# Being original



## JonFairhurst (Dec 1, 2006)

How to make it original? Keep writing! 

Let's say your first four notes are exactly the same as Beethoven's 5th. Keep writing. By the 5th, 6th or 7th note, it will be original!


----------



## Niah (Dec 1, 2006)

Stop listening to Hans Zimmer. :lol: 

Seriously, when I start to see that my music is getting too close to a certain composer or artist I just take a break and listen to other stuff, mostly non-film music.

If you listen to too much of the same you will unconsciously begin to copy.

At least that's my experience.


----------



## SvK (Dec 1, 2006)

Don't sweat it.....

It's true you need to write what you feel.....if your cue starts resembling the style of another composer, the one thing that NEVER worx is forcing it into originality.........

A cue has a life of it's own and if you fight that, you will compromise the cue........you need to let it be what it wants to be.....

Originality will come all on it's own in time....

My cues sound like either Hermann, Barry or Goldsmith ........however lately my new cues are sounding like a mix of all of the above....that's good........they are morphing together and hopefully some time in the not so distant future....it will all blend into something that is called the SvK sound.........i don't fight my influences, after all they are what made me fall in love with music.


Also remember that the whole "Film Sound" as we know it, stemmed from the influences shared by the early great film-composers.......without Holst, Strawinsky, Debussy.......we would never have had a "Herrmann" sound..........

This will really tick some on this board off....BUT I'll say it; there is nothing wrong with conventions / cliches...as a matter of fact on a subconcious level the film-goer expects them....if they are not present he/she will feel let down.

Conventions allow the viewer to participate / anticipate things in the film. They heighten the viewers involvement.

SvK


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 1, 2006)

Niah @ Fri Dec 01 said:


> Stop listening to Hans Zimmer. :lol:
> 
> Seriously, when I start to see that my music is getting too close to a certain composer or artist I just take a break and listen to other stuff, mostly non-film music.
> 
> ...



I think that is a good advice. If you've been listening to Zimmer extensively, time to move on. It sounds like you've assimilated his style already. How about setting a new goal for yourself. What musical trend you feel is out of reach and yet you are very attracted to? That's probably what you should now concentrate on, analyse and try to emulate...etc

Once you feel you have a good grasp on that: move on!


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 1, 2006)

There has been a time when composers struggled for originality too much, especially at the concert stage. Being 'different' seemed to be more important than the musical content, which was leading to the fact that the musicians had to abuse their instruments just to get a new, unheard and - more important - unseen effect. Bah.

In this context I was always referring to Mozart or Beethoven who never thought 'am I original?'. They were just knee-deep digging in the matter itself, producing genious solutions of counterpoint and harmony, struggling with the emotional content of their works, with other words they were just in their music, and that it turned out to be original was something that became obvious later.

Now on the other hand some time has passed since the 'modernish' composers were so in vogue and we are here in a forum visited mostly by film, game and commercials composers. Of course they need to work a lot with clichees and musical deja vues.

But in this context it may be also sometimes good to remember that there _are _musical worlds outside the media, hehe ...
And if clichées are always only reproduced over and over with out rethinking or re-inventing them film music will become too predictable. And then on the long hand the composers will suffer when one day some software can deliver all they write. Sound consultants will have one fader for drama, one for love, one for comedy, and that is it.

So I think composers always need a bit of asking with "am I just xeroxing something I know it will work or am I on the path of music that really _means _something". This is a good question.


Hannes


----------



## rJames (Dec 2, 2006)

Heart is a subgroup of brain.

Your heart and soul will always be there (in your music). You can't deny it, even if you were to try; because it would come out in your demonstration against it.

And what do you mean by heart? I'm not trying to be argumentative.

Its just that this subject is very close to my...brain.

Try writing the best piece of music you have written to date...but withouòœO   K“6œO   K“7œO   K“8œO   K“9œO   K“:œO   K“;œO   K“<œO   K“=œO   K“>œO   K“?œO   K“@œO   K“AœO   K“BœO   K“CœO   K“DœO   K“EœO   K“FœO   K“GœO   K“HœO   K“IœO   K“JœO   K“KœP   K“LœP   K“MœP   K“NœP   K“OœP   K“PœP   K“QœP   K“RœP   K“SœP   K“TœP   K“UœP   K“VœP   K“WœP   K“XœP   K“YœP   K“ZœP   K“[œP   K“\œP   K“]œP   K“^œP   K“_œP   K“`œP   K“aœP   K“bœP   K“cœP   K“dœP   K“eœP   K“fœP   K“gœP   K“hœP   K“iœP   K“jœP   K“kœP   K“lœP   K“mœP   K“nœP   K“oœP   K“pœP   K“qœP   K“rœP   K“sœP   K“tœP   K“uœP   K“vœP   K“wœP   K“xœP   K“yœP   K“zœP   K“{œP   K“|œP   K“}œP   K“~œP   K“œP   K“€œP   K“œP   K“‚œP   K“ƒœP   K“„œP   K“…œP   K“†œP   K“‡œP   K“ˆœP   K“‰œP


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Dec 2, 2006)

Here's what advice I'd add.

So you put down a few notes and notice it's reeking of Zimmer? No shame in that, it's perfectly fine. Better to reek of Zimmer than of poo.

