who does 100% original material only ? .. please vote

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
Post Reply

I do 100% original mater only

Yes
101
68%
75% or more is original
26
18%
More than 50% original
4
3%
less than 50%
9
6%
no original material
8
5%
 
Total votes: 148

smutek
Posts: 4489
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:30 pm
Location: Baltimore,United States

Post by smutek » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:58 pm

ikeaboy wrote:
smutek wrote: Even if you decide you are going to reject everything you know, the idea is influenced by everything you want to reject.
Thats a doozey of good point! is it original?
No, that idea was given to me by Dr. Diane Fedder, the first ever woman to graduate from Penn States PHD program (with a 4.0) and be offered an immediate position on the staff. I had her for an art appreciation class last year. Amazing woman. Next time I see her I will ask her who gave her the idea.

8)
Last edited by smutek on Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

smutek
Posts: 4489
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:30 pm
Location: Baltimore,United States

Post by smutek » Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:05 pm

Also, Ropey, I just noticed your definition of original as it was revised to include higlights.

I still maintain what I am saying.

Maybe someone is an aphex twin fan, and they write a track with the freaking stuttering beats like aphex uses. They hand program every element and write an "original" track, but in the end it still sounds like aphex twin.

Then there is a guy who runs samples from news programs, commercials, and tv shows over the melodies of pop music with his own beats and puts it all together to make a statement on popular culture and politics in his country.

Niether one is really "100% original" but who is more original?

By your definition maybe the aphex twin guy? personally I'd be more interested in the second one and would call him more original.

For me its all about the idea. The execution is important, but with out a good idea/concept there is nothing interesting.

As far as sampling goes, Akufen uses samples heavily. Is he not original by your definition?

HD1
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:38 pm

Post by HD1 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:36 pm

I've read an interview with akufen, he makes no such claim that his work is 100% original, he openly states that he takes snippets from radio/tv

it seems the concept can be judged seperately and on its own, and you could (tho i dont know, just because he's the first to be published doesnt mean anything...anyways thats another story) be right in saying it was a 100% original idea to take snippets from tv and radio etc,

but the actual/physical art itself is not 100% original, as he states, its sound bytes from tv and radio. re-arranged. Its original, but is it 100% original ?...if we want to be anal about it we could say that the idea is a huge chunk of that art so we could say its 95% original, I dont think he'd mind.


I think some of you are clinging onto some idea that admitting your work isnt 100% original is some kind of concession ....

I conceded already, we can take this phrase and obfuscate, existentialise that nothing is original etc....and its a nice idea, and it makes for interesting reading....

however, at some point one might want indicate that he/she had a new idea, and produced a track which was 100% original in that no freely available samples were used, no snippets, no one shots, just stuff the originator went out and recorded him self, and arranged himself. I think this is why the words original, and percentages exist...to communicate facts


Before I conceded, and gave up, all I was doing was maintaining the absolute meaning of 100% original...which in esoteric terms might be impossible, but if we can get our heads down from the philosophical stratosphere and stick with simple terms as described by the oxford dictionary, i believe 100% original would mean what I described.

however, in future discussions I'm more then willing to comprimise and will be using terms such as, absolutely 100% original, mega 100% original, super duper 100% original, wham-bam o o o ya 100% original.

I subscribe to the ideas being put forth by smutek and noisetonepause, and before I conceded I would have maintained that 100% original should be reserved for such things, and not art which sneaks into the category through hypothosis....

they may both be ponies, but thankfully ponies can be different.
bing bing!

mercyplease
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:22 am
Location: Sent back to hell

Post by mercyplease » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:14 pm

RopeyPunter wrote:
I think some of you are clinging onto some idea that admitting your work isnt 100% original is some kind of concession ....
.
Why are you so hung up on this point?

mercyplease
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:22 am
Location: Sent back to hell

