How do you remain original

[Diverdown]

I am curious whether most songwriters embrace or avoid listening to other
musicians when you find yourself in the writing groove. Do you feel that listening to others music colors or influnces what you create ?

[up-fiddler]

sometimes no. What I make a special point of doing is rewriting to avoid ripping off themes etc. from my influences. It can backfire though. You end up writing something so original that it has no appeal to any but a select few. (Like my last effort.) Short answer to a long and difficult problem is that I write to get it out there and rewrite to make it my own.

[Whatmysay]

I like to listen to a group of (usually disparate) influences when I’m arranging, recording and mixing – both to steal and combine individual sounds/techniques and to avoid sounding specific like someone.

Production aside, the actual writing on guitar or piano, like fiddler I just write – often not becoming aware that it sounds like someone till its complete. Even then if it is a good song and I am anxious of cries of ‘copycat’, then I usually mix it up in the production often adding new musical hooks far away from the style/artist it sounded like.

Again as fiddler say he rewrites, I have mentioned before that songs do not come out in perfect form – if the song sounds like someone else and it’s a good song – then change it so it doesn’t.

I think, however if you want your writing to flow you should not be consciously avoid sounding like other people as you first write a new song.

[D_Vincent]

I think everything colors or influnces what you create musically...everything you hear read watch ect kind of has a part in what comes out of you when you create...its a mash up of everything you see and hear plus how you feel at any givin moment...I dont avoid listening to other musicians unless they are really bad at what they do or the music is so predictable i can almost sing the song before I even hear it.

[Scoot]

Is it possible to be totally original ? I personally don't think so. All the music you listened to growing up and before you even picked up an instrument (if you play an instrument) must have "blue printed" you either consciously or subconsciously in some way. But then again...they are your ideas that you are putting down...but I reckon there is always an influence there somewhere.

[Whatmysay]

Originally Posted by Scoot

Is it possible to be totally original ? I personally don't think so. All the music you listened to growing up and before you even picked up an instrument (if you play an instrument) must have "blue printed" you either consciously or subconsciously in some way. But then again...they are your ideas that you are putting down...but I reckon there is always an influence there somewhere.

Originality is only defined by the distance of evolution between steps. In that a big leap is often harder to trace back to its influences than a small step. Most big evolutionary leaps have come about through technology – e.g. sampling essentially created rap and hip hop – though both have clear roots back to blues, R&B and Jamaican Toasting and Dub. It is clear that commercial music evolves slower than music for smaller demographics or niche audiences – Frank Zappa fast evolution , Radiohead medium (new album v interesting BTW), Britney just not evolving on so many levels.

I’m not here to argue origins or influences just to say we are all original (not in a school councillor kind of way) because we take, as Vincent says, a whole lot of stuff and mash it up in our own way. How far that moves for us and/or our audience is a relative to the social and historical context in which we listen to the new work. It may be defined by some as ‘original’ to others as a sound-a-like of another artists work.

‘Originality’ is relative but synthesis is always occurring.

[Scoot]

Yeah well said mate... I have to agree with you. There are a lot of grey areas in this question I guess but you have made me think (which really f***ing hurts ). We may have to turn to the great guru of the music mountain to answer this one
I still believe in influence but the evolution of ideas as you have stated makes a heap of sense also....F*** now I'm getting confused Back to the beer fridge for me.

[mikeh]

I constantly listen to and am inspired by other artists. I probably listen to 5-6 CDs a week while commuting to/from work - in various musical genres and often dictated by which book I'm reading. I read a lot of music biographies, etc. so I often listen to the music of the artist I'm reading about or perhaps an artist who influenced that artist (which by the way can be a very interesting way to learn about artists or recordings that you would not normally consider listening to).

Without a doubt I find I do sometimes write something in a general style of something I've heard. In fact I would suggest anyone who writes is writing things that in some way are part of music that writer has heard (if not something they heard yesterday - something they heard 10 years ago).

