rzs wrote:So if everything rests on comparisons, how would you personally define the type of originality that an outside observer could identify in an artist? Just curious.

If the observer didn't rely on the nature world, that is if he/she has already been exposed to music, she would compare the artist in question with the aspects he liked when first exposed. I think this applies to everyone. If the new artist doesn't match any of the criteria the person has created, then it's safe to assume the person would say it's original.

It could even be something as small as the structure of the songs that can determine originality in someone's opinion. If you grew up with Black Sabbath, you had pretty straightforward structure, and if you move to some Progressive Metal that you've never heard, I'm sure it would be original to the listener.

But if you were a music historian, who's worth anything, and you were going for a fairly objective view, you'd have to compare it to known music from the previous years. You'd have to really give it some context, and try to fit it in to a scene or a timeline. If you can't, then I'd say you found a truly original artist.

Skronk wrote:

rzs wrote:So if everything rests on comparisons, how would you personally define the type of originality that an outside observer could identify in an artist? Just curious.

If the observer didn't rely on the nature world, that is if he/she has already been exposed to music, she would compare the artist in question with the aspects he liked when first exposed. I think this applies to everyone. If the new artist doesn't match any of the criteria the person has created, then it's safe to assume the person would say it's original.

It could even be something as small as the structure of the songs that can determine originality in someone's opinion. If you grew up with Black Sabbath, you had pretty straightforward structure, and if you move to some Progressive Metal that you've never heard, I'm sure it would be original to the listener.

But if you were a music historian, who's worth anything, and you were going for a fairly objective view, you'd have to compare it to known music from the previous years. You'd have to really give it some context, and try to fit it in to a scene or a timeline. If you can't, then I'd say you found a truly original artist.

So we're still in agreement that it is completely dependent on your level of exposure to other music.
Therefore, even the music historian may at some point find an artist to be very original but later see them as less original because of exposure to previous "similar" artists. Even the music historian's knowledge of music is not static and is (hopefully) continually expanding.
Hence the inherent subjectivity in the discussion.
I don't know that the maximum level of objectivity in this discussion is very high, unfortunately. Unless we are discussing something like Green Day. Then it's fairly obvious.

rzs wrote:So we're still in agreement that it is completely dependent on your level of exposure to other music.
Therefore, even the music historian may at some point find an artist to be very original but later see them as less original because of exposure to previous "similar" artists. Even the music historian's knowledge of music is not static and is (hopefully) continually expanding.
Hence the inherent subjectivity in the discussion.

I agree with you, but I'd hope, for the sake of objectivity, the historian would leave his conclusions for the end of his research.

rzs wrote:I don't know that the maximum level of objectivity in this discussion is very high, unfortunately. Unless we are discussing something like Green Day. Then it's fairly obvious.

I would've thought almost all the people on here would've agreed with me on my take of Missy Elliott and R Kelly, but I was in for a surprise. We've all got surprises.

Conversely...

A musician only listens to artists most would agree are original, for example, later Scott Walker, later Swans, later Neubauten, Nico (there are some definite points of similarity here). Said musician makes an album that is entirely derivative of these "original" artists.
The album obviously has few discernable mainstream influences.
Is this an original album?

Skronk wrote:

rzs wrote:So we're still in agreement that it is completely dependent on your level of exposure to other music.
Therefore, even the music historian may at some point find an artist to be very original but later see them as less original because of exposure to previous "similar" artists. Even the music historian's knowledge of music is not static and is (hopefully) continually expanding.
Hence the inherent subjectivity in the discussion.

I agree with you, but I'd hope, for the sake of objectivity, the historian would leave his conclusions for the end of his research.

What would constitute the end of his/her research?

Since their knowledge is constantly evolving, his/her death I guess.

Hope they are able to get in down on paper before they croak.

rzs wrote:Conversely...

A musician only listens to artists most would agree are original, for example, later Scott Walker, later Swans, later Neubauten, Nico (there are some definite points of similarity here). Said musician makes an album that is entirely derivative of these "original" artists.
The album obviously has few discernable mainstream influences.
Is this an original album?

If it's derivative of something that's apparent, like Neubauten, I wouldn't say it's definitively original. But that's not to say I wouldn't listen to it.

rzs wrote:What would constitute the end of his/her research?

Since their knowledge is constantly evolving, his/her death I guess.

Hope they are able to get in down on paper before they croak.

I didn't mean the complete end to his research, but say if he were to chart the path, and interconnectedness, for example, of Krautrock bands. If he had a band he couldn't place after trying it every which way, I'd want him/her to wait until the end of his research to make his conclusion.

rzs wrote:Hypothetical question...

A group of people with proficiency playing classical music (but virtually no exposure to popular culture, ie, no radio, tv, music stores etc. in their area) are given a guitar, a bass guitar, drums and a microphone... they make up some songs that sound very similar to REM but they've never heard of REM...are they original or not?

No, they are not.
It would only demonstrate their artistic ignorance and lack of historical context.Something which would be unforgivable if you are an artist.
The importance of art history is not entirely relative to individual perspective.
Like it or not, all artists are inserted in a historical context.
There is no point in reinventing the wheel.

242sumner wrote:

rzs wrote:Hypothetical question...

A group of people with proficiency playing classical music (but virtually no exposure to popular culture, ie, no radio, tv, music stores etc. in their area) are given a guitar, a bass guitar, drums and a microphone... they make up some songs that sound very similar to REM but they've never heard of REM...are they original or not?

No, they are not.
It would only demonstrate their artistic ignorance and lack of historical context.Something which would be unforgivable if you are an artist.
The importance of art history is not entirely relative to individual perspective.
Like it or not, all artists are inserted in a historical context.
There is no point in reinventing the wheel.

But strictly speaking in this example, they are not reinventing, they are inventing. Inventing the wheel is a good idea.

Skronk wrote:

But I'm not saying I've heard something like before, I'm saying I've heard the same monotonous beat, the same bland music, and vapid vocals elsewhere. Here in the states, ultra bland electronic hip hop is the norm with female artists like Gwen Stefani, Kelis, Lil' Kim, or what have you. It's uninspired, soulless, cash-in music. It's nothing but a fad, hardly original or innovative.

You probably have heard it elsewhere but you heard it afterwards. Get Ur Freak On came out 6 years ago don't forget, I think Gwen Stefani was still in No Doubt then. Get Ur Freak On is an awesome piece of pop music and it sounds like nothing that went before it. Yeah, it uses bhangra influences but it's the way it uses them. That little riff (played on a one string guitar <tumbi>) is a really strange sounding thing and think how many times it's been copied or ripped off since. People like Public Enemy used little riffs like that in their music but it was always to add tension and darkness, Get Ur Freak On is really joyous.
If that record isn't original then neither's Beefheart or anyone who took a definite style and pushed it into a different and new genre.

And I forgot The Shaggs too.

honeyisfunny wrote:You probably have heard it elsewhere but you heard it afterwards. Get Ur Freak On came out 6 years ago don't forget, I think Gwen Stefani was still in No Doubt then. Get Ur Freak On is an awesome piece of pop music and it sounds like nothing that went before it. Yeah, it uses bhangra influences but it's the way it uses them. That little riff (played on a one string guitar <tumbi>) is a really strange sounding thing and think how many times it's been copied or ripped off since. People like Public Enemy used little riffs like that in their music but it was always to add tension and darkness, Get Ur Freak On is really joyous.
If that record isn't original then neither's Beefheart or anyone who took a definite style and pushed it into a different and new genre.

And I forgot The Shaggs too.

I really find it hard to believe you're comparing Missy Elliott to Beefheart. Wow.