Originality - An observation by King By-Tor

russellk wrote: debrewguy wrote: BaldJean wrote: russellk wrote: ^ See - in saying that prog has to invent itself new every day, and talking about 'exploring new territory' instead of 'sticking to formulas', one side of the equation - ritual - is ignored in favour of progression and experimentation. I still contend that BOTH are a necessary part of human life. Why disparage one while advocating the other? If you want to recommend 'fresh' music, why do it by belittling others? (bands with the aim "we are going to play prog"). that goes without saying. no-one starts from scratch. I am not belittling these bands, I just think this is the wrong approach to music. play music, do YOUR thing, no matter what it is called. but sticking to a formula won't make you original at all. who wants to hear the 250th Genesis clone? Depends, how good are they ? All in all, overall, and to end it all ... isn't it really just whether the music is enjoyable to the listener ? If listening to music becomes a sort of academic study, or somehow can be judged based on a mathematical equation, aren't we missing out on the important part - liking it ? Agreed. I feel sorry for those who refuse to enjoy something because of their principles. In literary circles we hear the 'originality' argument constantly from the 'jades' - those jaded with the genre they're reading and insisting it be reinvented. More, they berate publishers who publish what people want to read, the assumption being people are stupid and don't know what's good for them. They OUGHT to like original work, isn't it a CRIME that all they get to read is all this derivative PAP. Blah blah.

While I disagree with the implications of debrew's argument, I think you've captured the appropriate essence of it well, russelk.

I listen to plenty of music that is derivative of other music.  I just don't expect it to end up well-remembered in the future.

To the credit of people on this thread, no-one has suggested this yet with regard to prog music. Though I have seen a widespread condemnation of pop music in these terms.

An unfair and unjust one, no doubt.  I don't think we disagree nearly so much as you think.

Sorry, didn't follow any of that. Almost no artists who do what? Originality for its own sake? How do you know that? In the literary field there are many writers who believe the pathway to being published is to be original for its own sake - many publishers will take a chance on something incomprehensible in case it turns out to be the 'breakthrough book'. I'm sure it's the same in music. So, no 'straw man' argument there.

Alright, if such artists do exist they rank among the worst of original artists and so you yourself become guilty of comparing the best derivative bands to the worst original bands.

See, again you talk about derivative work as though it's "reproducing somebody else's work in a snazzed up format." Now that's a 'straw man' argument. You know as well as I that derivative work is not a matter of reproduction. Just because you walk down the same beach doesn't mean you have to put your feet in someone else's footprints.

Genesis walked down the same "beach" in creating Supper's Ready as VDGG did in creating Pawn Hearts and no one really considers Supper's Ready derivative of VDGG because its not.  So it's not a case of a straw man, if anything, it's a case of defining derivative differently.  When talking about derivative, I am talking about the bands like SB and TFK who have made it their goals to, as I said, "reproduce somebody else's work in a snazzed up format."

So people don't talk about both sides of the argument in the same thread?

If someone is trying to defend Spock's Beard's originality, there's really no need to discuss poor original music.  But fine, poor original music exists.  So does poor derivative music.  I don't see how that's really relevant to our debate/argument however.

Whyever not? Don't people try to make sense? Or are they simply trying to justify their position?

I try to justify my position because it makes sense

Only talking about one side of an argument sounds like foolishness to me.

I would say that what you want to talk about is a whole different argument.  Talking about why the best original music is destined to be better than the best derivative music shouldn't involve discussion about the worst of either original or derivative music.

Yes, Genesis and King Crimson remembered outside of the prog world? If you remember them, you're part of the prog world. That's what defines these 'worlds', after all. How about telling us WHY the best of neo-prog won't be remembered?

When I say someone is a part of the prog world, I mean they're the type of people who go hunting for obscure bands in that genre, who delve into it deeply.  There are many people who enjoy Yes and Genesis and King Crimson who give no thought to looking for anything deeper, even if they know what prog is.  In that sense, Yes, Genesis, and King Crimson will be remembered outside of the prog world.

As for why Marillion won't be/isn't remembered outside of the prog world (since they certainly will be remembered inside of it), I just don't think they'll be a band who will be automatically recommended when people not into prog go looking for prog music, because in my experience the bands people have recommended me in genres I know nothing about are not the bands who revitalized those genres after a lull but bands who either pioneered the genre or radically altered a genre's capabilities.

I reserve my respect for those willing to engage in both sides of an argument.

But the other side you're proposing is irrelevant to the debate we're having.  It's not even a debate at all really.  Obviously being original for its own sake is stupid and will inevitably result in bad music.  Problem solved.  Case closed.

russellk wrote: Almost no artists who do what? Originality for its own sake? How do you know that? In the literary field there are many writers who believe the pathway to being published is to be original for its own sake - many publishers will take a chance on something incomprehensible in case it turns out to be the 'breakthrough book'. I'm sure it's the same in music. So, no 'straw man' argument there.