As others have already indicated - a writer writes whatever comes (just to get it out). A good writer, then takes that humble beginning and shapes it to make it his/her own to to make it the best it can be (re-write, re-write, re-write).

[up-fiddler]

The advent of XM and Sirius radio makes riding in a vehicle tolerable. There are enough different selections and genres to keep me inspired. Especially out here in the hinterlands where I live. We have ONE c/w station, ONE classic rock station, and public radio. Cruising itunes is also a great way for me to get differing music. All of these things inspire my music but they also influence my music. It is a fine line indeed. In the end ask yourself this.....Do you enjoy what you do and are you happy with the outcome?

[Nicole_Rose]

i just write what comes out of me. what i've experienced. i think it mostly comes out fairly original. well i have one song that someone said was pretty similar to another song, but that was back when i was a pretty immature writer. i think most of the rest is fairly original

[danw]

I also struggle with this on a regular basis. I periodically find that my music is getting stale, that my fingers keep wanting to play the same guitar parts over and over again. Usually I find that the problem is not enough outside influence; I've been listening to the same five cds for too long, or I haven't been reading enough. It helps me sometimes to switch genres, or to listen to something less directly relevant to guitar. Whether I've been listening to Wilco or John Coltrane seems to make a noticeable difference in the way my fingers act when they hit the fretboard. Sometimes it also helps to switch to an instrument I'm less comfortable on, or a tuning I'm less familiar with.

[Rat Lizards]

Just a proposal for the sake of kicks:

There is no originality, only the twisting and recombining of what's gone before, often in reaction against it. This is a sort of game that's never over, and playing it well is what another poster calls "evolution."

What we call originality is more accurately called idiosyncracy. We can't hope to make original songs today. The best we can hope for is to make songs that are idiosyncratic enough to be identified as "ours" while not so idiosyncratic as to alienate everyone.

Originality is a vestigial concept left over from an era when the aristocracy lied to us, and we believed them.

[Diverdown]

Its nice to hear im not alone in finding myself influenced by what im listening to. I usuallly trash anything I write that ends up reminding me of something ive heard but perhap it would be more productive to take it and change it so it sounds less or not at all similar.

[Whatmysay]

The fickle nature of ‘originality’ would suggest that it is perhaps best to be aware of our tendency to imitate what we love, but not necessarily use ‘originality’ as a criteria of a songs success. A guideline not a rule!

Perhaps like a forum stated last month it all comes back to purpose of the song for you the writer. I’m not with Rat when he says ‘originality is vestigial’, but I do believe there is an over romantisation of ‘originality’ and it strong association with some sort of excellence.

Many things, including songs may be original but not functional. De Bono talks about divergent and convergent thinking. I think it is import to judge originality in terms of how well it provides a solution to a challenge.

Challenge write a pop song for Britney – don’t drift to far away from adolescent issues, refer partially to some of the tabloid trials of her life, and above all make sure you can dance to it. Is it original solution yes – ‘original’ probably not.

[DAS19]

I would say just write what feels right to you. If you think it sounds good, then go with it. Try not to worry about being original the only thing you can do is be open and try new things. Also not trying to think about what style you want to write it or be categorized as. Its better to just write whatever you feel.

[tribalpython]

in trying to stay "original" when i am working on a new effort, what i listen to all depends on that particular project.

example...
if i am working on my (normal) heavy project... a few weeks before i begin writing, i'll pick about 5-10 cd's by various artists who's sounds/styles i would at least like to attempt to blend together (this past time it was Megadeth, Tourniquet, Dream Theater, Cradle of Filth, and Deliverance). then once i actually begin writing, i will completely switch gears on what i listen to while i am writing (again, this past time i switched to Prince, Enigma, Russ Taff, Marz, and SFC).

i can't really explain how or why i got started on this, other than the fact that for some reason... when i am writing, it is hard to write and listen to the same genre without unintentionally ripping-off a riff or whatever. i don't mind at all when someone says "hey, that sounds like something (so-and-so) would do"... but i will, and have, went back and re-recorded a song to avoid someone saying "that sounds like something (so-and-so) did on (such-and-such) disc".

the hardest thing for me though, is to avoid listening to my own previous recordings during the writing process. i mean i love what i do, but i don't want the current disc to sound just like the last one. musical evelution is a great thing. you just gotta find what works the best for you, the roll with it.