You cannot judge your writing by responding to your earliest drafts, the way you describe. Writing music, like writing anything, is a revision process. If your theme is feeling too close to Zimmer, consider this a success. You have noticed the similarity, and now you can do something about it. Start analyzing the melody. See where else it can go, if you change some things around. Throw a wrench in the cogs...take the most attractive thing about it, and yank it out. Now, force yourself to approach it differently.

I say take heart!!! You have demonstrated the ability to notice a problem, to identify it correctly, and to desire a different outcome. This means you have every skill set necessary to overcome it. Now, all you have to do is just dig in and do what every good writer does--rewrite, rewrite, and rewrite again, each time challenging yourself to be fearless in exploring all the possibilities for the best end result.

I've been in this business for over twenty years. I can't count the number of times I have caught myself regurgitating someone else's themes. It's natural. Don't toss the work aside. Shuffle the deck, and create something new that's even better.

T.S. Eliot (later paraphrased by Stravinsky) said, "Mediocre writers borrow, great writers steal." Of course, this is a semantic exercise. What great writers do when they "steal" is create something that outshines any attempt to describe their work as derivative. No matter what one might say about John Williams, for instance, he has demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is his own man. You can trace his influences backwards to Stravinsky, Debussy, and any number of romantics atop that, but in the final analysis, he has synthesized it into something that is idenifiably his own.

You can do that, too, and it's worth repeating that your observations about your own work tell you that you have sufficient skill to identify those "borrowed" themes. All you need to do is go ahead and steal them!! Make them so much your own, by the process of rewriting, and rewriting the rewriting, that you make them yours and yours alone.


----------



## david robinson (Dec 2, 2006)

music for film = business

music for art's sake = vocational

totally different animals.

my crystal ball says: two hundred years from now people will still know of mozart, bach, stravinsky, et al, and appreciate the works.
whereas, williams, goldsmith, horner, zimmer, if remembered at all, will always be tied to the films they were involved in first.


----------



## SvK (Dec 2, 2006)

David,

I respectfully disagree.......

Bernard Herrmann
Ennio Morricone
John Williams
Goldsmith.....
Elmer Bernstein

all have classic cues that will be remembered


SvK


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 2, 2006)

rJames @ Sat Dec 02 said:


> Heart is a subgroup of brain.


Maybe so, but logic is a slave to the heart.

I can't tell you how many times I've been in meetings with "logical" engineers where all of the logic is used to support an emotional position. The risk-averse engineer will tell you all of the logical reasons for the safe path. The entrepreneurial engineer will tell you all the reasons for the big play. Assuming they're smart and honest, the logic will be flawless, but it will be filtered by their frameworks. 

Watch out when the "brain" starts selectively filtering. This isn't thinking. It's justifying.

Heck, take a look at US politics right now. The Republican Party has made a big deal out of their principles, including

* Fiscal responsibility
* Not tolerating graft
* Not entering any war without an exit strategy

The reality is that they have acted in opposition to these principles. But if there is an emotional connection to being a Republican, the brain can easily create a logical argument to justify sticking by the home team. (And I'm sure that the brains of the politically motivated have already begun spinning logical webs to cover the subject.)

But here's the weird thing. Research has shown that people who *don't* have emotional underpinning to their logic are horrible decision-makers.

There was a railroad foreman in the 1800s who had a steel bar go through his head(!) and lived to tell the tale. After recovering physically, Doctors tested his reasoning skills, and he passed with flying colors. However, the man lost his capacity for emotion. (His skull was saved - modern researchers know which circuits were dislodged.) He lost his family, never held a steady job again, and made a lifetime of seriously flawed decisions. 

So, next time you use logic, step back and see if you can identify the emotion, principle or value that you are defending. It's a great opportunity for self understanding - and for finding one's original voice.


----------



## rJames (Dec 3, 2006)

JonFairhurst @ Sat Dec 02 said:


> rJames @ Sat Dec 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Heart is a subgroup of brain.
> ...



You and I agree 100%. (I'm not trying to "be right" just adding your more technical explanation to my first post) Brain is the organ wherein emotion resides.

Emotion IS attached to logic. My point exactly.

We are talking about how to be "original". My point is that when you logically dissect music you will find some new (to you) interesting relationship.

As you exploit the "discovered" relationship, you will be using your emotionally driven logic. It can happen no other way. You can't be anyone other than yourself.

I didn't believe that my first post was going out on a limb.

But now I will, because it is said that I like to stir the pot.

If you don't have a brain that is wired, emotion>logic, then you will never write great music. Study, dissection or no.


----------



## kid-surf (Dec 5, 2006)

Sometimes "the talk doesn't match the dress".

A most profound ideology I picked up from the ever so intellectualized show Project Runway™. (sure, I'm being a bit sarcastic -- yet, I do like the idea very much)

Simply put, just because a piece of music logically makes sense, and just because one can pontificate about it's significance, well... doesn't mean I'm going to therefor feel anything while listing. Some music, to me, feels as if it's been written by someone with Autism. Perhaps complex, but doesn't leave an emotional imprint. 

I definitely believe there are those out there that don't realize they write from a primary position of logic, and almost entirely logic (like a guy who thinks he's good in bed but is all thumbs). I believe there are some people that don't hear music emotionally, but as a sort of 'code'. I believe these types place a value on music based on how well it stimulates them mathematically -vs- emotionally. I believe some people interested in creating music aren't emotional thinkers. 

