How do you remain original
- Thread starter Diverdown
- Start date
up-fiddler
Taming the World--for now
Sometimes yes,
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.
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
New member
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.
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
New member
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
New member
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
New member
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
New member
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.
). 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.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).
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
Taming the World--for now
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
Great White North Girl
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
cheap bastard
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
New member
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.
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.
Whatmysay
New member
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
New member
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.
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
New member
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
New member
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.
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
New member
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
New member
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