[Rat Lizards]

Originally Posted by tribalpython

in trying to stay "original" when i am working on a new effort, what i listen to all depends on that particular project.

example...
if i am working on my (normal) heavy project... a few weeks before i begin writing, i'll pick about 5-10 cd's by various artists who's sounds/styles i would at least like to attempt to blend together (this past time it was Megadeth, Tourniquet, Dream Theater, Cradle of Filth, and Deliverance). then once i actually begin writing, i will completely switch gears on what i listen to while i am writing (again, this past time i switched to Prince, Enigma, Russ Taff, Marz, and SFC).

This is exactly the kind of thing I mean by twisting and recombining influences to make something that sounds new. I think that just about everyone who is aiming for something "original" does something like this, which is why I say "originality" strictly does not exist. The process of sole author invention that people think they are referring to when they say "originality" is not, in fact, what is happening. Instead, it's something much vaster and more interesting, a process in which the songwriter is a participant and a focus but not the source.

It's more like a vast group- or hive-mind process. If you follow me, I'd call it an iterative process, which is to say that you have a complex system, and the output of the system is fed back into the system to produce more output, which is in turn fed back into the system, ad infinitum, as in fractals and chaotic systems in general. This is just another way of saying that we listen to different things that have gone before and put them together in a novel way, and the result, if all goes well, is something really distinctive, new, and unpredictable. And then somebody takes that, and the process goes on.

Look at it this way: None of us would come up with a rock song if we had never heard one. And we would certainly never invent something like "post-rock" without being completely steeped in rock music. So instead of sole inventor and font of all genius, I think the songwriter acts as more of a lens that focuses various elements of the cuture in its own idiosyncratic way, and if he does it right, the result is something interesting (which is, in turn, reused). The genius is only partly in the songwriter. The rest is in the system. To me, only this kind of iterative or fractal system can explain the genius we see in music or in any "artistic" field. The theory of originality, which is to say, the "author" theory, simply can't account for the facts.

There are very specific and cynical reasons why the "author" theory is and has been vigorously promoted by certain people in society, but that's an analysis for another time. I think for now I just want to notice that it's mistaken. As this thread (along with countless similar discussions) shows, the concept tends to baffle those of us who set out to make songs. Once we see what's really going on, I think it ceases to be a source of trouble, and we can get on with our role in the vast machine of creation.

I haven't even touched on language specifically, or the role of the "audience" in actually creating the song. I mean, what I've written here will already sound like gibberish to a lot of people. I just want to encourage people to let go of anxiety about "originality" and get on with the process of how music is actually created in the real world. It is less like the classical concept of artistry and more like tinkering. So go ahead and tinker is all I'm saying.

[Whatmysay]

Rat your post is outstanding and enlightening. It is a great overview but what if you’re a songwriter inside the fractal?

The problem with fractals is scale – from far away things seem to be repeating form but on a closer scale there is greater variation (If my memory of ‘Chaos’ James Gleick is correct).

From your post you are clearly constructivist, believing facts are temporal and knowledge is a social construct. However I think this thread is dealing with a Platonic idea of ‘originality’; that is that like right, wrong, love, etc, originality is a universal and eternal construct. A target ‘half darkly observed from the back of a cave’ to be worked towards.

I think that the title ‘How do you remain original’ infers that ‘originality’ is a state that can be created by the songwriter’s actions rather than an outcome of the song consumption.

Before I go completely up my arse! What does this mean for the songwriter?

There is originality. You see it every day, because of who you are, what you have consumed and the values you hold. – That’s you constructing meaning – ‘Originality’ however is relative to your experience, and Twiddle Dees definition of originality is not Twiddle Dumbs.