If music were about logic first CPAs would make interesting artists. They don't.

I believe the best music comes from those would are emotional thinkers. The more emotionally driven, the better the music connects to the world. And the more they are admired for their work. Why? Because the listener is feeling something when they listen. Simple as that.

Take all the people that go to school to learn composing. Well, why do many of them write music that is not the least bit compelling (to put it nicely). They learned the same stuff the rest of the class did. Logic says they should all write at the same emotional level if it's about logic first. Fact is, you can't learn how to write "emotionally driven". It's in you, or not, from day one.

If it were about logic first we'd have more people capable of writing nothing but brilliant music. And we'd have some better idea of even what music "is".... and why some people feel the need to express it.

The idea that logic comes first seems like a very convenient way to disregard the unexplainable. 

It's late, if I don't make any sense, oh fuck'n well... I make sense to me. :mrgreen:


----------



## rJames (Dec 5, 2006)

I'm so glad you want to continue the conversation, Kid. this is a discussion particularly close to my heart. So, please forgive me if I get too vehement.

The topic is "being original," although it has convoluted a bit.

What I am worried about in Kid's post is the implication that "study" is not worthwhile.

Kid, can you tell me which of the composers that you like are, "emotional thinkers." How do you know about their creative process? Do you think young Mozart was, "connected to the world," at age 5? Or was he autistic? Do you think he is, "admired for his work?"

And for the record, I don't think anyone who listens to music is stimulated by the math. In order to do that, you would have to see the music and all of its relationships in your head as you listen.

Or is it that everyone who listens to music is stimulated by the math. Why is it that going from V to I sounds so final? Why is it that so much music is based on a super simple structure of I,IV and V? Is it because the waveforms of the notes that make up those structures actually form some sort of well structured unit?

We are talking about creativity.

There are plenty of logic minded people that attend engineering class and don't make good engineers.

I would go so far as to say that there are plenty of logically minded people that attend math class and don't make good mathmaticians. Why is that? 

So, if you are "creative" then don't be scared away from study. You have nothing to fear from using your brain as well as your (poetic) heart. They are one. You cannot learn, "heart" but you can exercise the other partner in your interface to reality.

If you want to continue to drege up old musical memories from your subconscious and try to see how many ways you can reassemble them, then do that. There are plenty of people making a great living doing so.

But if you want to be original, use your brain.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Dec 5, 2006)

The art of creating music isn't to stroke our own feelings to release, like so much spooge in a sock. It is to use the sonic language and techniques available to us to create those emotional responses in others, and to manipulate THEIR responses.

People who become either very skilled at it, or who are just naturally skilled at it, will show a capability to let the techniques "ride" on their own waves of emotion. But that is not the natural expression of musical creativity. Just observe an unschooled or untalented person who is passionately singing. They're not creating an intentional response in the listener. They are the embodiment of that aforementioned spooge in the sock, or Macbeth's "...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Their "heart," no matter how deeply felt, is not connecting with a set of tools and known responses.

The reason I always try to coach young musicians to a) learn to play an instrument at a professional level of performance, and b) to get out there and perform for a few years before thinking of composing, is that this gives a person the first-hand "internship," if you will, into what creates a response in others and what does not.

Kid, I completely relate to the kinds of composers you are talking about, those whose music sounds so complex, and so perfectly wrought, yet it hits me like so much white noise. No different than listening to a construction site.

I think it is because many composers head off to the closet a little too early in their careers, before they've felt the rush of realizing they're connecting directly to a listener's brain, and manipulating their bodies and minds. A good jazz player can get himself laid by staring at the object of his desire, and playing exactly what he intends to accomplish with her as soon as he's off the bandstand.

I think that's one of the reasons you see so many former jazz players doing very well as composers. You learn what works very quickly on the bandstand, and those tricks are very easy to apply. Any music, ultimately, is a manipulation of tension and release in the listener. It's nothing but a mind-***k.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 5, 2006)

rJames @ Tue Dec 05 said:


> this is a discussion particularly close to my heart.



You mean "...close to my brain." right :mrgreen: :wink:


----------



## kid-surf (Dec 5, 2006)

*What I am worried about in Kid's post is the implication that "study" is not worthwhile. *

rJames--

That is actually the furthest thing from what I am implying. So please don't assume that is "my" message, that I don't study, see the importance in it, or plan to continue studying til the day I die.

That's a tired debate, one I'm not interested in. Because I have always felt that the more you know the better you can support any 'god given talent'... isn't that obvious to all? It should be.

What I'm saying is that there are SOME people who don't have any god given talent to write music, but they went to school for it anyway, and they did receive plenty of training. I would argue that these are the people writing from a position of logic first. I would argue that they aren't as capable of making an emotional connection to music as others. While others in their class did have the propensity for emotional writing (i.e. god given talent).


No, my position comes from a different angle entirely. Thats' why I specifically used the scenario of a "classroom" setting. (meaning a group of individuals who are ALL studying at a high level). I simply don't believe in the idea that some of these people are being more logical than others, and this being the reason they are then able to create music people enjoy. Specifically, if we are talking about film composers, I don't believe a career can be had simply by being highly logical about the crafting of music. In my opinion there is a "primary" element known as ones' "voice" (same training remember). This is the great divider between the folks who go on to forge illustrious careers and those that languish writing music not many listeners connect to. (IMO)

Who were John Williams Classmates again?

