Eternal Dragon
1337AD
I think Sleepytime Gorilla Museum is original, however that could possibly have something to do with a certain level of ignorance. In any case, they (imo) are the most interesting and original band around atm.
any creativity left ?
- Thread starter razoredge
- Start date
Kenneth R.
Cináed
There are few bands that are REALLY original at all these days. That said, I'm with Zach. Although I prefer originality a lot, if you can take something unoriginal and slam it down fresh, seal of approval. Case in point, Scar Symmetry. Just another Gothenburg style band, another Soilwork clone. But they do it better than Soilwork. Riverside really channels Pink Floyd (and more lately other prog bands, which made them less interesting to me but whatev).
I know people will disagree when I say that Zero Hour, like them or not, are fairly original. The use of drums as a lead instrument, with guitar/bass as rhythm, switching roles back and forth from the normal usage, makes them interesting to me.
I know people will disagree when I say that Zero Hour, like them or not, are fairly original. The use of drums as a lead instrument, with guitar/bass as rhythm, switching roles back and forth from the normal usage, makes them interesting to me.
I agree with what everyone has said here.... its just the way it is
I would like it to be known that I was not going in the direction of who clones who or what bits and pieces here and there we can find that remind of _ _ _ _
I have long been completating how to be origional and still come up with something good. Not forcing it but ... just.... what would it take.... whats the magic key to unlock the door ?
Granted there are only 12 half steps and usual only around 7 tones are used in a song structure if that. Im not talking about solos at all (way over my head) So ultimately it comes down to rhythmic groove and the feel of the music.
Its just something I ponder. I can pinpoint nearly everything in what I have come up with as to where the influence came from, often times it takes awhile for me to realize, as well as other times where as Canto and Matt mentioned I know right away what it reminds of and decided to go for that kind of feel.
Other times I come up with freakish stuff and am clueless where it came from and where to go with it.
The topic is just something that runs through my mind alot, so I think too much.... lol
I would like it to be known that I was not going in the direction of who clones who or what bits and pieces here and there we can find that remind of _ _ _ _
I have long been completating how to be origional and still come up with something good. Not forcing it but ... just.... what would it take.... whats the magic key to unlock the door ?
Granted there are only 12 half steps and usual only around 7 tones are used in a song structure if that. Im not talking about solos at all (way over my head) So ultimately it comes down to rhythmic groove and the feel of the music.
Its just something I ponder. I can pinpoint nearly everything in what I have come up with as to where the influence came from, often times it takes awhile for me to realize, as well as other times where as Canto and Matt mentioned I know right away what it reminds of and decided to go for that kind of feel.
Other times I come up with freakish stuff and am clueless where it came from and where to go with it.
The topic is just something that runs through my mind alot, so I think too much.... lol
Kenneth R.
Cináed
the key is the soul. sounds cheesy but sometimes, some people just feel something or hear something in their head and it works.
SyXified
Member
Tons of interesting discussion stems from this topic. For now I'll just stick with this first thing I think of on it:
On one hand, it is very much true that originality does not necessarily automatically = good. The reason American Classical was invented was because of an obsessive need for originality and that genre is arguably the worst and dumbest thing to happen to music in all history. I mean, writing songs based on rolling dice, or mathematical matrix's, or piano pieces notated by general pitch ranges and long bars that mean 'smash your forearm down across all the keys in this pitch range', give me a break! Those are not made up examples! Nor are they obscure! There are certain rules about music that will always be true in the fundamental sense of the way the human ear reacts to pitch and harmony. Certain intervals will always sound dissonant, certain intervals will always sound nice and resolved, that's just the way we interpret vibrations. The point is, its silly to abandon certain fundamental truths about the way humans experience music JUST for the sake of seeking originality.
