# Another "originality" thread. How the hell do you know if something you wrote is original? :/



## RiffWraith (Jun 13, 2014)

I know threads like this pop up from time to time, but this is actually frustrating, and I wanted to hear other people's thoughts here on this specific topic.

So, I came up with this just a few minute ago:

http://www.jeffreyhayat.com/melex.mp3 (www.jeffreyhayat.com/melex.mp3)

Not talking about the chord; that's just a chord. It's the melody that is cause for concern. I like it. I could see it working for a number of different things. But, is it really original? It doesn't sound like anything else that I know of... but does that mean it isn't something else already? I guess the concern is that the very nature of the melody dictates it _could_ be something else... it is not impossible that someone else could write that same melody. If I were working on something, how do I know that those exact same notes weren't written by someone else, for something else? How do you guys deal with this? :? :frustrated:


----------



## The Darris (Jun 13, 2014)

This is a good question. I will share a little 'whoops' moment I had with a piece I wrote when I first started buying high end samples a few years ago. I was at the end of my enlistment in the military and felt that I should get my computer rig setup with samples so I could start writing after getting out. I watched a lot of youtube videos, lurked this site, and did all the research I could. I stumbled onto this video that Michael Patti put out (http://youtu.be/w7xqEY_ld3s) back in 2010. This piece got stuck in my head.

Moving on. I finally got some sample libraries that I felt would help me get started and before I knew it, I pretty much ripped that piece off without realizing it. I posted it on my soundcloud for a long time before I watched that video again and made the connection. Now for your listening pleasure. 

I actually wrote this in 2011 but didn't realize my 'mistake' until late last year.
https://soundcloud.com/christopher-harris/the-champion/s-CK34l

That link is private as I only share it to basically tell this very story. 

Now to answer your question (sorry to be long winded). 

That is an original melody but to me it is more of a motif or a musical idea that would be apart of a bigger theme. Sure, it may sound similar too something else but, to me, that doesn't mean it is not original. You took the time to make it up and get that sound. Had you gone and completely copied it from another source then yeah, not original. 

Sure, the argument one could have is that if it sounds similar to something else then it isn't original. If that is the case then there is no original music anymore.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jun 13, 2014)

The window for melody when it's behind tv/film dialog/exteriors/montage, etc...it's pretty small. You can't be all Eric Dolphy and stuff. 

Why not just think about the phrasing? Maybe play it on a guitar or piano and see how it bounces around rhythmically a bit? Maybe you'll even record it on that instrument. I just started incorporated my clarinet into coming up with melodies/motifs. I just started doing this so I can't give you a recorded example. I think the idea for me is to feel musical and not get hung up on if these notes have been written before and in this order. You'll go crazy. I know the DAW is supposed to my our "instrument " but between latency and samples still sounding sample-y maybe you need something tactile? just a thought.

I'm even collecting coffee cans and any other random junk in an effort to not rely on oddball percussion samples. 

Maybe that's what you meant...?


----------



## muk (Jun 14, 2014)

Originality is not only about the material you come up with, but probably even more so about what you do with it. That's why a set of variations can be highly original, eventhough the basic material may be not your own.

Another example: the main theme of Beethoven's Eroica symphony, first movement. It consists of a broken e flat major chord with some slight embellishment. That's not very revolutionary by itself - in fact a composer of considerably less talent might have come up with something very similar. But what Beethoven does with that theme during the movement is so utterly original and clever, that it sets it apart from anything written at the time.
Or think of the fifth symphony. That's not even a proper theme! It's a rhythm. It's an impetus. Many composers can come up with two falling minor thirds. But Beethoven makes it the heart of the whole symphony. It's everywhere, practically in every measure of the whole symphony you can hear it's traces. Brilliant!

So, I would say if you come up with something that you like, don't worry too much about it's originality. Use it to the best of your ability. On the whole, what you do with it may be far more important than where you started from.


----------



## PhilipeZ (Jun 14, 2014)

I think it's important to see melody just as one part and not as the core of music like many people do. If you feel the melody of a piece is not very original, that does not mean that the piece is not original cause originality can be in rhythm, orchestration, colors, dynamics, etc, and also in the development of a melody/a motive. A piece that starts with a very simple and common melody idea can prove original cause the melody is developed the piece in an original way.

Otherwise, in Strawinskys "Sacre", in many passages, you'll hardly find an original melody, well, you'll find any melody. Still, it's great music. This shows that melody is not the only core of music.