This is the area that is the unexplainable. Talent by definition is an "innate" quality. Meaning -- we have no idea where this ability comes from. Meaning -- it's not necessarily a "learned" ability. (to clarify -- again I am, for sake of this conversation, assuming a high level of training)

How many Autistic people write music you enjoy? Why are they able to learn this craft with almost no training, and then write/play complex works? The reason I brought that up is that it's the most literal definition of logical writing there is. People who don't have the capability to "feel", yet they still can write. Is their music any good? They are known for being phenomenal mathematicians. Music contains a lot of math, no? I believe this to be an extreme example of writing mathematically and them enjoying music due to it's relationship to math. My position is that it's probably best to be somewhere in the middle. I'm a moderate. 



> If you want to continue to drege up old musical memories from your subconscious and try to see how many ways you can reassemble them, then do that. There are plenty of people making a great living doing so.
> 
> But if you want to be original, use your brain.



So everything you write is clearly original and fresh? I find that hard to believe.

Hmmm. So, is that a slam on me specifically or general statement to all? First off all, neither of us will ever be a Mozart. I am content turing the people on musically that I do. Having a career in music means you are turning enough people on to continue to do the thing you love. If your personal quest is to attain the level of mastery Mozart had, be my guest. But be prepared to never reach your goal. And then be prepared to have the historians, critics, and other composers clown your music as a weak attempt at plagiarism. Well, that is one thing that I find annoying in composers, the uppity idea that our music is worthless unless it's at the highest possible level. Well, how do the Beatles compare to Mozart? He would've torn them a new asshole had he lived long enough to hear them. So, how high does one need to go? I doubt any of us ever attain his level of mastery, much less the Class-A film composers out there. So we all might as well throw in the towel now and quit wasting everyone's time.................. Or, maybe we can be content in what we DO achieve, so long as we are achieving the goals we set out to achieve. However pedestrian these goals may seem to all the brilliant folks on their mission to be remembered throughout the end of time. Nope.. nobody will remember me when I'm dead. Oh well......

Man, my ego is just not that big.... But I do like my own music currently. Yet, I do see the many ways I can improve. And I do make the effort to learn more so I can continue to improve. But nope, I'm not gonna assume I suck just because some composer thinks so. (ever hear novelists talk? None of them should be writing if they all had their way --- yet the world at large feels otherwise. And for very good reason. Artists, thank god, aren't the ones who decide what art qualifies to be in our world. Regular ol people do.... that's why we've had bands such as The Beatles.) 

We may not agree where music comes from, rJames. That's ok. Neither of us can prove our positions. 



> Kid, I completely relate to the kinds of composers you are talking about, those whose music sounds so complex, and so perfectly wrought, yet it hits me like so much white noise. No different than listening to a construction site.




Yep, that's what I'm talking about. I don't think I could very well explain what the through-line is for all the composers I think are emotionally connected, but most all of them are very successful. So it's not just I who believe them to be connected. 

I think that's a good tip, to play out and feel that give and take that can only be had with a live audience. Music has always been very sexual to me. Maybe that's what's lacking in the music I don't think is connecting. Sounds A-sexual to me. That would be a good way to describe it. A-sexual....




Being original? Who cares, just write something people like.........


----------



## rJames (Dec 5, 2006)

kid-surf @ Tue Dec 05 said:


> Man, my ego is just not that big.... But I do like my own music currently.
> 
> We may not agree where music comes from, rJames. That's ok. Neither of us can prove our positions.
> 
> Being original? Who cares, just write something people like.........



Sorry, I missed the point of your, "Sometimes "the talk doesn't match the dress"." post totally.

I thought you were refuting what I had said about using your brain to become more original. AS far as I know, the more you study, the more your brain will become a part of the process.

I am not discussing where music comes from at all. I was just responding to Brewmeister's post about a method that he could use to become more original. It was his request.

I think we are in agreement on most points.

I was not knocking your music with my statement about, "so, if you want to be original..." I've heard a few of your pieces and I think they are good. I don't think they are great or that original, but I think they are quite good.

I may disagree with you on the size of your ego. But I think a good self image is necessary, so I approve (although I know you don't care, that comes with the ego).

How original is my work? That is up to others to decide. I don't think anything I do is that great. I like what I do (as you said) and I hope that everyone here likes what they do. If they don't...they've got a problem and maybe should get out of the business unless they are so well established that they can't forego the money.

Life is too short to do something (or create something) that you don't like. 

You are missing the entire point of the thread with your comment about, "being original, who cares?"

But you proved your point to me. It is mystical where great music comes from. (and great art, and great architecture, and great investment strategies,...great teachers...)

something about finding your bliss...


----------



## SvK (Dec 5, 2006)

RJames....


I will tread very carefully here.........


It's all about the nursery ryhme.....

It's all about that little motif ...you barely notice you are humming (inventing) while walking the dog, or taking a shower.....

NOW....

many incredibly talented individuals on this board go at there music /orchestration from the get-go with a completely mathematical / eis (or other) approach.....