On the other hand, originality is what makes great albums. Now, realistically there are only so many combinations of notes and rhythms that all basic riffs and beats are going to be written. Classical music is painfully repetitious and unoriginal (for the most part) - and they had a lot more instruments to work with in the arrangement than the standard rock band ensemble. However, when you start working on the larger scale and talking about entire songs or even albums, then mathematically you have a much better chance for originality and creativity. Then you've got transitions and forms and time changes and key changes to work into new and unique combinations.
I think V is one of the biggest triumphs in that sense of recent years. There is not a single album I can really compare that to that is really strikingly similar in its scope/style/purpose. Blind Guardian had sort of toyed around with the segue thing, but not in the true orchestral sense. A lot of classical works toyed with reoccurring themes (idae fixe) and permutations, but it wasn't really done in the context of SONGS until V. V truly inspired me that there is creativity left and that one can do something that is truly original - and yet not a complete piece of garbage that flouts the rules of good, intelligent songwriting to do so. I think Coheed and Cambria's new album is actually extremely close to achieving a similar level of novelty (though I like the style of V much better personally). And if you want a big dose of faith that simple pop songwriting can still be unique and creative, go out and buy Smile by Brian Wilson - one of the most clever and unique yet pop sensible albums I have ever heard. It sounds like something that simply should have already been written but somehow wasn't.
On one hand, it is very much true that originality does not necessarily automatically = good. The reason American Classical was invented was because of an obsessive need for originality and that genre is arguably the worst and dumbest thing to happen to music in all history. I mean, writing songs based on rolling dice, or mathematical matrix's, or piano pieces notated by general pitch ranges and long bars that mean 'smash your forearm down across all the keys in this pitch range', give me a break! Those are not made up examples! Nor are they obscure! There are certain rules about music that will always be true in the fundamental sense of the way the human ear reacts to pitch and harmony. Certain intervals will always sound dissonant, certain intervals will always sound nice and resolved, that's just the way we interpret vibrations. The point is, its silly to abandon certain fundamental truths about the way humans experience music JUST for the sake of seeking originality.
On the other hand, originality is what makes great albums. Now, realistically there are only so many combinations of notes and rhythms that all basic riffs and beats are going to be written. Classical music is painfully repetitious and unoriginal (for the most part) - and they had a lot more instruments to work with in the arrangement than the standard rock band ensemble. However, when you start working on the larger scale and talking about entire songs or even albums, then mathematically you have a much better chance for originality and creativity. Then you've got transitions and forms and time changes and key changes to work into new and unique combinations.
I think V is one of the biggest triumphs in that sense of recent years. There is not a single album I can really compare that to that is really strikingly similar in its scope/style/purpose. Blind Guardian had sort of toyed around with the segue thing, but not in the true orchestral sense. A lot of classical works toyed with reoccurring themes (idae fixe) and permutations, but it wasn't really done in the context of SONGS until V. V truly inspired me that there is creativity left and that one can do something that is truly original - and yet not a complete piece of garbage that flouts the rules of good, intelligent songwriting to do so. I think Coheed and Cambria's new album is actually extremely close to achieving a similar level of novelty (though I like the style of V much better personally). And if you want a big dose of faith that simple pop songwriting can still be unique and creative, go out and buy Smile by Brian Wilson - one of the most clever and unique yet pop sensible albums I have ever heard. It sounds like something that simply should have already been written but somehow wasn't.
noble savage
Member
I agree with almost all of what you said except a few things here.
When it comes to peoples emotional reaction to music, there is no fundamental truth or rules encasing them. I absolutely love dissonance and spontaneity in the music I listen to. I bet if you surveyed 100 different people on what it is they enjoy about music, you would get 100 different answers(Or maybe not...
) Some, like myself, may even prefer dissonance with no resolution as opposed to consonance that does resolve. The vast array of music out there proves my point to some extent. If there was actual universal and quantifiable aspects of the way humans perceive music, I don't think music would range from Planet X to Garth Brooks to Bjork.I think in some way originality may arise out of a need to fill some certain psychological aspects that music provides. What some people write and brand as "A fundamental aspect of the way people perceive music." others will most certainly turn their heads away. I personally would be more interested in hearing a song based on mathematical matrices than the next flavor of the week pop song! Then again that's just me.