Concerning your music example, I think it's hard to tell whether the piece is original since we have only few seconds. If this is everything you have, I'd say, there's no reason to abandon the idea too early. Even if the beginning is not so original in your eyes, it has potential to develop into something nice!


----------



## Consona (Jun 14, 2014)

Mozart alone wrote more than 620 pieces. Just imagine the number of melodies those must contain. And now take all the composers, how big is a chance that you would come up with some melody that nobody wrote before?

Music is a flow in time. You can have exactly the same melody as someone wrote before but after some bars your brain will come up with some continuation that was not part of the original composition. Not to speak about the whole rest of the composition...


----------



## G.E. (Jun 14, 2014)

This is also a big concern for me,especially that I like to put the most focus on melody in my music.One day I was listening to "Heart of courage" by Two Steps From Hell and I wanted to write something that gave the same vibe.I go ahead and do that,finish the track,upload it to youtube,and read my first comment.It was actually by The Darris :lol:
Imagine my shame when he tells me that I must've played a lot of Elder Scrolls lately and it turns out that my melody was 70% the same as one of the Elder Scrolls themes.

I don't even trust my brain anymore.Recently I wrote another melody and it took me a few hours until I realized that it was from a John Williams piece I've heard before.Luckily I figured it out in time and saved me further embarassment.


----------



## Farkle (Jun 14, 2014)

G.E. @ Sat Jun 14 said:


> This is also a big concern for me,especially that I like to put the most focus on melody in my music.One day I was listening to "Heart of courage" by Two Steps From Hell and I wanted to write something that gave the same vibe.I go ahead and do that,finish the track,upload it to youtube,and read my first comment.It was actually by The Darris :lol:
> Imagine my shame when he tells me that I must've played a lot of Elder Scrolls lately and it turns out that my melody was 70% the same as one of the Elder Scrolls themes.
> 
> I don't even trust my brain anymore.Recently I wrote another melody and it took me a few hours until I realized that it was from a John Williams piece I've heard before.Luckily I figured it out in time and saved me further embarassment.



Look, even John Williams borrows/is influenced by. I mean, listen to the opening cut of this film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGcpLm989-U

The first 10 seconds, you know what it is, right? Of COURSE you do! It's the opening of the 1942 film "Kings' Row", written by Erich Korngold!

Oh, it's also basically the opening chunk of Star Wars? Ooops! >8o 

But seriously, I'm *not* writing this to say that Mr. Williams is a rip-off artist. Quite the opposite. He took that riff as a jumping off point, found a way to change the rhythms, and added a second part that was uniquely his own. That, to me, was brilliant John Williams! Whenever I'm stuck with feeling like my melodies are influenced by something else, I load up this, and Star Wars, and do a quick analysis to get ideas on how to change my ideas around, make them unique, but still have them relate to something that was written before.

Now, to add my own story. I just finished scoring a cool retro-styled RPG game, and one of the reference scores was the Final Fantasy Tactics game. I had written a cool dungeon theme, and the melody just seemed to pour out of me. It was sooo supple, sinuous, lovely!

Sent it to my writing partner (zircon), who informed me that I had accidentally lifted a melody from Ocarina of Time, note-for-note. GARRR!!

Hey, at least I'm stealing from the best! 

Mike


----------



## G.E. (Jun 14, 2014)

> Look, even John Williams borrows/is influenced by. I mean, listen to the opening cut of this film:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGcpLm989-U
> 
> The first 10 seconds, you know what it is, right? Of COURSE you do! It's the opening of the 1942 film "Kings' Row", written by Erich Korngold!


I was a bit shocked when I heard this during Mike Verta's masterclass.I couldn't believe what I was hearing. :lol:

It's hard to be original when there are only 12 notes.

for example here's the Elder scrolls theme I was talking about:
http://youtu.be/ZWuNf4gxwuM?t=38s ( listen at 0:38 )

And here's one of Alan Silvestri's recent themes from Cosmos:
http://youtu.be/3Bj8szlZAR4?t=1m21s ( listen at 1:21 )

They are somewhat different but still very similar.If you put them in the same key and same song,one of them could easily be "mistaken" for a variation the second time the A section comes along.


----------



## wst3 (Jun 14, 2014)

I'll pass on the question of actually being original, but to answer the original question, I'm not sure WE can ever be certain, by ourselves, that something we wrote is original.