Many do this....PRIOR to having that "nursery-rhyme" , child-like motif.....

Consequently, we hear really well-put together progressions / orchestrations....with ZERO emotional meaning or "heart".

I guarantee you that composers like Williams etc........make SURE that they've got their "hooks " FIRST before anything gets approached analytically....

I am planning to study EIS however...........I will ONLY start using it to further the cue AFTER I hum that little tune in the shower...and am certain that those 6 to 12 notes........move me and others in the way I intend.

That's the killer combo.

My 2 cents


SvK


----------



## kid-surf (Dec 5, 2006)

No worries on the misunderstanding...



> You are missing the entire point of the thread with your comment about, "being original, who cares?"
> 
> But you proved your point to me. It is mystical where great music comes from. (and great art, and great architecture, and great investment strategies,...great teachers...)



I see that AS the point. 

In other words, why should one set out to be "original" when it's all in the eye of the beholder anyway. We'll never all agree on what that means [original]. I was just hired for a gig _because_ the director wanted someone with a unique style. The next guy won't see 'my' music that way, the next will, the next won't. And so on. No what I mean? Perhaps the guy who didn't hire me will find 'your' music unique. And vise versa. You know? The beauty of art.... choices.

I think it a waste of time to worry about being original. I just do. Sure, it's probably not a good idea to continue down a road you know is not true to you. But otherwise, I think it best to simply strive to be 'better'. (which is not the same as saying it's cool to copy cat someone else's style -- it's to say, someone will always find a reason you are not unique)

Someone is always going to be disappointed.... and yet that may be the same music that really gets others excited. Who's right who's wrong? I say both. 

Ego -- well, I'm fine with other composers thinking I have an over inflated ego (if they do). I may think they have one as well, yet expressing it differently. Doesn't make much difference. But I do feel that most composers have a healthy enough ego regardless of what we tell each other. Regardless of how they my attempt to downplay it. I think it's in part a defensive position due to the amount of criticism there are in the arts, and part a rational recognition of completing a work that one probably should feel proud of. (even though it's not the best thing ever written -- sometimes "good" is good enough to qualify as "good".  ) 



> I was not knocking your music with my statement about, "so, if you want to be original..." I've heard a few of your pieces and I think they are good. I don't think they are great or that original, but I think they are quite good.



I look at my music in much the same way you are perceiving it . Only my definition would simply be "fairly good". Not great, not horrible, sort of good enough... at the moment. Which is why I strive for more. Long way to go. That's the fun of this, I enjoy that journey.... that's why I never get bored. It's why I'm speccing some better stuff now between gigs. I know I can do better. Constant journey, I'll pass that stuff by too, eventually. Like most of us....



> How original is my work? That is up to others to decide. I don't think anything I do is that great. I like what I do (as you said) and I hope that everyone here likes what they do. If they don't...they've got a problem and maybe should get out of the business unless they are so well established that they can't forego the money.



Ditto that...... 

I'll tell you what I main gripe is: I don't think it's healthy for one to disparage work of theirs that doesn't qualify as brilliant. (not that it's been said directly in this thread -- but I sense it out there) I think some composers do that to themselves and they must be miserable people. Miserable, or it's all just an act. Why go through life working so hard at something when you think you suck at it....?

Ramble, ramble..........


----------



## kid-surf (Dec 5, 2006)

SvK @ Tue Dec 05 said:


> RJames....
> 
> 
> I will tread very carefully here.........
> ...



That's what I'm saying. I think most well respected composers would tell you you're crazy to start thinking analytically from the get go. 

Maybe if one were writing for an exercise, but not when trying to create an artistic work. The idea that one should boggles my mind. It's so anti-artistic.


----------



## rJames (Dec 5, 2006)

SvK @ Tue Dec 05 said:


> RJames....
> 
> 
> I will tread very carefully here.........
> ...



I'm not here to step on anyone's toes either. Seriously. We're just discussing an approach to be more original...aren't we?

I think we digressed because I said you should integrate your brain into the process.

Two things, SvK. (and you and Kid should both know that I think your music is good) Geez!!!

First, EIS is NOT a mathematical approach to music. Holy s**t. What did I say?

While scoring to picture (which I am still doing as an exercise) I only play a melody. I play one single melody to capture the emotion.

Although, sometimes I compose the bass line or percussion first (action).

EIS is NOT a method. It is the study of music AND in my opinion at the base level.

The reason you hear music from EIS students (if that is what you are saying) that you don't consider to be very musical is that they are most likely exercises. 

At the very least, they are cues written while studying at the edges of musicality. 

Second, please point me to one of those really well put together progressions with no heart.

Then we'll ask the composer if he composed it with all the heart he could muster.

Maybe you've just got a nack for "heart" and that's why your stuff is more popular.

I have a feeling that much of this is, "in the eyes of the beholder".

I don't think I could hum one piece of music that Chick Corea plays but I would sit through the same concert time and time again if I could. I would go out on a limb and say he plays with heart.

Art is ANYTHING that comes from creation. Some art is better than others.

We have thoroughly hi-jacked Brewmeister's thread. Sorry about that.


----------



## SvK (Dec 5, 2006)

RJ....

Actually I am coming to the point in my writing now....where I am stumped!

I see it......and I know it.....