SyXified
Member
I agree with almost all of what you said except a few things here.
When it comes to peoples emotional reaction to music, there is no fundamental truth or rules encasing them. I absolutely love dissonance and spontaneity in the music I listen to. I bet if you surveyed 100 different people on what it is they enjoy about music, you would get 100 different answers(Or maybe not...
I think in some way originality may arise out of a need to fill some certain psychological aspects that music provides. What some people write and brand as "A fundamental aspect of the way people perceive music." others will most certainly turn their heads away. I personally would be more interested in hearing a song based on mathematical matrices than the next flavor of the week pop song! Then again that's just me.
My point is actually completely in agreement with your first paragraph. I by no means am saying that dissonance = bad and consonance = good. What I'm saying is that everyone perceives dissonance as dissonant. When a minor second harmony creates a wave form, it's interference pattern is jagged and erratic and the ear hears that as 'harsh', whereas a perfect 5th creates a smooth wave and people hear that as 'balanced'. The fundamental thing about music is that every human ear works the same way on a physiological level. It's not a matter of 'liking' or 'disliking' dissonance, it's that every person will hear dissonance as 'harsh' versus 'happy' and if a person says otherwise he either has a hearing problem or is just flat out, in a very real sense, WRONG. My point is merely that we should understand those basics of human hearing that are invariable to all humans (the way tensions are percieved and the reaction to harmonic tension and release). Then, if your purpose in writing a song is to create a piece of art that is harsh and jarring and leaves the listener worried that something is amiss or dangerous - by all means impart dissonances and avoid resolution. But if you had the same goal and used happy intervals and big V - I dominant tonic resolutions, well then you're just a bad composer.
Anyone could write a song based on math. It is there to be done, I could do it right now - I'd hate it and so would you (or at least that is the most probably scenario - technically anything could come out, but most things suck and only a few things rock) There are only a handful of people in this world who can write a pop song that, no matter how detectable you or I may find it, appeals to MOST people in this world. That takes talent.
Personally, I still rate the improvising kind of creativity extremely high.
I mean, whenever something you´d create in the moment, leads to some new idea, also in the moment, because of the way you´d listen to the first idea.
To me, that is original creativity, and yet influenced by personal music references, of course.
Long ago, like 15 years ago, I used to do free-form improvisations on piano, not planning anything when I sat down. One thing led to another there. I could sit for hours.
The harp improvisation in my sig is not quite as free, since the length, scale and Celtic influences were already on my mind before starting. But it does feel like original creativity to a certain limit, and therefore of more personally importance to me, compared to any cover recording that I´ve done.
Sad thing is that, back then while being studying music full time, and really being into improvising and creativity much more, I had a disappointing experience:
One of the most original ideas I ever had, was a very weird combination of melody & chord progression, that really didn´t sound like ANYTHING I´d EVER heard or played before.
It was also one of the most beautiful things I ever came up with. I was so proud of it!
I played it for a few other fellow music students friends, and they seemed to be equally touched by it.
But then, one of the most seasoned ones stated like Yeah great, but it sounds alot like some church organ work by classical composer Saint Saens or whatever (the dude who wrote the Swan and other Carnival of the animals - pieces)
He had that organ piece on CD, and I couldn´t believe it, because I had NEVER EVER listened to that piece of music.
That´s easy for me to state, because I always completely refused to listen to ANY organ works, period. This was because I had serious issues with church organs, due to their sound and lack of velocity sensitivity above all.
And yes, that organ work sounded like no other piece of music that I´ve ever listened to, to this date, except for almost exactly what I created myself on piano.(I had only listened to that Carnival of the animals work of his, but it wasn´t even close sounding.)
It may be childish of me, but that event really took the edge out of my motivation to continue to devote my life to composing. Initially,
I tried to laugh and joke about it, but it turned out that I couldn´t shake it off my back. "What´s the point, everything have already been written!", I said to myself.
