Originality - An observation by King By-Tor

^ I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a musician that did not follow any conventions, jazz or otherwise.

^ 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").

I'm just wondering what exactly is the purpose of something that conveys no meaning. I don't consider that question pedantic.

Edited by Henry Plainview - June 29 2008 at 04:44

laplace wrote: also: Henry Plainview wrote: laplace wrote: don't categorise me with ze angry posters I was nice :F Um, what does that face even mean? Urban dictionary tells me drooling, but that doesn't make any sense in this context... What the hell is that comic frame from? It is a post-emoticon, IE, a hieroglyphic face that DOESN'T relay contextual information. urban dictionary cramps my style. um, my sig has disappeared now, like everyone's, but if you meant my userbar then it was a close cropping of a picture of Hello Kitty and it lead to my last.fm band page.

This is very similar to the debate currently raging in fantasy writing. Indulge me for a moment.

Fantasy seems to be divided into the 'epic fantasy' (so-called 'Tolkien clones') and the 'new' fantasy (cyberpunk/steampunk/magical realism etc). One is seen as regressive, the other as progressive. I write and am published in the epic fantasy genre, but respect (and read) those who write in the more experimental end of the genre.

On the Tor website is this quote: "Epic fantasy characteristically produces its effects not so much by the novelty of its invention as by its depth of insight and strength of execution". To me this is key. So-called 'retro' fantasy, which I write, works for many people because they want depth. I think it's the same in music: people listen to retro-prog because they're looking for something to reaffirm their taste and at the same time add a little extra depth to their experience. Things don't always have to be new: good work is also done by people trying to make a familiar thing better.

While it's good to encourage experimentation in all areas of life, most of us also need the reassurance of ritual. Breakfast at the same time, living with the same people, and so on. Music is part of the flux of life, offering both experimentation and ritual. I find it odd that people would gravitate to one at the expense of the other, and odder still that one group would criticise the other. After all, your first listen to an album in a new genre was an experiment, and your tenth a ritual.

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?

My thoughts exactly

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.

Yes. Yes I did. 

Pnoom! wrote: King By-Tor wrote: See, the great thing about taste is that it doesn't need to be justified Thank you! We've reached the crux of my point in the first post (however vague that was). Yeah, it was obscured a bit, hidden behind a straw man and the argument that SB are original, iirc Does it need to be original to be likable? No! My main frustration is that often people take music like this out at the knees before giving it a chance just because it's not one of a kind Well it is reasonable to prefer more original music. and yet I have to respect more obscure genres because 'not understanding' them is a cardinal sin! No, you have to respect them because no genre can truly be written off.  It is my experience that ever serious genre has noteworthy gems, if only you look in the right places. This is not true entirely, but there is often an air of this in some threads/reviews WHAT DO YOU MEAN THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT MAGMA??

You mean SB isn't original??

Well placed points. Maybe now prog-metal will get some more appreciation





[edit] Oh, yes, and: da zeuhl wortz mekanik


Edited by King By-Tor - June 28 2008 at 20:32

See, the great thing about taste is that it doesn't need to be justified

Thank you! We've reached the crux of my point in the first post (however vague that was). Does it need to be original to be likable? No! My main frustration is that often people take music like this out at the knees before giving it a chance just because it's not one of a kind, and yet I have to respect more obscure genres because 'not understanding' them is a cardinal sin!

This is not true entirely, but there is often an air of this in some threads/reviews