I would suspect that many hear spend a fair chunk of their time listening to music. About the only times I am not listening to other people's music is when I am working on my stuff, or playing with my kids. The radio is always on in my car, my office, etc. (And by radio, these days, I mean the radio or one of a number of streaming services where I can tailor the music selection!)

So I'm bombarded by musical ideas, and some of them are going to work their way into my memory.

I've even unknowingly ripped myself off - which I guess is a good sign.

Most if not everyone here has to have at least one tale of playing a piece for friends or family only to have someone say "hey, that sounds like..."

And sometimes it sounds exactly like something else, and sometimes it is a tip of the hat. And telling the difference between those is the challenge!


----------



## Musicologo (Jun 14, 2014)

I'm positively sure that most "singable" melodies in any solo instrument or strings will not sound original at all, and even if they do, they possibly have been used before by some obscure 18th century composer or some guy in a basement in Spain.

The problem with 12 notes is that only a FEW sets of those 12 notes and a few sets of the possible rhythms are "usable" inside the conventions.

It's like words. with the 26 letters we can virtually make infinite combinations but the problem is that combinations like "shfjfdkhfj" or "fhjdf" are not usable, therefore we tend to use only 0.01% or so of the total possible.

The same with the notes and rhythms. we tend to use again and again a subset of 0.01% of the possible amount of combinations. And therefore along the centuries and with so many different people composing the themes and melodies overlap A LOT.

I am most sure that every possible "usable" melody already exists in some riff, song or verse somewhere else. Moreover, the melodies don't have to be "the same" to sound alike... they only need to have the same "melodic contour". Which makes that within our 0.01% subset, many of those melodies sound in fact like variations from each other, they "all sound the same", and therefore you will not have an original melody nowadays anymore, in the sense that even if your specific melody doesn't exist yet, some very similar variation or with a similar melodic contour already exists. Therefore somewhere in Poland some guy browsing the internet will say "oh, that guy in Costa Rica did in 1937 a song that sounds like mine and I had no clue!"...

How can you compensate that? Well, assigning different instruments and timbres, varying the orchestration, the structure, the form, etc... that will exponentially increase 
the variety...

Now, if you present a "simple melody" in a string arrangement it doesn't sound original because the "string arrangement" is a very common timbre per se, while the melody is already a pastiche per se, etc... Because many "ensembles" are having standard sounds (like a new orleans jazz band, a brass band, a typical 2 guitars, bass drums rock band, etc), we are also using a subset of 0.01% possible combinations of arranging timbres...

If you want to sound original you have to come up with combinations outside the conventions to maximize your chances of not doing something similar to something already done. If you add a celesta, a gong and a santur to a rock band probably you're maximizing your chances of sounding original.

Adding a human voice as well, because human voices tend to be very characteristically. That is why the same songs keep being re-recorded and re-arranged and still are usable because we add some specific elements that bring in the difference and mask the "sameness" in them.


----------



## Farkle (Jun 14, 2014)

I've had some philosophical musings on this subject, which I want to throw out, just for people to chew on, and discuss. I'm just ruminating on some ideas, hopefully, this will continue an already fun and interesting thread! 

I try to mentally and emotionally differentiate between the words "original" and "unique" as a composer. For me, original means, "doing something that no one else has done before". To me, that's a scary, un-fun, and creatively draining concept. When I was at composition school at Duke (a very avant-garde, post-tonal music school), every composition I did was dissected by the faculty as, "Well, someone else did this before, so you have to do the opposite to be original". Fair enough, but when the argument got to (I kid you not), "mike, you need to avoid harmony, melodic shapes, and rhythmic downbeats, because everyone has done this before, and you need to do the opposite to be original"..., well, I signed my "get the hell outta dodge" papers, and left that month. (Mike Verta, you and I need to toast each other with a fine whiskey to celebrate the stupidity of academic music). 

So, "originality" to me, is a poisonous, creative-stopping term, that implies, "don't learn from what others have done, do something that no one else has done, and that has artistic value". Ech, not for me.

However, "Unique" is a super empowering concept, for me! Unique implies, "take the tools that are out there, the colors, etc., and put them together in a way that no one else would think to do". The best part is, people who are unique, often readily admit, they were strongly influenced by other artists, yet they took those tools, and put them together like no one else could.

