Originality - An observation by King By-Tor

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: 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.

^ interesting Russell... 

Atavachron wrote: as a young musician and then illustrator, I was always trying to be 'original' - that is, I would often start with originality as of prime importance - and what I realized is that original material that works usually stems from established principles.. that is, the new seemed to often come from the old, and not from some immaculately conceived notion  ..artists usually have breakthroughs from working and creating, it is a process more than an ideal suddenly come to fruition with no attention to aesthetics    ..sorry if that's useless

No I think it settles russelk's calls to talk about originality for its own sake very well, since I think it states an opinion that almost everyone would agree with (myself and I presume russelk as well).

I just have to give  to both Pnoom! and Russellk(i respect both of you guys a lot) for their usual intelligent and meaningful thoughts. And to King By-Tor for this thread which i really didn't think would go anywhere but downhill fast. And Atavachron your timing was perfect.

Our arguments may not have been original, but I hope they at least entertained 

sinkadotentree wrote: I just have to give  to both Pnoom! and Russellk(i respect both of you guys a lot) for their usual intelligent and meaningful thoughts. And to King By-Tor for this thread which i really didn't think would go anywhere but downhill fast. And Atavachron your timing was perfect.

I'm surprised too (thanks, by the way!).


No, this is great! I'm trying to keep up with everything that's happened since I left, let's see if I've got anything left to add. Keep it coming! I'm enjoying the hell out of this discussion.

Rileydog22 wrote: Reminds me of this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=8s13sASS5F4

Funny isn't it? Actually, I had a song writer do almost the same thing for me the other day, except she just took the chords from Knocking On Heaven's door and came up with, like 3 or 4 songs out of it. She said you could do exactly the same thing as that guy did though. Good to see it in motion though! thanks for the link.

Visitor13 wrote: 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'...

These guys have managed to get a deal with Century Media, which shows that either is there a market for this... or someone at Century Media has a weird sense of humour.

Visitor13 wrote: Can you see these two landing a deal with Century Media?  http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=150896108

No, because Century Media don't do experimental electronica. Cold Meat Industry, Old Europa Café or even Mute Records, on the other hand...


Edited by Toaster Mantis - June 30 2008 at 11:48

There's an interesting point that I failed to bring up - the labels!

When it comes to originality no one hurts music more than the corporate world. Assigning producers to attempt to keep the music contemporary by bringing it down to earth. Well, maybe that's exaggerating a bit, but a lot of bands won't ever get signed unless they have some kind of sound that can be sold. Let's face it, originality is a hard sell for the most part (not always so in the progressive world), most people would rather listen to Justin Timberlake than A Silver Mt. Zion (again, in the non-prog world) so it's easier to sell the 1000th shelf pop star. I suppose even in prog it would be easier to sell something like Spock's Beard than something completely obscure and perhaps original.

Maybe some of these bands are in fact the most original artists on the planet being held within the restraints of modern labels .