How does one achieve originality while not just being compared to influences

  On 10/11/2016 at 11:18 PM, Redruth said:

haha ragnar  :)))

 

 

btw, there is nothing new under th sun.

except antibiotic resistant super bacteria in toilets 

http://acsh.org/news/2016/10/07/are-airport-bathrooms-spreading-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria-globally-10279

:)

originality is overrated.. i mean.. that's how we got trap music and footwork and it's just not worth it. 

never sit in th public porcelain 

  On 10/11/2016 at 5:55 PM, Squee said:

This thread makes me sad. Just do whatever the hell you want and don't overthink everything.

Wise words! If you're trying to be original you're overthinking it. Just listen to your intuition, not the self-critical voice in your head.

Don't take yourself too seriously. Play around. Be curious. Trust yourself.

Make stuff > scrutinise what you've made > note and keep doing what you liked about your stuff, note and stop doing the things you hated in your stuff > make more stuff with emphasized good points / decreased bad points from previous scrutiny > repeat for a while > your style

At the end of the day, we all have a style we cannot escape from, even if we try. Certain musicians, even when trying to escape being identified, give away telltale signs as indelible as invisible ink. Even if you think you're ripping off this or that artist, somewhere in there is your style, and it'll start to overpower whatever influences you had / have in time, with repeated creations. Just keep going / changing / making. And, of course, having fun.

  On 10/11/2016 at 11:09 PM, IOS said:

You start sounding original the minute you stop any conscious intention of copying (=stealing) other people's ideas.

I think the quickest way to come up with something original is to go on a binge of deliberately copying other people's ideas while using a large number of completely unrelated sources. E.g. when starting to make a track, incorporate small pieces of ideas from bluegrass, acid house, 19th century Russian music, a 90s rock song played backwards, methods for pickling cucumbers, advances in machine learning, functionalist architecture, calculus and a Wikipedia page on the retired Swedish breaststroke swimmer who competed at the 1960 Summer Olympics in the 200 m event, but failed to reach the final. If you manage to get all of this distilled into one track, it will surely be something nobody has heard before.

these discussions always make me think of Kid A: album of the century, revolutionary blah blah blah but when you take it apart it's just a mishmash of a ton of different music that was already out there

  On 10/12/2016 at 1:55 AM, ThatSpanishGuy said:

these discussions always make me think of Kid A: album of the century, revolutionary blah blah blah but when you take it apart it's just a mishmash of a ton of different music that was already out there

how is being a mishmash of a ton of different things not revolutionary when most artists only do 1 thing?

Listen to 'EvoAva'

EVERYONE Copy 'EvoAva'.

Meanwhile 'EvoAva' comes up with a new style. BAM forced originality.

  On 10/12/2016 at 12:57 AM, Boxus said:

 

  On 10/11/2016 at 5:55 PM, Squee said:

This thread makes me sad. Just do whatever the hell you want and don't overthink everything.

 

Wise words! If you're trying to be original you're overthinking it. Just listen to your intuition, not the self-critical voice in your head.

 

Don't take yourself too seriously. Play around. Be curious. Trust yourself.

 

This. trust yoself, listen your intuition, go for the goosebumps

  Quote

 

 

This. trust yoself, listen your intuition, go for the goosebumps

pfft. PFFFFFT.... PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT!

it's just dumping a bunch of legos on the floor and arranging them until you're happy

  On 10/11/2016 at 11:46 PM, Acit said:

"The modernist thirst for originality makes the mediocre artist believe that the secret of originality consists simply in being different." Gómez Dávila

Having time to reflect on peoples comments i think i'll just keep hacking away at what i'm working on till trends have dissolved in to nothing

Where can I listen to ur stuff miim?

@miim - it sounds like you are on the right track of just getting back to it.

I just wanted to say, once you realize that your entire existence has been influenced by other people from the very beginning of your life-- embrace that fact, then just let go and create. Sounds like you are on your way already.

  On 10/12/2016 at 1:48 AM, ghsotword said:

  On 10/11/2016 at 11:09 PM, IOS said:

You start sounding original the minute you stop any conscious intention of copying (=stealing) other people's ideas.

I think the quickest way to come up with something original is to go on a binge of deliberately copying other people's ideas while using a large number of completely unrelated sources. E.g. when starting to make a track, incorporate small pieces of ideas from bluegrass, acid house, 19th century Russian music, a 90s rock song played backwards, methods for pickling cucumbers, advances in machine learning, functionalist architecture, calculus and a Wikipedia page on the retired Swedish breaststroke swimmer who competed at the 1960 Summer Olympics in the 200 m event, but failed to reach the final. If you manage to get all of this distilled into one track, it will surely be something nobody has heard before.

Maybe, maybe not - but now we're probably deviating towards problematic avenues, such as "this piece is unlistenable, but hey, it's original"; and "this piece contains so many unrelated things - it's complicated, therefore it's original"; and "I didn't like this piece at first, but then I read in the album's description that they based it on methods of pickling cucumbers, and then I though omg how original!!"; etc

  On 10/12/2016 at 3:47 PM, Blank said:

 

  On 10/12/2016 at 2:12 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 10/12/2016 at 1:55 AM, ThatSpanishGuy said:

these discussions always make me think of Kid A: album of the century, revolutionary blah blah blah but when you take it apart it's just a mishmash of a ton of different music that was already out there

 

how is being a mishmash of a ton of different things not revolutionary when most artists only do 1 thing?