I do believe I have a knack for coming up with that "hooky'" line........However I would kill to have all of your knowledge to really make that line "bloom"....and develop...THAT is were craft overtakes inventiveness........

All I am saying is that the initial "inventive" phase should be purely child-like.......building a foundation for that line after the fact.......is where the craft and knowledge comes in............the inner-ear only goes so far.....Being on this board has been very humbling.


It's the 2 ends of the spectrum...........and it's 1/2 in the middle where i need to be.


SvK


----------



## SvK (Dec 5, 2006)

RJames....

Your point about Chick Corea 
good one.

It's that "Frank Zappa" versus "The Beatles" thing.


I believe there to be 3 types of music:

1) Music for musicians (Zappa

2) Music for the people (John Barry

3) Music for musicians AND the people (The Beatles)

........I would like to achieve b and/or C.....never A 


hehehe

SvK


----------



## SvK (Dec 5, 2006)

I think a film-score that achieves b and c perfectly........

is "Chinatown" by Goldsmith.......


SvK


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 5, 2006)

I wonder where you'd situate Stravinsky? :???: 

This debate will never be resolved because no one has the cosmic insight that it takes to define where inspiration/great art is coming from.  

It's apples for one artist and oranges from another anyway...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 5, 2006)

kid-surf @ Tue Dec 05 said:


> Being original? Who cares, just write something people like.........


 :shock: :shock: 

Thank God all artists are not thinking this way!: I'd kind of miss jazz, most of the classical composers that I really enjoy and a whole bunch of great rock bands.

Come on Kid, you gotta be kidding right? :lol:


----------



## SvK (Dec 5, 2006)

Patrick


hehehehe

Stravinsky is "c"...........he combines his polytonal-scapes with lyrical innocence...to my ears very accessible.....


----------



## brewmeister (Dec 5, 2006)

rJames, never fear, this is probably the most in-depth and "sensational" thread I have read in a while. I have learned a great deal of info and truly appreciate this informative discussion. 

Mentioning logic, the heart, and the brain in a thread like this was quite mind-blowing. In a good way. :smile: 

I have never thought on interpreting this scenario in ways that were discussed above and it continues to show that this community truly has some very gifted people. 

Many thanks. 

PS- lay off the beer? More like tea. :D


----------



## kid-surf (Dec 6, 2006)

Patrick de Caumette @ Tue Dec 05 said:


> I wonder where you'd situate Stravinsky? :???:
> 
> This debate will never be resolved because no one has the cosmic insight that it takes to define where inspiration/great art is coming from.
> 
> It's apples for one artist and oranges from another anyway...



that's shorthand for what my point was.


----------



## kid-surf (Dec 6, 2006)

Patrick de Caumette @ Tue Dec 05 said:


> kid-surf @ Tue Dec 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Being original? Who cares, just write something people like.........
> ...



True, I meant to say "write what YOU like, and F' everyone else".... :lol: :twisted:


----------



## José Herring (Dec 6, 2006)

This topic is so touchy I've stayed away from it. Last time I participated in this--well let's just say I haven't seen Theo Krueger around here much since then :neutral: )

We can't be expected to sit down and reinvent the wheel everytime we sit down to compose a piece of music. It does take years sometimes decades to truly develop your own style. Until then the only option we have is to copy the style of somebody else. 

Truth is that there's writing in the styel of "x" and ripping notes from. Personally, though there are many composers who would disagree, I can't get into the idea of stealing notes. I hate it when I go to the movies and every cue is taken from somebody else's music.

But on the other hand to strive to be original all the time is a fool hearted dream. First there's style. I'm not going to sit down and try to reinvent mahler or funk or punk rock. But, there is a such a thing as making whatever style you're doing your own style. If anything in this world gets my libbido going it's taking a style of music and making original music in that style or mixing and matching styles in a hybrid type manner. I love it.

But, I do strive to make it my own. I just don't sit down and pull out my Shostakovich symphony and start dictating. I hate that. It's lazy. Too many of us do that and it hurts music because nothing original or new is being written. It doesn't take much time at all to analyze Shostakovich and figure out what he was thinking then write something original along the same thoughts. Takes an hour if you understand your theory.

These are the things that can be copied. Orchestration and form. Heck just rip it. There's only a few combinations possible and rather than spend the time figuring out how Tchaikovsky orchestrated his music I've chosen to just ripp it. Soaring violins on top, horns accopaniment in triads. Bass lines and wood winds flourishing or doubling. That's a full tutti in Tchaikovsky's book. You can just open up a score and take it down exaclty like that. But you must stop short of ripping the melodies and the harmonies. That's personal and has unlimited combinations and you owe it to yourself and to music not to rip.

As fantastic as John Williams and James Horner are they'll forever be remembered as the guys that ripped off everybody. I don't think I could ever live with that.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 6, 2006)

The 12-bar blues is the ultimate example of the gray area of originality. It's all been figured out: these are the standard progressions, here are the alternate chords, here are the turn arounds. Knock yourself out.

But sometimes there are blues performers who bring their own style and do something that's just a bit different than what was done before. Is it original? The overall result is, even if the foundation and framework are not. 

Face it, you can't be original from the ground up, and still call it the blues. But you can create an original blues song that has your imprint.

Originality isn't an all or nothing affair.


