honeyisfunny wrote:

Skronk wrote:

Arson Smith wrote:If you have listened to a handful of Missy Elliott tracks, and if they sounded to you like every other rap/hip-hop that came before it, then we'll just agree to disagree. Peace, brother.

No, it doesn't sound Grandmaster, or Public Enemy, or NWA, or RUN DMC, or Snoop, but it sounds like updated party hip-hop garbage with newer synthlines.

You read too many music criticism magazines.

Those are my own words. I intensely dislike critics.

Xenakis

Skronk wrote:

honeyisfunny wrote:

Skronk wrote:

Arson Smith wrote:If you have listened to a handful of Missy Elliott tracks, and if they sounded to you like every other rap/hip-hop that came before it, then we'll just agree to disagree. Peace, brother.

No, it doesn't sound Grandmaster, or Public Enemy, or NWA, or RUN DMC, or Snoop, but it sounds like updated party hip-hop garbage with newer synthlines.

You read too many music criticism magazines.

Those are my own words. I intensely dislike critics.

You talk about rap music like Mojo does.

honeyisfunny wrote:You talk about rap music like Mojo does.

You remember why I called you a condescending prick? You're doing it again.

Missy Elliot: Original
Why I think Missy Elliots music is original is not because she is making stuff that I haven't heard before, it's the music is derivetive of other musical ideas and put together in her own style.

No, it doesn't sound Grandmaster, or Public Enemy, or NWA, or RUN DMC, or Snoop, but it sounds like updated party hip-hop garbage with newer synthlines.

But wouldn't you say that Newer synth lines are original, and in turn bring out more ideas in other artists because of her ability to do so?
I think being original is to be able to take good ideas, and do it one better.
All the way through history people have evolved other peoples success's and ideas. To say that you have heard something like it before I think doesn't stand as a whole argument to prove that it's not original.

As long as we're talking original hip-hop:

Public Enemy - First four albums

Tricky - First four albums (I count Nearly God as a de facto Tricky album)

Everyone knows Fear of a Black Planet, justifiably - but not enough people know and appreciate Apocalypse 91.

No one on this side of the pond gives Tricky any of the credit he rightly deserves. Granted, his last few albums have been crushingly disappointing and awful attempts to get on US radio, but anything Tricky did from 1995 to 1998 was incredibly original and challenging, brilliant music.

Rachi wrote:Missy Elliot: Original
Why I think Missy Elliots music is original is not because she is making stuff that I haven't heard before, it's the music is derivetive of other musical ideas and put together in her own style.

I wrote:No, it doesn't sound Grandmaster, or Public Enemy, or NWA, or RUN DMC, or Snoop, but it sounds like updated party hip-hop garbage with newer synthlines.

Rachi wrote:But wouldn't you say that Newer synth lines are original, and in turn bring out more ideas in other artists because of her ability to do so?

It might bring about change in some small way, but to say that it would make her pump out something that truly stands on it's own would be a naive dream.

I said it sounds like an updated version of early 90's party music because all she's done is add some newer synth sounds, not make something that will be listened to down the road 20 years from now.

I doubt it would bring out fresh ideas in other artists, but it would definitely be stolen in order to ride whatever wave is marketable. Mainstream pop artists rarely steal to make something new, they steal to push themselves further into the mainstream.

Rachi wrote:I think being original is to be able to take good ideas, and do it one better.
All the way through history people have evolved other peoples success's and ideas. To say that you have heard something like it before I think doesn't stand as a whole argument to prove that it's not original.

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.

Skronk wrote:

itchy mcgoo wrote:

Skronk wrote:The template they use has been throughly abused...

Not in the case of R. Kelly. Not in the least.

I really don't agree. R Kelly isn't anything new. Even at his most unique, he's still predictable, and tired.

But what about Shellac, Fugazi, Slint or any of the other bands people on this forum love...would someone who listens to a ton of R&B and no indie rock think that these bands are predictable and tired? It's very possible. It all depends on your exposure level to what they're doing.
I know nothing about R&B, so I have no opinion on R Kelly's stuff other than that I don't like it. My point is just that it a discussion on originality is very subjective.
I knew a guy in college in the late 90's who thought that NIN made totally unique music. He'd never heard anything like it. I tried to explain that NIN was pre-dated by a separate industrial genre in the 80's and that if you combined bands like Coil, TG, Neubauten, etc. with Thirlwell's voice, you had NIN. He didn't buy it.
You can argue that almost anything (to a greater or lesser degree) is influenced or pre-dated by something else. It just depends on how broad your music knowledge is. Neubauten seems unique, but I read an interview with Andrew Mackenzie of the Hafler Trio and he seems to believe that Z'ev originally mined similar territory. And wasn't Led Zepplin successfully sued for ripping off some blues artist?
Anyway, as for original, I'll agree with Beefheart, Whitehouse, This Heat, Slint, Scott Walker to name a few. That is not to say that I would enjoy listening to them more than some more derivative artists who I think are just plain better (like BER said), but we're talking about originality here. It is an overrated quality.

John Cage is also very original. There is perhaps no precedent for some of what he did, but I would never spend money on or waste my time listening to 4'33. I could just turn my stereo off and hardly notice a difference.

I'll also nominate The Hafler Trio. I don't listen to them anymore, but I think the output is very original. And he says that TG made it possible for him to do a lot of what he does.

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?


I'm not saying that such a situation is likely (so no diversions like "if a tree falls in the woods...", although by saying that I know I'm just encouraging "if a tree falls in the woods..." responses), just wondering what people's opinions are.

Is originality determined by comparison to others or by the intentions and internal creativity of the artist in question...And if you say the latter, can we really know how much they challenged themselves in producing what they did?

rzs wrote:But what about Shellac, Fugazi, Slint or any of the other bands people on this forum love...would someone who listens to a ton of R&B and no indie rock think that these bands are predictable and tired? It's very possible. It all depends on your exposure level to what they're doing.

But to someone who's familiar with both kinds of music, it really comes down to the nuances. MacKaye's playing is different than Albini's or McMahan's, the drumming has major differences, but my point is, the major fan base of mainstream pop/R&B are probably not musicians, or even understand music the way most people on this forum do.
It's a different territory going from listener to player. Hell, some of my friends can't tell the difference between Metallica and Napalm Death. They would think it's predictable and tired out of context, but it really applies for mainstream music, where change and unpredictably can cost you a fortune.

rzs wrote:I know nothing about R&B, so I have no opinion on R Kelly's stuff other than that I don't like it. My point is just that it a discussion on originality is very subjective.

I would have no problem saying Missy Elliott, or R Kelly are original if I felt that way, but I don't.

rzs wrote:I knew a guy in college in the late 90's who thought that NIN made totally unique music. He'd never heard anything like it. I tried to explain that NIN was pre-dated by a separate industrial genre in the 80's and that if you combined bands like Coil, TG, Neubauten, etc. with Thirlwell's voice, you had NIN. He didn't buy it.

You'd at least have to add Adam Ant or Bowie into that mix, Reznor really has a strong sense for pop. I wouldn't put him the category of original, but the way he utilized noise and electronics is nothing short of innovative in a pop context.

rzs wrote:but we're talking about originality here. It is an overrated quality.

But let's not confuse the bands that stand closer to being true originals with mainstream watered down pop. I'd hate to see Einsturzende's name end up on the same list as Usher when someone makes an "original" list.

rzs wrote:John Cage is also very original. There is perhaps no precedent for some of what he did, but I would never spend money on or waste my time listening to 4'33. I could just turn my stereo off and hardly notice a difference.

You don't like silence?