But I do still treasure improvisation, just not feeling that I´m that high on that horse anymore. (lack of practising, time and divine inpiration)
And making covers is still fun (on my intermediate level), but more of a craftmanship, compared to the kind of improvisation that at times almost felt like some kind of divine influence that some religous people talk warmly about.
Only way I could understand how those people would feel, would be by comparing with the music creativity that I´ve had limited experience with.
Writing all this is bringing lots of bittersweet memories to me. I do not fully believe that the feelings I had back then were wise, being more cynical (wiser?) by heart in recent years.
So, sorry for the long post, everybody. I just couldn´t stop, once you got me started.
I mean, whenever something you´d create in the moment, leads to some new idea, also in the moment, because of the way you´d listen to the first idea.
To me, that is original creativity, and yet influenced by personal music references, of course.
Long ago, like 15 years ago, I used to do free-form improvisations on piano, not planning anything when I sat down. One thing led to another there. I could sit for hours.
The harp improvisation in my sig is not quite as free, since the length, scale and Celtic influences were already on my mind before starting. But it does feel like original creativity to a certain limit, and therefore of more personally importance to me, compared to any cover recording that I´ve done.
Sad thing is that, back then while being studying music full time, and really being into improvising and creativity much more, I had a disappointing experience:
One of the most original ideas I ever had, was a very weird combination of melody & chord progression, that really didn´t sound like ANYTHING I´d EVER heard or played before.
It was also one of the most beautiful things I ever came up with. I was so proud of it!
I played it for a few other fellow music students friends, and they seemed to be equally touched by it.
But then, one of the most seasoned ones stated like Yeah great, but it sounds alot like some church organ work by classical composer Saint Saens or whatever (the dude who wrote the Swan and other Carnival of the animals - pieces)
He had that organ piece on CD, and I couldn´t believe it, because I had NEVER EVER listened to that piece of music.
That´s easy for me to state, because I always completely refused to listen to ANY organ works, period. This was because I had serious issues with church organs, due to their sound and lack of velocity sensitivity above all.
And yes, that organ work sounded like no other piece of music that I´ve ever listened to, to this date, except for almost exactly what I created myself on piano.
(I had only listened to that Carnival of the animals work of his, but it wasn´t even close sounding.)It may be childish of me, but that event really took the edge out of my motivation to continue to devote my life to composing. Initially,
I tried to laugh and joke about it, but it turned out that I couldn´t shake it off my back. "What´s the point, everything have already been written!", I said to myself.
But I do still treasure improvisation, just not feeling that I´m that high on that horse anymore. (lack of practising, time and divine inpiration)
And making covers is still fun (on my intermediate level), but more of a craftmanship, compared to the kind of improvisation that at times almost felt like some kind of divine influence that some religous people talk warmly about.
Only way I could understand how those people would feel, would be by comparing with the music creativity that I´ve had limited experience with.
Writing all this is bringing lots of bittersweet memories to me. I do not fully believe that the feelings I had back then were wise, being more cynical (wiser?) by heart in recent years.
So, sorry for the long post, everybody. I just couldn´t stop, once you got me started.
Lucius Octavion
Member
- Jun 9, 2007
- 528
- 0
- 16
naboo
Just Ask The Axis
- Oct 6, 2004
- 662
- 0
- 16
The simple answer is yes. But then again I'm very optimistic about these sorts of things. There will always be great integrity and innovative minds applying themselves to music. There's so many combinations of sounds... the possibilities are pretty much endless.
As long as people have emotions there will be creativity in art. Music just happens to be my favorite medium in which this creativity manifests itself.
A few examples of truly creative metal artists are Devin Townsend, Pain of Salvation, and Summoning.
Call me what you will, but I feel like I have created some fairly original music. Except for that time I stole a chord progression from a Family Guy episode... hahaha....
As long as people have emotions there will be creativity in art. Music just happens to be my favorite medium in which this creativity manifests itself.
