I've accomplished what I've set out to do. Whether it breaks new ground or is revolutionary doesn't mean much to me - although I will experiment with accepted norms if I think they are unduly limiting my creativeness.

According to post-modern thought, nothing is original - it's ALL been done before.

But then... post-modernism doesn't exist. But it does exist. But it doesn't exist.

Originality is extremely important in composition. More important than technique or craftmanship (or what the french call the m

But the great composers were also great craftsmen. What I dislike most about recent music is that no one seems to be writing large-scale works any more - most of the music that is written only for the sake of originality comes across more as little experiments or curiosities.

But the great composers were also great craftsmen.

Not necessarily. Think of Mussorgsky. Great originality, but not a great craftsman (but then, we should keep in mind that he was more or less autodidact). One might also argue that some composers such as Chopin, Schumann and Brahms did not fully master the craft of orchestration.

Also, it's not true that no one is writing large-scale works anymore. There are plenty of examples of great large-scale works written today (e.g., Boulez - Pli selon pli, Carter - Symphonia, Rihm - Jagden und Formen, etc.)

According to post-modern thought, nothing is original - it's ALL been done before.

That's what I say...

I defy anyone to come up with a truly original idea...

As I said before, originality and creativity stem from imparting your personality into a piece...

That's what I say...

I defy anyone to come up with a truly original idea...

As I said before, originality and creativity stem from imparting your personality into a piece...

I've yet to hear a piece that uses only 1 note

I've yet to hear a piece that uses only 1 note

James Tenney's Critical Band.

"...the ensemble tune-up on A440. The piece centers around a simple tuning A, which is sustained by the player and kept unbroken through the use of a digital or tape delay system"

Granted, the players do diverge from the A, microtonally - creating acoustical phenomena forming the basis of the piece. BUT, it all centres around various tunings of A (no other pitches are played).

Ho ho! :)

I'm telling ya! It's ALL been done.

...

What about complete silence?

That's the right idea...by why recent, necessarily? Is it not possible to create something that is "you" using even older techniques?

I guess you could. I never actually thought about mixing old ideas but it is a good idea. The reason why I said that we should merge modern ideas is because there is so much! A new movement comes nearly every 10 years with branches coming out everywhere. I think it's too fast. We should stop and think about what the last 50 years has brought as and try to make something out of that.

But the great composers were also great craftsmen. What I dislike most about recent music is that no one seems to be writing large-scale works any more - most of the music that is written only for the sake of originality comes across more as little experiments or curiosities.

Shorter pieces were more popular in the Romantic and 20thC periods and it has influenced the size of pieces today. I personally do not like large scale symphonies. Instead I prefer smaller preludes, nocturnes etc. Maybe it reflects modern day life: so busy we rarely have time to slow down and think.

What about complete silence?

Been there, done that! Or at least John Cage has.

I was going to argue a bit, but I've changed my mind. I argue too much for my own validity...probably because I've had it attacked all my life.

I was going to argue a bit, but I've changed my mind. I argue too much for my own validity...probably because I've had it attacked all my life.

I appreciate you not wanting to argue but your point about not being able to be original anymore is a good one but debatable and it should be debated! I agree that nearly everything has been done but can it be that we are just not revolutionary thinkers? Is there another type of music which is still undiscovered becasue it is so differnt to anything else we know now? It's a bit like finding the fourth dimension (or fifth if you include time). Not many people can imagine it becasue we simply can't see it.

But until we discover it, we're just spinning our wheels... and I would also argue that those who try hardest to come up with something new might be among the least likely to succeed in that.