Could you give any examples of such writers? And AFAIK in music recording a CD of 'incomprehensible' music is a surefire way of selling it in several hundred copies at most, not exactly a 'breakthrough'...

Pnoom! wrote: russellk wrote: Pnoom! wrote: Not being original is only a bad thing if you're trying to make music that will be remembered and idolized and well-respected. Being original for its own sake is only a bad thing if you're trying to make music that will be appreciated, will entertain and comfort people. There are almost no artists who do this, so this is really a straw man argument. Artists try to be original because, quite frankly, that's the vision they have for music.  And many, I'm sure, would rather challenge themselves to come up with something new that's good and fail than to do a good job at reproducing somebody else's work in snazzed up format. See how silly these games are? Both have a place. People criticise the 250th Genesis clone and say nothing about music that's like chewing gravel. Actually, they will do both.  Just not in the same thread, usually, since the music you're talking about when you say "music that's like chewing gravel" is vastly different from music that qualifies as the "250th Genesis clone." Comparing the best of original music to the worst of derivative music is merely a way to justify one's position Nobody is doing this.  We're comparing the best of original music to the derivative music presented in this thread.  And the same goes for any other thread in which this debate has arisen. How about comparing the best to the best? How about explaining why, in your opinion, the BEST of neo-prog won't be remembered, idolised or respected? Outside of the prog world, it won't be, whereas, believe it or not, Yes, Genesis, and King Crimson are and will continue to be.

^Sorry, didn't follow any of that.

Almost no artists who do what? Originality for its own sake? How do you know that? In the literary field there are many writers who believe the pathway to being published is to be original for its own sake - many publishers will take a chance on something incomprehensible in case it turns out to be the 'breakthrough book'. I'm sure it's the same in music. So, no 'straw man' argument there.

See, again you talk about derivative work as though it's "reproducing somebody else's work in a snazzed up format." Now that's a 'straw man' argument. You know as well as I that derivative work is not a matter of reproduction. Just because you walk down the same beach doesn't mean you have to put your feet in someone else's footprints.

So people don't talk about both sides of the argument in the same thread? Whyever not? Don't people try to make sense? Or are they simply trying to justify their position? Only talking about one side of an argument sounds like foolishness to me.

Yes, Genesis and King Crimson remembered outside of the prog world? If you remember them, you're part of the prog world. That's what defines these 'worlds', after all. How about telling us WHY the best of neo-prog won't be remembered?

I reserve my respect for those willing to engage in both sides of an argument.

russellk wrote: Pnoom! wrote: Not being original is only a bad thing if you're trying to make music that will be remembered and idolized and well-respected. Being original for its own sake is only a bad thing if you're trying to make music that will be appreciated, will entertain and comfort people.

There are almost no artists who do this, so this is really a straw man argument.

Artists try to be original because, quite frankly, that's the vision they have for music.  And many, I'm sure, would rather challenge themselves to come up with something new that's good and fail than to do a good job at reproducing somebody else's work in snazzed up format.

See how silly these games are? Both have a place. People criticise the 250th Genesis clone and say nothing about music that's like chewing gravel.

Actually, they will do both.  Just not in the same thread, usually, since the music you're talking about when you say "music that's like chewing gravel" is vastly different from music that qualifies as the "250th Genesis clone."

Comparing the best of original music to the worst of derivative music is merely a way to justify one's position

Nobody is doing this.  We're comparing the best of original music to the derivative music presented in this thread.  And the same goes for any other thread in which this debate has arisen.

How about comparing the best to the best? How about explaining why, in your opinion, the BEST of neo-prog won't be remembered, idolised or respected?

Outside of the prog world, it won't be, whereas, believe it or not, Yes, Genesis, and King Crimson are and will continue to be.

Not being original is only a bad thing if you're trying to make music that will be remembered and idolized and well-respected.

Yeah, but it's like, "well, if you want 'original' music..." 


All us proggers shoudl consider the alternatives.

What I find funny about this sometimes is that a lot of the prog fans are more inclined to listen to Marillion than some of the 80s new wave (which was the more contemporary and original genre at the time) and still call Marillion down for being unoriginal. It's like, well make up your minds people! 

Ah, excellent points everyone!

Russellk wrote: Like it or not, the prog genre – as evidenced by this site – is an uneasy amalgam of PROGRESSIVE music, designed to stretch or break convention, and RETRO-PROG, music designed to evoke the CLASSIC PROG period of the 70s. One ought not to be privileged over the other, and both are a part of human experience. The big mistake, in my opinion, is to disregard one or the other because of what it is. Adopting an inflexible position (“I hate avant-garde rubbish”, or “I hate derivative pap”) is to deprive oneself (and those who might be influenced by your point of view) of so many pleasurable experiences. Why on earth would you do it? Why not be a little more flexible, and enjoy everything in its season?