Danny Elfman is my absolute fave example. I always tell my students, "Danny uses the same 12 notes on the piano I do, but no one makes them sound like Danny does." And, he's the first to admit, he's a huge B Hermann fan. And, if you listen to his scores, you hear the Hermann influence (esp. the motion by thirds, etc). But, Danny puts the score together, he hooks his melody in a way, that no one else thinks to do... he's completely unique in HOW he assembles the structures into a composition. And, I believe it comes from his creative decisions on what to use where, how to maneuver through the cue, and what emotions/tools he decides to implement.

Woof! I know this got philosophical, but that's half the fun of being an artist!  So, I always try to ask myself, "how can I be unique"? I feel like, if I try to be unique, then I give myself permission to listen to and "borrow" from other composers, and not worry about if I am influenced by them, because I'll make some decisions that are different than them, and that will make it a "Mike Worth" piece. 

Here's an example. I made a quick loop of music for a friend's video game. It's about a young girl who is trying to keep her youthful innocence despite being in an abusive household (yeah, fun stuff, right)? Anyways, when I started working on the game, the style of the music felt like E. Bernstein's "To Kill a Mockingbird". So, I transcribed a couple of cues to get the feel of the palette, and then sketched out this cue. It has a high influence from Elmer's score, but I feel like I made decisions as Mike Worth which made this cue unique:

https://app.box.com/s/phkvv7fhk1eoxybgggti

Is it "original"? Not at all. Totally borrows from dozens of influences. Is it "unique"? I think so. I feel like I made the choices to take the cue in certain places, and only "Mike Worth" would have made those choices.

I hope this musing sparks some interesting discussion, and hopefully, makes us all a little less fearful of "sounding" like someone else. 

Best,

Mike


----------



## re-peat (Jun 14, 2014)

How little of even the most basic understanding of music does one have to have to say that there are only 12 notes to make melodies with? As if going from D3 to G2 is musically the same thing as going from D3 to G3. As if repeating C4 six times is the same thing as alternating between C4 and C5 … As if the sequence G4-A#3-F4-D#4-A#4-G#4 spells out the same phrase as the sequence G3-A#3-F4-D#4-A#3-G#3 (the Edelweiss melody) … As if an eight note Bb3 has the same melodic weight as a whole note Bb3 …

Not to mention the (en)harmonic implications of the musical context which may give the same note an entirely different character and meaning, depending on its place in the scale and/or the underlying harmonic tension/expectation/resolution.

There are in fact ― and isn’t it utterly depressing that this needs to be said on a musician’s forum? ―, several dozens of notes to make melodies with. And that’s using only the 12 well-tempered divisions of the octave(s). Divide that octave into smaller segments (which is quite common in many types of music), and the number of possibilities increase further still.

And if we bring note length, rhythm, harmony and timbre (Klangfarben) into play as well, the possibilities become endless. Quite literally: _endless_.

Which is also why I can merrily say, in response to Bill’s assumption that we all must have had moments when a melody of ours turned out to be already written by somebody else: never happened to me. Honestly. Never. I lost count, but I have written hundreds and hundreds of melodies by now, and, unless something terminally unpleasant happens, I’ll go on writing hundreds and hundreds more, and there has never been even a hint of a doubt troubling my mind or conscience, nor will there ever be, that all these melodies are and will be entirely mine, and mine alone. And I'm completely convinced that an infinite number of people are (and, in future, will be) able to say, and verifiably justifiably so, the exact same thing.

Listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ersw#t=110

_


----------



## Farkle (Jun 14, 2014)

Hi, Piet!

I completely agree with your statements above, esp. the ones regarding "a D ascending to a G is not the same as a D descending to a G (paraphrased)." Absolutely, context is everything!

I understand that you weren't super happy with my statement of "the same 12 notes", and I definitely do not mean it in the context of "these are the only available options to create music". (BTW, this ties directly in with the gorgeously funny Laurie/Fry sketch about language, and communication!). 

What I am (hopefully) describing is how Danny's uniqueness comes not from creating brand new tools or "letters of the alphabet". Danny took the tools that we all have access to (melodic shapes, notes, rhythmic structures, orchestral colors), and made DECISIONS with them that are uniquely his decisions. I try to teach my students that, because, first and foremost, I want them _creating_ music. Period. I don't want them to seize up under the fear of "did what I just write come across as original"? My example of the "same 12 notes" is designed to alleviate their fears that the "original voices" out there had access to some magic set of tools. They didn't. They just strove (and succeeded) in making unique choices that make the music effective, and uniquely theirs.