So while you may feel you are constantly impressed with originality of others it does not mean it is beyond your capacities, as what you think about your work really does not define originality - it is how others consider your work.

So if you set out to be original you will fail. If you set out to be true to yourself and try to express you emotions, attitudes and idea in the most beautiful and efficient way then someone will think your original.

That said, being true to yourself must combined with an absolute passion for the craft of songwriting.

In terms of this thread if being ‘original’ or fearing showing your influences is diminishing your productivity then – let it go!

Equally do not believe that there is some sort of bizarre inspiration that allows you to write the perfect song in one go and that if you do not write in that way then you will fail – let it go.

Where ever you are in the fractal, our songs are just paper plane in a classroom – some crash, some fly, some get picked up by other kids and fly again.

Now I have lost everyone and it is time for rugby.

[Rat Lizards]

Hooray, I'm not the only one who can talk this shit all day! I'll steel myself for the painful ordeal of thinking and post a response asap. In the end we'll find we're saying the same thing in different ways. But are we?

[Whatmysay]

Originally Posted by Rat Lizards

Hooray, I'm not the only one who can talk this shit all day! I'll steel myself for the painful ordeal of thinking and post a response asap. In the end we'll find we're saying the same thing in different ways. But are we?

Yes I think so

[Rat Lizards]

Whatmysay, I'm still finding very little reason to suppose that anything like what we think we mean by "originality" is actually occurring in the production of songs, much less that it can stand up as a core artistic value or process in general. The songwriter functions in a context, and his output is at least as much a function of this context as of any capacity belonging solely to himself. His songs do not really originate in himself. Instead, he assembles them from found materials. If all goes well, he may do so in a way that something surprising is produced, or even something distinctly "his own," in that they bear certain peculiar or idiosyncratic characteristics that become identified with himself. This is certainly a sort of genius, but it is not originality as that quality is supposed to exist in art.

Put it this way: Lennon and McCartney would not have made Revolver in the 1930s. They could not have. In the Renaissance, Picasso could not have been a cubist-- could not have invented cubism, as it were.

This observation calls into question our understanding of "invention" itself. We tend to distinguish between "invention" and "discovery," the former denoting an "original" production and the latter denoting the finding of something that already exists. But according to their etymologies, they have precisely the same meanings. That's because imbuing the inventor with special "originality" is itself a rather recent invention-- or discovery, if you will.

According to the root meanings of these words, you might just as well say that Picasso discovered cubism. This is not just a word game. It is a way of viewing creativity that is radically different from standard, current definitions. It sheds a whole new light on it.

This is not to detract from the genius of the inventor or the songwriter. It is to arrive at a different understanding of what he is really doing-- a better understanding, I think.`You know that anxiety over originality stymies a lot of songwriters, and many of the most distinctive voices of our time are plagued by the fear that they will somehow be exposed as frauds. To me, this is unnecessary suffering, because the fear is based on a false concept of originality and of the author function in general. It is indeed a fraudulent concept, and that's what makes us so anxious about it, but we're free to abandon it anytime in favor of a more realistic view of what we're doing, as opposed to what we are supposed to be doing.

You touch on the value of authenticity for a moment. This is another core artistic value that I reject on the grounds that it's individualistic to a degree that strikes me as delusional. Put it this way: we all hear that art is "self-expression," but why does no one talk about art's mission of expressing (and therefore understanding) someone or something besides oneself? Isn't art's purpose just as much to express the other as the self? Art can be self-transforming as opposed to self-expressing, but we almost never hear about that.

I'd also reject the dichotomy between production and consumption. Those who supposedly "consume" a work literally produce it. This is another notion that goes against the dominant model.

Again, I don't want to just play word games. I think we are taught all the standard things about art and culture (authors, consumers, etc.) because this model serves the interests of those who are in a position to tell us such things. In fact, I'm deeply convinced that this is what's going on. Therefore, I think we have every reason to question and resist these things we're told about art, and I find efforts in that direction to be very rewarding.