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 9, 2006)

JonFairhurst @ Fri Dec 01 said:


> Let's say your first four notes are exactly the same as Beethoven's 5th. Keep writing. By the 5th, 6th or 7th note, it will be original!



Yeah but go back and rewrite those first four notes because people's minds will be made up by the time they hear note 5.


----------



## rJames (Dec 9, 2006)

At a lunch once I heard the head of the department that deals with these things at a major studio discuss copyright infringement.

He said that a piece could be considered copyright infringement in only a few notes, like Dave is saying above.

But what his team would do when this kind of thing would happen after the track is done and eveybody likes it, was to go back and find as many pieces of music that used the same notes.

They could then prove that this figure has been in common usage for centuries and that there was no infringement.

He also alluded to the same thing that Jon did. You have only so many notes to work with...but with rythmic variation and melodic variation, the possibilites get large even in the first few notes.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 9, 2006)

rJames @ Sat Dec 09 said:


> At a lunch once I heard the head of the department that deals with these things at a major studio discuss copyright infringement.
> 
> He said that a piece could be considered copyright infringement in only a few notes, like Dave is saying above.
> 
> ...


It doesn't always work though. If it did Danny Elfman, wouldn't have won so many court cases for Edward Scissorhands. If a judge decides that there was intent to copy, it actually doesn't matter what notes you used. This is why music libraries are now very wary of advertising sound-alikes. They now tend to brand them as style-alikes, when they even specify.

D


----------



## rJames (Dec 9, 2006)

Quite true. At some point, a jury may decide. And if it gets to that point, "My Sweet Lord."

(speaking of intent or no intent)


----------



## david robinson (Dec 18, 2006)

if you don't want to be influenced by the music of others, then don't listen to any.

i get more out of a good painting or photograph than i do from most music.


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 18, 2006)

Daryl @ Sat Dec 09 said:


> . . . If it did, Danny Elfman wouldn't have won so many court cases for Edward Scissorhands . . .


What cases were these?


----------



## Daryl (Dec 19, 2006)

Mike Greene @ Tue Dec 19 said:


> Daryl @ Sat Dec 09 said:
> 
> 
> > . . . If it did, Danny Elfman wouldn't have won so many court cases for Edward Scissorhands . . .
> ...


I couldn't give you details, but Elfman has said this many times in interviews.

D


----------



## stmiller (Feb 5, 2007)

SvK @ Tue Dec 05 said:


> I believe there to be 3 types of music:
> 
> 1) Music for musicians (Zappa
> 
> ...



I like your quote! That actually makes a lot of good sense.


----------



## Kaatza_Music (May 22, 2007)

I have to drive several hours every day. I recently got a 80 gig iPod and loaded all of my CDs onto it., hundreds of songs. Everything from rock/pop to jazz, classical and film scores. When I leave home, I hit shuffle and let the iPod pick what I get to hear. I've actually listened to a lot of stuff I wouldn't normally pick and it might be the Rolling Stones or Steely Dan one minute then Mozart or John Williams the next. Helps me not listen to much to any one band, composer or style.

As far as finding your own unique voice goes, I think that comes by writing a lot of music. I find that the older I get and the more music I write, the more I think I sound like me. But I still often come up with melodies and then go, nah, that just sounds too much like something I heard before, so I'll play around with it, maybe change a few notes or invert it or play it backwards; change the tempo, change the accompaniment . . . Sometimes it works, sometimes I just trash it and try something else. o/~

I think the important thing is to not try too hard to be original and just write what you feel. Otherwise you might psych yourself out and not write anything :shock:


----------



## VonRichter (May 22, 2007)

I see a lot of movies. Way too many. 

The mainstream Hollywood stuff is almost never original. So, what's the problem? Just try sounding like every other movie, and you are sure to get some work. I would go so far as to say that if you're original, you will be killing your media career before it even starts. A HUGE bonus is that when the suits and director start telling you to "MAKE IT SOUND MORE LIKE THE TEMP TRACK", you will have no trouble obliging. Think about it. Are you in this for money, or art?

Just a little food for thought.


----------



## rJames (May 22, 2007)

VonRichter @ Tue May 22 said:


> Think about it. Are you in this for money, or art?
> 
> Just a little food for thought.



Speaking of food...anybody hungry?

:D


----------



## Necromancer (Jun 9, 2007)

My motto when it comes to originality:

"There are only 7 notes."

Seriously, everything that's actually listenable out there has been "done before" in some sense of the word. I like to think of past musical works as chemicals and the composer is simply the mad scientist, mixing these influences together until he finds the miracle cure he's been searching for.

Or his house blows up.


----------



## David A (Feb 15, 2008)

Many people seem to forget how much of a role MARKETING plays in our perception of 'originality'.

David A.


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 15, 2008)

Whew quite a bump... actually one other thing came to my mind re-reading most of the stuff and Zimmer being quoted quite often in the beginning of the thread: Zimmer himself answered once in an interview about some soundtrack he did the question, how'd he get ideas for a new piece. Can't remember an exact link but I guess it's one out of Choco's Cool Links Thread... I believe the one where he also commented on his idea to turn the whole room into a late 19th century brothel looking room. Anyway.