To explore the linguistic analogy further, there are only 26 letters in the alphabet, and Webster's Dictionary contains pretty much all of the commonly accepted English words. Yet, Bill Cosby can create and assemble a structure which is so uniquely his, even though he uses many of the same words that I use in a daily basis. His artistic choices, along with his use of (as you articulated, Piet) rhythms, pauses, inflections, make his comedy unique.

I hope this is making sense. I absolutely agree with you, Piet, distilling music down to "12 notes on a keyboard" is robbing it of it's essence. The example I used is designed to get my composition students to not worry about "being original", and instead, write with their own voice.

Mike


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 14, 2014)

Thanks for all the responses.

Christopher > exactly what I am afraid of. The accidental "it was in my subconscious without realizing it" scenario.

Actually what I wrote would not be a part of a bigger theme; that is the theme. It may be repeated, developed more, etc., but that's it. And I am not concerned with similiarity. What I am concerned with is it being identical... which is not beyond the realm of possibility.

give > I defintely was not talking about writing themes with coffee cans :lol: Playing that on the guitar or piano won't do much. That helps a good deal if you have come up with something that you know is really close or the same as something else, and you are trying to make it original. That's not what I am trying to do here; I have no reason to want to change what I have.

muk > first sentence is oh so true. But I am actually talking not so much about the orchestration, and what else is going on musically; I am talking about the - the actual notes that make up the melody themselves.

GE > I checked out the vids - those are not the same. Very similiar, yes - but defintely not the same, as you alluded to. Not only not grounds for C.I., but no cause for concern for the composer who wrote their piece second.



re-peat @ Sat Jun 14 said:


> =Listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ersw#t=110



Brilliant! :D 

Some other good thoughts - thanks!


----------



## wst3 (Jun 14, 2014)

re-peat @ Sat Jun 14 said:


> And if we bring note length, rhythm, harmony and timbre (Klangfarben) into play as well, the possibilities become endless. Quite literally: _endless_.



I'm not suggesting otherwise... I've never bought into the "there is nothing new under the sun" idea. I do think we have many more timbres to play with today than our predecessors, and those that follow us will likely have even more.

But even without that it does seem silly to think we can't come up with something new. Hence my initial disclaimer...



re-peat @ Sat Jun 14 said:


> Which is also why I can merrily say, in response to Bill’s assumption that we all must have had moments when a melody of ours turned out to be already written by somebody else: never happened to me. Honestly.



Good for you! (Please note I did say "most, if not everyone")

I can't say that... every once in a while a melody or motif or maybe even just a cadence will so make itself a part of my consciousness that it sneaks in. Even though the setting, or even some smaller aspect (rhythm, harmony) will be different there is no escaping that the bit is recognizable.

What fascinates me most is that once someone points it out it becomes immediately obvious to me too. But until that happens I am blissfully unaware. How does that happen?


----------



## Musicologo (Jun 14, 2014)

re-peat: I totally agree with you and I totally disagree with you. And we've had this same discussion before on another thread relating with melody and I stand by my argument AND by yours because we are talking about different grades of the same thing.

1) These all SOUND the same or ARE the same.
2) Yet all these examples are totally different and they sound totally different.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NWeKB8n7qw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzWSJG93P8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo5SE4DCSBw

This is the point in my argument. 
According to the assumption 1) there is a very finite set of tunes possible with the 12 pitch-classes that will all be "the same" or "sound the same".
Yet they will all be like 2) - they will always be totally different.

I hope I've made clear my distinction why I think there are tunes that "all sound the same" to me - because I'm paying attention to a reduced set of parameters of sameness, namely "central pitch" or "quantized rhythm". Basically the symbolic notation associated with the score.

These definitions are important even considering psychoacoustics or legal issues.
Because when we listen to a song we "identify" it by a number of reduced parameters. That is why to a certain extent (namely for legal reasons and registering with a PRO) all G3-D3-E3 musical phrases are "the same", yet there can be infinite different renditions of them. however if you record one and the day after I record another, with different phrasing, rhythm, etc, you may want to sue me because "I stole your song".

Or suddenly am I free to record the imperial march with theremin and accordion and change its rhythm to habanera and now I can sell it at my will and put it into films?...

what is "the imperial march" anyway?... by definition "the imperial march" is a set of pitches and quantized rhythms, a "scheme". And that reduced "scheme" is what counts.