 

I think what he's saying is not that it shouldn't be called 'revolutionary' (cus it is pretty incredible imo!), more that he's saying some critics or people might overexaggerate a little when saying that it's completely original in its genre or style or whatever, which isn't the case because Kid A was very inspired by all these other artists from jazz, IDM, experimental music and etc, that were already quite used to making music in similar structures or sounds. Personally, I think Kid A is 'revolutionary' in the sense that it's an album that resonated with a mainstream audience and influenced many, many artists to starting exploring and experimenting with other styles in their music. Not that it was the album to morph eclecticism from a wide range of genres because obviously people have done this way before Kid A! But the fact that they went in a totally different direction with their music and diverted from their known sort of 'rock' beginnings was so controversial at the time, so I could imagine a lot of people wanted to try that for themselves. Which is cool!

 

fair enough. the run from ok pc > hail to the leaf is pretty legendary and great. After that I think their cozy lifestyles got the best of them or something, but tbh I'm sure everything since then still kills if you see it live. Similarly to the strokes, even if you don't enjoy their output watching them live they have a ton of energy, charisma, and put on a good show.

  On 10/11/2016 at 11:46 PM, Acit said:

"The modernist thirst for originality makes the mediocre artist believe that the secret of originality consists simply in being different." Gómez Dávila

Great quote, although it's certainly not limited to modernism of course.

  Quote

 

There is no lost chord. No changes untried. No extra notes to the scale or hidden beats to the bar. There is no point in searching for originality. In the past, most writers of songs spent months in their lonely rooms strumming their guitars or bands in rehearsals have ground their way through endless riffs before arriving at the song that takes them to the very top. Of course, most of them would be mortally upset to be told that all they were doing was leaving it to chance before they stumbled across the tried and tested. They have to believe it is through this sojourn they arrive at the grail; the great and original song that the world will be unable to resist.

So why don’t all songs sound the same? Why are some artists great, write dozens of classics that move you to tears, say it like it’s never been said before, make you laugh, dance, blow your mind, fall in love, take to the streets and riot? Well, it’s because although the chords, notes, harmonies, beats and words have all been used before their own soul shines through; their personality demands attention. This doesn’t just come via the great vocalist or virtuoso instrumentalist. The Techno sound of Detroit, the most totally linear programmed music ever, lacking any human musicianship in its execution reeks of sweat, sex and desire. The creators of that music just press a few buttons and out comes – a million years of pain and lust.

-The KLF

Here's one by Nietzsche (from Twilight of the Idols):

"Are you genuine? Or merely an actor? A representative? Or that which is represented? In the end, perhaps you are merely a copy of an actor. Second question of conscience."

it'd be hard to explain to someone what's ingenious about the last third of sublimit, even if can find the right words. it took me 2-3 yrs of listening to even see something's there and several more to fully understand it and i like to believe that i understand music.

it'd be even harder to explain what makes ae so genius, what makes them so insightful so they can see cracks in our known (present) reality and so capable in transfering those newly find things to something consumable and understandable for the rest of us. all of that combined makes a genius! every genius in the history did that.

so just new is not enought! cause new can also be new nonsense...and usually is. truly original things in the said sense must have caracteristics of new, truth AND beautiful (in a broad sense)

imo

how to be original? i don't know. but i know that it's harder than we think

  On 10/11/2016 at 4:28 PM, miim said:

I've been struggling to maintain some originality without my influences getting in the way and just being compared to my contemporaries.

 

I's been working on 3 albums for some time now and keep swapping up my pallete or structures as i think it's too similar to likeminded styles.

 

Can you create something unique without someone saying our thats just like X or Y?

Sounds to me you're not "there" yet.

If you had found your own voice, it shouldn't matter whether or not you're being compared to contemporaries. Comparisons wouldn't be relevant because it'd be your own voice. And you can't stop being yourself. 

As long as those comparisons matter to you, you're simply not there yet. And you have to go deeper inside yourself. You know you're there when things become straightforward. And comparisons don't matter anymore.

  On 10/11/2016 at 5:18 PM, miim said:

Possibly the problem i have is i'm trying my hardest not to fit in a genre although it would be labeled by someone

Do you have drums on yr tracks or are they piano/ambient pieces? Drums tend to tie your songs to a certain genre whereas melody Is usually a lot more subjective. If you have drums I'd recommend you start there, In terms of trying to be original. 

I played a gig about five years ago where a guy came up to me after my set and told me that my music was too ahead of its time and also that it "sounded like the 90s." I couldn't tell if he was calling me original or derivative.

In general I'd side with most people saying be yourself, enjoy what you do, and some element of originality will come through - and even if not, as long as you're enjoying it, who cares?

That said, if you're still after tips, mine would be: try doing something you've never done before, without any tutorials and without directly copying something. A piece of software or hardware that you've no idea how to use, a genre you've never tried out before and don't know how to make.

I've released quite a bit of music over the years, and although I think the bulk of my albums carry a thread of identity through them, they all have obvious reference points on a song-by-song basis. Except my debut. I made that in Fruityloops 3. A friend had given me a copy and a 30 minute tutorial in making eurotrance, and I worked upwards from there. I knew nothing at all about synths, so it's almost entirely structured from single shot samples of whatever I could find. From this I attempted to make an ambient/soundscape record like FSOL's Lifeforms. And despite structural similarities, the final thing sounds nothing like it - or, indeed, any other record I've ever heard. I dunno, there might actually be other music out there that sounds like it, but it'll always be my favourite of my own works, despite its huge technical faults, because it's the purest, most distilled sound of 'me' I've ever made. I pretty much found my own way around the software, and tried to make a style of music I had absolutely no idea how to make, and thus despite conceptual influences, there was no real way other music could have particularly reared its head in the overall sound of it.

The more knowledge I've gained about music production, the easier I've found it to emulate things I like, and so a certain edge of originality has been lost. My last release was a bunch of longform acid jams, unashamedly unoriginal. I don't mind really, I like having fun playing with genres these days. But looking back, I can completely identify the fact that I had no idea what I was doing as the main reason my first album sounded so different.