Post by mercyplease » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:30 pm

Ropeypunter
heh, excuse me, the timing pleases me as I was alone on the '100% original' thread championing the literal definition of 100% original, whereas my peers were like 'my stuff isnt 100% original, but it is 100% original because <insert wishy washy existential horse-shit here, not a chance of standing up in court nor does it bare any relevance to arithmetic or the meaning of the word original>'

while the connotations are grave, the moment is bliss
_________________
Forget it I know why.

kennerb
Posts: 1464
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Post by kennerb » Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:03 pm

Us monkeys got to where we are at because we are NOT original. We try to give our own interpretations to everything we do and some of us may call that original. To me that seems more appropriate than the scholars definition. I think that adhering only to the dictionary term for original is being overly pedantic. We excel at being what we are because we take what we know and reinterpret it as we see it, sometimes we come up with more interesting or efficient ways of doing or explaining something which propels us on to the next such discovery. If things truly were "original" then none of us would know how to even approach understanding it and it would have absolutely no relevance to anyone. I think the discussion seems more relevant if we were to loosen the belt on the definition "original' and perhaps even bring "unique" into the conversation. Oh and please understand that I am using the 3rd usage of unique from the Oxford dictionary.
To me this conversation seems to be more about ownership of something rather than it being original.
3ghz Pentium 4 (Prescott), XP Sp2, 1gig Ram, Dual Monitor with Matrox Millenium, MOTU Traveler, Event EZ8 Adat card. Also IBM THinkpad t40 1.6 1 gig ram

HD1
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:38 pm

Post by HD1 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:36 pm

mercyplease wrote:
RopeyPunter wrote:
I think some of you are clinging onto some idea that admitting your work isnt 100% original is some kind of concession ....
.
Why are you so hung up on this point?
hi radeon, i was wondering when your subversion would make a re-appearance. Besides, I'm not hung up on this point...its merely a discussion, and when someone addresses me I'll usually respond
bing bing!

smutek
Posts: 4489
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:30 pm
Location: Baltimore,United States

Post by smutek » Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:41 pm

kennerb wrote:Us monkeys got to where we are at because we are NOT original. We try to give our own interpretations to everything we do and some of us may call that original. To me that seems more appropriate than the scholars definition. I think that adhering only to the dictionary term for original is being overly pedantic. We excel at being what we are because we take what we know and reinterpret it as we see it, sometimes we come up with more interesting or efficient ways of doing or explaining something which propels us on to the next such discovery. If things truly were "original" then none of us would know how to even approach understanding it and it would have absolutely no relevance to anyone. I think the discussion seems more relevant if we were to loosen the belt on the definition "original' and perhaps even bring "unique" into the conversation. Oh and please understand that I am using the 3rd usage of unique from the Oxford dictionary.
To me this conversation seems to be more about ownership of something rather than it being original.
bravo

HD1
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:38 pm

Post by HD1 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:46 pm

if I went outside, and recorded one-shots of sticks and stones, and created a groove with these samples...wouldnt you agree that is a 100% original groove ? barring, of course, if I recreated the amen break or some such widely known beat...for the sake of this argument, a groove you hadnt heard before...which is possible, probability is another thing
bing bing!

smutek
Posts: 4489
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:30 pm
Location: Baltimore,United States

Post by smutek » Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:56 pm

No, because people have been doing this type of thing for years. How is this different or original?

Yes, because you recorded, programed or otherwise made everything yourself.

HD1
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:38 pm

Post by HD1 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 9:03 pm

smutek wrote:Yes, because you recorded, programed or otherwise made everything yourself.
exactly, this is the meaning I wanted to preserve.
bing bing!

smutek
Posts: 4489
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:30 pm
Location: Baltimore,United States

Post by smutek » Mon Mar 20, 2006 9:04 pm

But what about the other meaning?

DeadlyKungFu
Posts: 3603
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:26 pm

Post by DeadlyKungFu » Mon Mar 20, 2006 9:38 pm

smutek wrote:But what about the other meaning?
You mean that because you recorded, programed or otherwise made everything yourself it's not original, a process and doesn't make the music original.