And mathematically (and this is a fact) the available sets of "schemes/scores" available to us, and that make sense within the tonal conventions and are logical within the styles we hear, are starting to overlap more and more.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jun 14, 2014)

I always thought "12 notes" meant not 12 notes but more like we all have essentially the same tools. Feel free to pull that apart semantically but only if another video like that one comes with it. 

Riff, coffee cans are silly tangent in our melody discussion. (Has anyone ever said that before?) I just meant that you might not FEEL like you might be doing something unoriginal if you weren't totally beholden to samples with their crossfades, legato transitions, etc.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 14, 2014)

Some weeks ago I asked to myself the same question while I was listening to a composition layout what I did some years ago. I sent it to a good friend and after a short time he sent me a link to a youtube vid. Huh......, it was nearly the same thing!

Sometimes that happens unconsciously. We've heard a melody as a child and it is stored in the brain.

..


----------



## G.E. (Jun 14, 2014)

> How little of even the most basic understanding of music does one have to have to say that there are only 12 notes to make melodies with?


I hate to be the bearer of bad news but actually we don't even have 12 notes most of the time if we want to stick to a major/minor scale. :D (semi-joking)

But seriously,I am aware that the number of possibilities is quite large.Though there are still limitations which makes it very likely that at some point someone else would come up with the same melody.(even if it's in a different register and different key)Not to mention that half of those possibilities are boring and not worth exploring.To a western ear at least.Maybe a melody that is boring to me would sound better in a different culture.
There are 88 keys on the piano but that doesn't mean a melody can start on C1,make it's way up to C5 and end up right back on C1.Hence the limitations I was mentioning.


----------



## chibear (Jun 15, 2014)

A few thoughts that have crossed my mind after reading this thread:

1. It is important (in a litigious sense) to differentiate between "is a copy of', "is derived from", "sounds like" when discussing originality.

2. Even direct quotation might not be considered plagiarism if it is done for impact. Mahler comes to mind who quoted anyone he felt like including himself for the effect.

3. Everything you write is affected by what you have heard on a subconscious level so a particular work may contain references you do not realize. Doesn't make it unoriginal.

4. 'Originality' is in the ear of the listener and a case could be made for almost anything being a copy of or derived from something else. 2 examples from my career: I did an all day session for a composer friend of mine in the late 70's (who BTW is still a friend after this). During the review of the last takes I showed him how the entire session was based on 'So Happy Together'. It wasn't of course but the 'evidence' was there. Secondly one of my last set of performances as a player was a Mozart mini-festival where I demonstrated to the folks around me that all Mozart fast movements were derived from 'Jingle Bells' Stupid Musician Games :D

Point is not to let concern about originality hamstring your creativity.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 15, 2014)

All the people who might have some incentive to backcheck our work are too busy with Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn. And the next generation won't even recognize a melody.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Jun 15, 2014)

I just had this situation.

I'm writing a library album and came up with a melody for a track, but had a niggling feeling I may have lifted something from my subconscious.

What I did was share it with a group of composers on a Facebook forum I'm a member of (I'll be the first to admit that my schooling in the classics and older film soundtracks is limited).

Several listens later, no-one could match it with something.

So, I go on.

Maybe when the album comes out someone will pop up with "Yeah, that's the suchandsuch scene from suchandsuch film" and I'll have never heard of it, but until then...


----------



## MichaelL (Jun 15, 2014)

Jeff...are you asking a legal question, or an artistic "pride" question?


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 15, 2014)

MichaelL @ Sun Jun 15 said:


> Jeff...are you asking a legal question, or an artistic "pride" question?



Heh - both.


----------



## MichaelL (Jun 15, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Sun Jun 15 said:


> MichaelL @ Sun Jun 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Jeff...are you asking a legal question, or an artistic "pride" question?
> ...




There's a lot more to infringement than borrowing a melody (not legal advice :-D )

As far as artistic pride is concerned, upon how high a pedestal do you wish to stand? :wink: 

I'm with Farkle, only I got out before wasting my money. Before I enrolled, I went to a concert featuring "original" music composed by the head of the University's composition department. It was all I needed the hear. >8o 

Dreck is still dreck, no matter how "original it is, and it was dreck!


----------



## cadalac (Jun 16, 2014)

A piece is likely original if it sounds better than what you expected you could write , and if you really love the piece and can feel it emotionally.

I watched The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe for the first time a few months ago, and I figure H.G.Williams felt that way about his score.


----------

