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

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

Post by HD1 » Sun Mar 19, 2006 7:07 am

oh my sweet god, losing a long post is alot like losing your only (gifted) child to an ugly wheat-trashing accident.

well LOFA, I was kidding, I just think it would be funny to hear your last post as a defense in such a case...because the law, like me, only draws one single meaning from the phrase "100% original". We can hypothosize, theorize and philistineophize till our nipples lactate diesel milk , ruining our blouses. But it wont make a difference...

I'd like to see how dedicated you are to this premise, a challenge for anyone who questions the meaning of "100% original" and/or prances around with daisies in their hair. take a loop from the latest dirge black eyed peas are promoting, make a track from it and call it '100% original' , sell it for 3 bucks on-line....and lets all see what happens, could become a cult-success. Champion points are awarded for not being a rotten hoe's gusset and tweaking the loop into unrecognisable white noise (because you can do that with -any- sound) .... seriously, If someone does this I will eat the oxford dictionary in one sitting. Oh, and being sued, paying royalties or having your track removed from whatever service you use to host the track disqualifies you. If the track goes un-noticed for 3 months you become king of the jews, and I'll post you the brown paper-mache aftermath of my forefit embalmed in 24 carrat gold.

a few bones to chew on:
(didnt want it to come to this)


dictionary.com
o·rig·i·nal P Pronunciation Key (-rj-nl)
adj.
Preceding all others in time; first.
Not derived from something else; fresh and unusual: an original play, not an adaptation.
Showing a marked departure from previous practice; new: a truly original approach. See Synonyms at new.
Productive of new things or new ideas; inventive: an original mind.
Being the source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made.

n.
A first form from which other forms are made or developed: Later models of the car retained many features of the original.
An authentic work of art: bought an original, not a print.
Work that has been composed firsthand: kept the original but sent a photocopy to his publisher.
A person who is appealingly odd or curious; a character.
Archaic. The source from which something arises; an originator.


wikipedia
Many confusions arise from the use of percentages, due to inconsistent usage or misunderstanding of basic arithmetic.

noisetonepause
Posts: 4935
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:38 pm
Location: Second row from the expensive puddle, under ten others

Post by noisetonepause » Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:11 pm

RopeyPunter wrote:dictionary.com
o·rig·i·nal P Pronunciation Key (-rj-nl)
adj.
Preceding all others in time; first.
Not derived from something else; fresh and unusual: an original play, not an adaptation.


I don't think this exists in art at all, sorry. And I fail to see the difference between stealing a melody and stealing a recording - the thing is is that modern music is not just tune and rhythm, but as much about the timbre and the connotations of a sample. The point you're trying to make is IMO not very pointy, and, even if it was, utterly moot as there is no such thing as completely original as nothing comes from nothing (that's basic physics), there's always a source of inspiration (even if it doesn't show itself)... at least, that's how I see it.
Suit #1: I mean, have you got any insight as to why a bright boy like this would jeopardize the lives of millions?
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.

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

Post by HD1 » Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:16 pm

noisetonepause wrote:
RopeyPunter wrote:dictionary.com
o·rig·i·nal P Pronunciation Key (-rj-nl)
adj.
Preceding all others in time; first.
Not derived from something else; fresh and unusual: an original play, not an adaptation.


I don't think this exists in art at all, sorry. And I fail to see the difference between stealing a melody and stealing a recording - the thing is is that modern music is not just tune and rhythm, but as much about the timbre and the connotations of a sample. The point you're trying to make is IMO not very pointy, and, even if it was, utterly moot as there is no such thing as completely original as nothing comes from nothing (that's basic physics), there's always a source of inspiration (even if it doesn't show itself)... at least, that's how I see it.


hey noisetonepause, your 100% wrong. and I think you should phone oxford, seems they made a dreadful mistake....

you use a sample that you or your partner didnt record, your piece of art is not 100% original. end of story. like I said, it doesnt bare any relevance to how the piece of art sounds, its just a fact. Do you wear a headbrace by any chance ?
bing bing!

LOFA
Posts: 3364
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by LOFA » Sun Mar 19, 2006 7:14 pm

Ropeypunter:

I agree with noistonepause 100% on this one. It is basic physics. Why don't you keep the nasty comments somewhere else?

As far as the contest is concerned? My name is Lawrenceville of Arabia. Both Lawrenceville and Lawrenceville of Arabia are sampled sources. One is my location, and the other is the name of an epic, but entirely useless movie. I believe I appropriated the name legally, but it still relys on a source, so there! I am forfeit!

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

Post by HD1 » Sun Mar 19, 2006 7:16 pm

heh, fair enough. I give up.

ropey burns his oxford dictionary, its meaningless now
bing bing!

LOFA
Posts: 3364
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by LOFA » Sun Mar 19, 2006 7:43 pm

RopeyPunter wrote:heh, fair enough. I give up.

ropey burns his oxford dictionary, its meaningless now
:lol:

...I sort of really enjoyed having that definition around :oops:

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

Post by HD1 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:20 am

heh, well I dont think its gone too far away :lol:

http://music.monstersandcritics.com/new ... violations


looks like I was wrong after all, P diddy doesnt pay his royalties.
bing bing!

Machinesworking
Posts: 11118
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Machinesworking » Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:43 am

Didn't read all of this thread, but I think it's fair to say that in the case of music, to a certain small degree, we can stretch the term original a little.

I found rap when it first came out, and used snips from famous and not so famous songs, plus other found sources, to be very original. Some of the origionality was in the way a track was used, and the cultural and social meaning it had.

