Skronk wrote:

rzs wrote:

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?

Skronk wrote:You don't like silence?

rzs wrote:No. It's not silence I that I'd have a problem with...Just paying for it when I could get it for free.

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?

rzs wrote: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?

Skronk wrote:

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 unpredict is an extremely subjective debateably can cost you a fortune.

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:

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?

I'll answer your question, but I do have to point out if they only played Classical, and heard nothing else, they would end up making Classical on whatever instruments you gave them.

If they were to create something that sounds like R.E.M.it would be original to them, but not to the outside world.

rzs wrote: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?

Everything rests on comparisons.

Say if someone never heard music, but heard the Jesus Lizard, they would probably say it was noisy because they've only heard sounds in nature, and other human voices.

Only the artist would know their own intentions and creativity.

Skronk 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?

I'll answer your question, but I do have to point out if they only played Classical, and heard nothing else, they would end up making Classical on whatever instruments you gave them.

NerblyBear wrote:Before we all start listing artists, let's just stop for a second and realize how idiotic this statement is:

"There have been no original artists."

How is he defining "original"? Because, if he simply means that no one has completely started from scratch and come up with a sound that has had no influences, he would be correct. But this has never been what folks mean by "original". To be an original musician means to take whatever influences or styles you have ingested and to bring them to fruition in a new and exciting way.

Hence, by such a definition, an "unoriginal" artist would be Jay-Z or Nickelback. An "original" artist would be Can or Jim O'Rourke.

Your bass player is a thundering backside, and I'm not sure that this thread ever needed to be created in the first place. "Thumbs down" for not realizing this.

kenoki wrote:

NerblyBear wrote:Before we all start listing artists, let's just stop for a second and realize how idiotic this statement is:

"There have been no original artists."

How is he defining "original"? Because, if he simply means that no one has completely started from scratch and come up with a sound that has had no influences, he would be correct. But this has never been what folks mean by "original". To be an original musician means to take whatever influences or styles you have ingested and to bring them to fruition in a new and exciting way.

Hence, by such a definition, an "unoriginal" artist would be Jay-Z or Nickelback. An "original" artist would be Can or Jim O'Rourke.

Your bass player is a thundering backside, and I'm not sure that this thread ever needed to be created in the first place. "Thumbs down" for not realizing this.

oooooh you did not just lump jay-z in with nickleback...

rzs wrote:People seem to use terms like these to disparage what they don't like (but are very uninformed about, specifically because they don't listen to it, you know, because they don't like it) and support what they do like using a supposedly "neutral" evaluation.

rzs wrote:We're on the same page here about the differences of these particular bands. My point was just that the originality debate is an extremely subjective one...but under the guise of objectivity.
People seem to use terms like these to disparage what they don't like (but are very uninformed about, specifically because they don't listen to it, you know, because they don't like it) and support what they do like using a supposedly "neutral" evaluation.
I'm not implying that you did this. You may be well versed in indie rock, R&B, rap, etc. Just wanted to throw my two cents in.

Rachi wrote:Sorry I didn't mean to put words in your mouth but just wanted to express what my opinion is on original music, as that is a very broad term and so so so many things to consider.

Don't want to quash the discussion as it is very interesting.

Thats all.