This is something I find myself asking a lot. Pnoom previously made the point that no one should dismiss a genre in and of itself, but for some reason I find a lot of people who consider themselves 'open minded' (but lets not turn this into an 'open minded'/'close minded' discussion) dismissing certain genres or saying 'this is everything I hate about gerne X' as though it has no redeeming qualities. Take everything as it is, regardless of genre, if you like it you like it!

Laplace wrote: Looking through my collection I've found music which obviously copies previous music, so it's not like I can't be swung to the retro side. Prefering Crucis and Shingetsu to Camel and Genesis is probably just wrong if you're testing for originality, even in such a subjective area. o:) avant-prog bands can be highly unoriginal and even predictable themselves. after all, there's a chamber rock scene (UZ/AZ), a post-punky stripped down avant scene (Skeleton Crew/some Etron Fou, etc.), more recently a form of the genre based on genre-mashing (Zappa/Zorn/Bungle)... it takes a close listener to work out a band's avant-"allegiance" but they certainly exist and are predictable forms of their own, at their worst. Maybe that is obvious? All I see lately is avant dismissed as "generic unlistenable noise" so maybe not. I hope the people who were a little too uptight in this thread can identify their own retro tastes. o:)

I'm quite guilty of not being able to understand the RIO genre at times. I've tried listening to Residents samples on PA and I can't say I know what to think of them. Generic noise? No, not at all (although I think this was referring more towards different bands, or perhaps my poor wording on the first page coming back to haunt me ). Actually, the one RIO cd I actually mustered up the courage to buy was Sleepytime Gorilla Museum's 'Of Natural History' which was a HUGE eye opener for me. I love the cacophonistic riffs and beats in that album. It's a very unique album in my eyes. Maybe not to others who are more schooled in the subgenre, but to someone more used to pastoral and symphonic epics it was a big 'whoa'.

And no, I don't think it's inherently wrong to prefer so called retro prog over some of the classic bands. I'm sure over the last couple of weeks I've heard The Tangent or Spock's Beard playing out of my speakers much more often than I've heard Genesis or Pink Floyd. Not to say that I think the former are more talented or innovative, they just happen to scratch my itch at the moment.

BaldJean wrote: and why is it that they still sound fresh? because they are willing to explore new territory instead of sticking to formulas. but if you go out and form a new band with the aim "we are going to play prog" then you are most likely to fail. prog is NOT a formula which can be used, prog has to invent itself new every day

Hence Porcupine Tree (who denies the prog tag) is far more popular than Glass Hammer!

It makes sense, because if your scope is one thing then you're going to have a very narrow musical pallet to pull from. But again, I'm not sure that prog has to reinvent itself in leaps and bounds all the time, but perhaps baby steps with the occasional band taking that giant leap for mankind. It's true that no band should really regress upon their own music, but I see no problems in using old ideas to develop new ones. So long as they're good ones I suppose.

Baldjean wrote: hat goes without saying. no-one starts from scratch. I am not belittling these bands, I just think this is the wrong approach to music. play music, do YOUR thing, no matter what it is called. but sticking to a formula won't make you original at all. who wants to hear the 250th Genesis clone?

True no one wants to hear it that many times. Although, a decade after the band went sour their first (and I use this term very loosely) clone, Marillion was probably looking very attractive to Genesis and Prog fans. No doubt everyone has an influence, but they have to have their own style, which, retro or not, can always be seen as original in the most semantic sense of the word.

Pnoom! wrote: Not really.  "Quirks" do not make a band original.  Distinct, maybe, but original, no.  The structure and format of the music makes a band original. Otherwise, everything is original because it's not the same notes in exactly the same sequence, and then the word means nothing.  I could play any song written by anybody at a different tempo, and suddenly, it would be original by that definition.

I agree, a quirky band is not necessarily original because someone, somewhere, has probably used that same quirk. Quirks are still good and fun for a band to have though.

Ever heard Porcupine Tree's 'Four Chords That Made A Million'? Well, you don't have to know the song really, the title says it all. A lot of people do almost exactly what you say in the second part of your post, they take chords from someone they like, play them in a different order and tempo and it's a whole other song. Four chords that made a million.

Toaster Mantis wrote: Pnoom! wrote: It's just interesting to see where people's conceptions of originality comes from. For many people I think it subconsciously comes from a need to justify listening to derivative music ("nuh-uh, TFK really are inventive!"), when the appropriate response is simply to like it for what it is. But sometimes a rather derivative band can be original in a sense, if their music may not be remotely groundbreaking but have a lot of quirks that make it unique and distinctive.

Not really.  "Quirks" do not make a band original.  Distinct, maybe, but original, no.  The structure and format of the music makes a band original.

Otherwise, everything is original because it's not the same notes in exactly the same sequence, and then the word means nothing.  I could play any song written by anybody at a different tempo, and suddenly, it would be original by that definition.