[mikeh]

Wow - this thread has grown to something with very deep and complex concepts/interpretations of art and originality.

I think Rat Lizards and Whatsmysay have hit on some very interesting points -but the presentation may have become so cerebral as to have clouded the fundamental concepts.

That being said, I very much agree the artist/writer can not be more than the influences which shaped the artist. At it's most basic, the wheel was likely not "invented" until the "inventor" saw a round thing rolling and simply adapted and "re-wrote" the concept.

I have viewed many "works of art" and heard many "pieces of music" that seem to try too hard to be clever and original to the point that at least from my perception they are not "good' or "enjoyable" - but simply "different" (original???) However, in many cases,they may be perhaps too different (too original) for a broad appeal/acceptance. While perhaps the artist or composer did not seek broad appeal/acceptance - I woud think in general, most artists/composers would like their material to reach out to more rather than less people.

As it applys to music/songs - there are only 12 tones and only so many ways to arrange those tones (and there have been sooooo many composers in past generations) - so coming up with "original musical compositions" is almost an oxymoron - and there are only so many general emotions to present (love, hate, pain, joy, fear, etc.) - so actually finding a truly "original" story to tell is elusive at best.

Can any artist be truly original (without being influenced by that which came before) I have my doubts. However, I do agree that often artists/writers can become almost crippled by the fear they are not original - when perhaps they would find more joy in simply being the best they can be - using whatever infuences they choose to create "their" art (and perhaps in turn, more people could share in the joy of that work - even if it is not "original").

[tribalpython]

perhaps... "orginality" is merely our individual veiwpoint of our seperate lives lives upon the earth, as told by our personal experiences, through the gift and talents we have each recieved, in order to otherwise ammuse and communicate with those by which we would have no other means of contact.


now... as a joke... did i just confuzzle everyone... including myself???

[TerraMortim]

well... there's nothing wrong with listening to other songwriters or even taking influence from them.

I think a big thing in being original in songwriting is to not give a fuck about genres, or boundaries, and just write what you feel. It seems the more set in stone a genre of music gets, the less original it gets.

[Whatmysay]

I am unwilling to commit to either extreme of the spectrum. I believe that all artefacts of a culture and the value they hold are both individually created and social constructed – and like a feedback loop the individual perception is influenced, but not determined by the society an individual lives within. This is the does Media make society or does society make the Media question. If the society absolutely influenced making meaning then there would be no variation and if the individual completely dominated the construction of meaning then there could be no communication.

When you refer to ‘invention’ verses ‘discovery’ there should be no conflict nor should it really change how we think about the art of song writing. When you refer to invention and discovery you are referring to synthesis – when a group or individual, consciously or unconsciously, recognise patterns in a system (physic, society, pop music) and uniquely recombine them to create new patterns, that are both recognisable in the old system and unique.

The value – originality, fitness for purpose, effectiveness – is then created by the context in which it exists.

My point is the you, Rat may not believe ‘originality’ does not exist in song writing, but it is still your relative opinion, no matter how aligned with the ‘dominate model’. I am not playing with semantics here either; I am defining that your opinion like ‘originality’ is relative to the context in which it is created and value other subscribe to it once it has been stated.

This does not in its self prove that ‘originality’ in song writing is not justifiable perceived by others or groups of individuals. If you are saying this then you are saying much like Plato, that ideologies exist in some perfect and external state, like some perfect criteria of ‘originality’ which song writing can be judged as failing.

With regards to authenticity I assume you are referring to my ‘writing a song for Britney’, please don’t let the banality of the reference lead you to believe that I disregard all other purposes for art; to heal, to liberate, to educate, to praise, etc. Never the less within their own criteria of success the art can be measured along a line to success.

As has already been stated by both of us and many others – if the fear of not being original is blocking your writing then don’t worry just write.

Enough of intellectual wanking, back to the real thing