A few examples of truly creative metal artists are Devin Townsend, Pain of Salvation, and Summoning.
Call me what you will, but I feel like I have created some fairly original music. Except for that time I stole a chord progression from a Family Guy episode... hahaha....
schenkadere
Obey my dog!
noble savage
Member
Western music is based on the 12 tone scale. Depending on how you look at it, there are an infinite amount of notes between, say, A and A#. I'd like to experiment with this.
SyXified
Member
ehhh, kinda. There are only twelve reasonable notes. Once you go beyond that you're kind of obligated to the theoretical 'infinite' notes. But the human ear can only discern to such a degree of precision, and the twelve note scalar idea is largely based on an assessment of how small an interval the human ear can generally perceive. I know a lot of eastern scales have more than 12 notes, and even the original blues scale had a note no longer used on western instruments. But for all intents and purposes there are 12 notes.
noble savage
Member
5 cents is around the limit that people can discern pitch. 100 cents in a semitone. So realistically there seems to be about 20 distinct pitches per semitone.
4 octaves of E on a standard 6 string guitar. 4 octaves = 48 semitones so (48)x(20)=960 recognizable pitches. Quite a lot.
4 octaves of E on a standard 6 string guitar. 4 octaves = 48 semitones so (48)x(20)=960 recognizable pitches. Quite a lot.
I was waiting for someone to throw the "eastern" music thing up.... NO THANKS... OK
Then we dont use 12 tone chord progressions anyhow, like I said its 7 at the most and many songs dont use all 7 chords. Sure theres the occasional chromatic thing or all the passing chromatic tones in the blues scale or key changes but....
Start messing around with odd ball stuff that makes odd ball music is not exactly artistically creative its more like doing something weird for the sake of being weird.... like decideing to pick your nose with your toe for example.
Then we dont use 12 tone chord progressions anyhow, like I said its 7 at the most and many songs dont use all 7 chords. Sure theres the occasional chromatic thing or all the passing chromatic tones in the blues scale or key changes but....
Start messing around with odd ball stuff that makes odd ball music is not exactly artistically creative its more like doing something weird for the sake of being weird.... like decideing to pick your nose with your toe for example.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Well I will patiently await someone that developes the theory involved to use chord tones more than the current 7 and thier varients and come up with something worth listening to more than once.
Eternal Dragon
1337AD
Guitar Pro includes a 1/4 note bend. It doesn't often work, but sometimes it does depending on what you're doing.
Bends are the main thing that deviate from the 12 note scale, and obviously they are used quite a lot.
Opeth's song Bleak does the bendy shit quite well in the intro. It adds tension I think, because what you're playing won't sound complete until you bend to the next real note in the scale.
Bends are the main thing that deviate from the 12 note scale, and obviously they are used quite a lot.
Opeth's song Bleak does the bendy shit quite well in the intro. It adds tension I think, because what you're playing won't sound complete until you bend to the next real note in the scale.
noble savage
Member
Well, for starters, look at it this way. Take the standard tuning of the guitar EADGBE. Shift the tuning ± 50 cents. That would be considered outside of the normal "western" way of approaching music.
I have never actually thought about this until some of you brought it up. I'm going to experiment with this.
Maybe by starting with a note, say (A), and playing it against other notes like (B ± 5 cents, 10 cents etc etc) (C ± 5 cents, 10 cents etc etc) and so on. I'm a staunch believer in the fact that, if played correctly and creatively, dissonance is a great thing.
There has to be some merit to this system, otherwise it wouldn't be the basis for the way a lot cultures approach music.
Yngvai X
Dark Emperor
I guess you've also never tried to teach a 10 year old who can't recognize when his guitar is slightly flat or sharp from concert pitch, or who's tuner was accidentally set on a number above or below A=440 and can't hear the difference. I'm with SyXified on this one, I really think to knowingly discern differences of less than 1/2 step apart, you'd have to have a more than layman's grasp of pitch.