Why is it the dumbest threads get the highest counts? You people are weird. :P

smutek
Posts: 4489
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:30 pm
Location: Baltimore,United States

Post by smutek » Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:11 pm

DeadlyKungFu wrote:
smutek wrote:But what about the other meaning?
You mean that because you recorded, programed or otherwise made everything yourself it's not original, a process and doesn't make the music original.


Why is it the dumbest threads get the highest counts? You people are weird. :P

Yes. Thats what I mean. If the idea driving the music is not original then how original is the whole piece?

Just something for people to think about who are spouting off in kind of an elitist and snobby tone "your music is not original because you used a sample (no matter how long), but mine is original because I record farting dogs for my kicks and program all of the synth patches myself (but all of my output sounds like Boards of Canada or Aphex or Tortoise or Harmonica Phil Wiggins). So therefore I am somehow better than you."

I think its great when people program every element themselves and my hat goes off to them for their technical prowess but man, please don't kid yourself that it is some reason to consider yourself better than the next kid who conciously decides to use existing material to make his art and express himself.

Some of the attitudes in this thread seem to reflect an attitude that orginal= I am better (with original,in this case, meaning I program everything myself) but how original are you if you are writing yet another epic trance track, or drummy techno track, or dissonant "IDM" piece?

So again, its something for some people to think about and a message for them to get the hell down from their high horses and just do what moves them. Ofcourse people suck who lack any type of creative motivation and make a track in 5 minutes out of canned loops, but fuck it man, let them have their fun. If they lack the creative motivation they will eventually move on to something else anyway, if they are a shiester then it will eventually come out in the wash.

Everything we make is a result of what we have experienced and been influenced by. There are no original ideas.

As to your second question, I don't know.

And regarding your statement, I agree.


8)

kennerb
Posts: 1464
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Post by kennerb » Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:41 pm

smutek wrote:
DeadlyKungFu wrote:
smutek wrote:But what about the other meaning?
You mean that because you recorded, programed or otherwise made everything yourself it's not original, a process and doesn't make the music original.


Why is it the dumbest threads get the highest counts? You people are weird. :P

Yes. Thats what I mean. If the idea driving the music is not original then how original is the whole piece?

Just something for people to think about who are spouting off in kind of an elitist and snobby tone "your music is not original because you used a sample (no matter how long), but mine is original because I record farting dogs for my kicks and program all of the synth patches myself (but all of my output sounds like Boards of Canada or Aphex or Tortoise or Harmonica Phil Wiggins). So therefore I am somehow better than you."

I think its great when people program every element themselves and my hat goes off to them for their technical prowess but man, please don't kid yourself that it is some reason to consider yourself better than the next kid who conciously decides to use existing material to make his art and express himself.

Some of the attitudes in this thread seem to reflect an attitude that orginal= I am better (with original,in this case, meaning I program everything myself) but how original are you if you are writing yet another epic trance track, or drummy techno track, or dissonant "IDM" piece?

So again, its something for some people to think about and a message for them to get the hell down from their high horses and just do what moves them. Ofcourse people suck who lack any type of creative motivation and make a track in 5 minutes out of canned loops, but fuck it man, let them have their fun. If they lack the creative motivation they will eventually move on to something else anyway, if they are a shiester then it will eventually come out in the wash.

Everything we make is a result of what we have experienced and been influenced by. There are no original ideas.

As to your second question, I don't know.

And regarding your statement, I agree.


8)


Indeed! Well put Smutek.

I think the term "reinventing the wheel" was coined in reference to that kind of thinking.

I also think that as creatures of experience we need to understand the power of summoning up emotions or past experiences intentionally by using pre-existing sounds, samples, speeches, or note arrangements. Just think of all of the advertising out there that trys to sell us their crap by throwing images or songs at us. If it resonates with a memory or emotion we are more "connected" to it.

and yes this is a dumb post. :D
3ghz Pentium 4 (Prescott), XP Sp2, 1gig Ram, Dual Monitor with Matrox Millenium, MOTU Traveler, Event EZ8 Adat card. Also IBM THinkpad t40 1.6 1 gig ram

Post Reply