He played 5 notes in that interview or intented to. OK - these 5 notes are probably played by a few thousands musicians in the world right now, he said. (I already thought, huh, don't be too bold here, Hans. A few THOUSAND?) Then he went on, that it's the musician or composer that would give meaning to these five notes. And that I think is the key to originality. The meaning of a musical piece in a context. The connection between two things, music and the other one (thoughts, films, pictures, performances, what else you could think of).

Come to think of it again, a few thousands, well there is a lot of music going on in the world, mostly the 88 keys are used, and mostly something in the middle. So yes... maybe he's not too far off there.

Btw. - What is left for a (bad) composer when "mediocre borrow, great steal"? Right - thinking of something original... :D

PolarBear


----------



## poseur (Feb 22, 2008)

levels and degrees,
a grey area,
not an issue to be discussed simply
and consistently intelligently 
in any kind of 
B&W internettified terms.....

imo,
this is a question that can only ever be
answered by the person asking it:
everyone else's POV can only be like
staring at the finger-pointing-at-the-moon,
rather than looking at the moon, itself.
¿no?

some effort, IOW, is required for a personally
meaningful "answer" (or, even quasi-"resolution").....

start with the innocent mind?
throw away every piece of music that doesn't express something truly personal?
throw away every piece of music that roots itself in comparison-to
or repetition-of the
specifics of the music you've heard & absorbed (maybe too) well?
be prepared to utterly fail,
regardless of the consequences?
i dunno.

i tend to believe that we are "naturally" musically original, myself;
it sure as hell is a rough task to shed the layers of psychic goo acquired via
whatever means & habits we develop,
but i think it is certainly do-able:
so long as we don't throw the baby (of our "good" music) out with the bath-water
(of trying too desperately, too narcissistically to continuously wean our music
of the usually necessary influence of others' music).

d


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 22, 2008)

"It does take years sometimes decades to truly develop your own style."

I missed this thread the first time, but Jose's right, that's what I was going to say while reading it - although I'd use the word "approach" rather than "style," not to disagree but to be precise. And then the battle is not to paraphrase yourself over and over.

I'm not sure I'm there yet, but I do have certain things I like to overuse.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 22, 2008)

Necromancer @ Sat 09 Jun said:


> My motto when it comes to originality:
> 
> "There are only 7 notes."


Again and again, notes, notes, notes, and more notes. Actually, there are not 7, but 12 notes. Or, some would say: 88. Intervals, there are even more of them - and they go both ways, upwards and downwards. Play this, in eights: c4-b3-c4-b4-b4-c4, then play this: c4-b4-c4-b3-b3-c4. They sound different, although the same sequence of two notes was used in each case: c-b-c-b-b-c. Notice also that only eights were used. Now imagine ALL the rhythmical possibilities, using only those "two notes". Now, play with rhythms while combining those notes differently, then change the tempo, fluctuate it, then add some dynamics, and play around with them. Then orchestrate it, add layers, play with various combinations of timbres, then, throw in some accents, some articulations, various interpretation techniques to each instrument. Then combine all the elements above. My point: you can be VERY original with only two notes. 

An even more simple, similarly well known two-notes example, in eights as well, by the same well known composer: b2-c3-b2-c3-b2-c3-b2-c3-b2-c3-b2-c3... 
You can even forget about notes, and still be very original: http://www.uploadpedia.com/13V6OJTRUB6O/9834coolmusic-mp3.html (9834coolmusic.mp3 - 12.7 Mb)

Consider this: how many letters are in the Latin alphabet? 26, right? What does that number say to you about the English (Italian, Spanish, French, German, American, etc.) literature - the original one, the non-original, and everything in between? How many film scripts are yet to be written by using only those 26 letters? Now, honestly: do you still feel that your originality is limited by those 7 (or 12, or 88 ) notes? Do you think notes to be the most important thing in music? They're not even the second most important thing, IMHO - and when it comes to scoring for film, notes come last.

My (second) point: express yourself, and you'll be as original as can be, and will never need to think about "originality" again - if originality is what concerns you. There might be other things as well to consider, as other people's acceptance of your musical pieces - but that's a different topic altogether.


----------



## david robinson (Feb 22, 2008)

hi,
to be original?
you'd have to come from another galaxy.

my personal view?
although a lot of music creators are superior to me, no question about that....
i won't listen to their work as it takes me away from mine, no matter what standard that is.
we, each, have a life.
that life is best served, as a composer, in doing the best you, as a person can do, and has little to do with anyone else.

just be thankful that the average listener doesn't think like an artist.
their goal is to be entertained/diverted.

as Zappa said: "God bless the mind of the man in the street."

otherwise we'd all be screwed.

DR9.


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 22, 2008)

There are 88 notes in the well-tempered scale. Doesn't even apply if you have the possibility to intonate rightly according to the used key. And there are even a lot of other tonesystems in the world not applying to this 88 thing. And 7 therefore is an original possiblity, if you choose to limit yourself on 7 frequencies.

Word phrases are limited, and even when not matching exact, describe the same mood or the same patterns in a script. You know, the big picture and such. A guy opening a door silently could be described in many ways, but he still does that, open that can of worms silently.

Are you really thinking your originality wouldn't sound different if you weren't exposed to noise and music since your very first perception? Or is it that you say originality is just something that I have to do to differ from the other scam, for the sake of differentiation itself. 

PolarBear


----------