Nowadays, what with harsh copyright laws, and sample CD's of beats, melodies etc. it's not very creative at all IMO. Searching through all of the music out there to get some strange drum track going in a new context is original to me, buying a sample CD with cool tracks on it to use in your own songs isn't at all original.


More to the point, a song can be original with some source material in it that is sampled, but if other people have used it to death, (amen break, funky drummer), what's the originality in that?

Personally I tend to sample quotes from obscure movies at most, and if a sample is from some major artist, it sure isn't recognizable, and the only reason I'm using that artist as a source is for my own sadistic pleasure! :twisted:

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

Post by HD1 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:46 am

heh, thank you for making the least infuriating attempt to subvert, or stretch, the meaning of 100% originality.
bing bing!

Machinesworking
Posts: 11118
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Machinesworking » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:35 am

RopeyPunter wrote:heh, thank you for making the least infuriating attempt to subvert, or stretch, the meaning of 100% originality.
i think you miss my point, a song can be original with references to other material in it, but lazy song writing never is. I don't care if you programmed the amen break in Impulse or sampled it directly from the original song, neither is original to me.
I avoided this thread at first simply because we are not talking about something that can be seriously defined by the term original in the first place. At what level is it not original? Is something not original because you use a sample of some other song? because you use a sample of a violin? because you use a melody that sounds similar to another melody from some other song? because it's in a genre that you personally have decided is obsolete?
Music is very much art, and people at one point were saying that Andy Warhol wasn't an artist because he did mundane objects etc... People will also say that a portrait painter isn't a real artist because he/she paints without adding anything creatively etc.
One thing though, I think anybody can tell when someone is being lazy, and trying to sound like their heros, and most musicians can tell when somebody is actually a creative force. Public Enemy were original, In Sync are not. In Sync have the distinction of having a pool of talented hacks writing "original" pop songs for them, public Enemy sampled Slayer, and other artists in a way that was MUCH more original than anything out of In Sync, or most of us.
You RopeyPunter are simply taking a "hard" approach to something that seriously is as much about individual intuition as it is about cold logic.

anti-banausic
Posts: 1609
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:15 pm
Location: NYC

Post by anti-banausic » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:40 am

I whole-heartedly agree with machinesworking on this.

In fact, I don't think that I can add anything more.

Just because lawyers have chimed in, doesn't mean it is so....

In fact, someone, either here, or on KVR, had a great quote, and yes, I am "sampling",

"It is not healthy to be well-adjusted to a sick society".

Or something like that.
Macbook c2d 2.0, 2G RAM, 160G HD 5400 RPM, OSX(10.5.5), XP Home, LIVE6, BCR 2000, UC33e, Yamaha P-200, Logic Studio, KRK V6 II

J Epic
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:37 am

Post by J Epic » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:42 am

I do alot of original work Id say about 75, maybe 70,

Most my stuff is live instrumentation (drums, guitar, bass) that I sample and chop and so forth.

I do pull from a record every now and then however, especially for drum one shots.

anti-banausic
Posts: 1609
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:15 pm
Location: NYC

Post by anti-banausic » Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:00 am

Perhaps the biggest issue here is about one-shots.....are they considered a breach of this elusive 100% originality, or not?

I don't think so, but apparently others do. However, I would say it is similar to using presets? So, if you use a preset, there goes your originality.

By the way, over the years, and even when I wasn't composing music, this concept of originality has bounced around between my friends and myself. Particularly when taking modern art, and modern literature classes. I think the consensue was (and there is even a passage from T.S. Eliot in the Four Quartets that will back this up), originality is basically dead. Most everything that we do at this point is, in some form or another, derivative. And, this is the key point, being original in the arts, for the sole purpose of being "original" is a crock of shit. It doesn't guarantee being good.
Macbook c2d 2.0, 2G RAM, 160G HD 5400 RPM, OSX(10.5.5), XP Home, LIVE6, BCR 2000, UC33e, Yamaha P-200, Logic Studio, KRK V6 II

Machinesworking
Posts: 11118
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Machinesworking » Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:37 am

anti-banausic wrote: And, this is the key point, being original in the arts, for the sole purpose of being "original" is a crock of shit. It doesn't guarantee being good.
OK this is sort of an oxymoron in my mind. I really disagree with the conclusion drawn there. Some of my favorite bands have been genre starters, like Throbbing Gristle-industrial,
Sex Pistols- punk attitude and aggression,
Joy Division-shoe gazer rock,
Gang of Four-punk funk,
Kraftwerk-basically all electronic dance music owes them something,
Black Sabbath-metal,
Slayer-thrash metal,
etc.

Most genres to me are interesting only when people don't have a clue about how to fit into that particular genre, and develop their own sound.
To me anyways, embryonic music is always more exiting on many levels. You can't force that though, and when people do it's painfully obvious.

noisetonepause
Posts: 4935
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:38 pm
Location: Second row from the expensive puddle, under ten others

Post by noisetonepause » Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:09 pm

RopeyPunter wrote:hey noisetonepause, your 100% wrong. and I think you should phone oxford, seems they made a dreadful mistake
I think before this conversation can progress any further, you need to have a look at this:

read
v. read, (rd) read·ing, reads
v. tr.
To examine and grasp the meaning of (written or printed characters, words, or sentences).
To utter or render aloud (written or printed material): read poems to the students.
To have the ability to examine and grasp the meaning of (written or printed material in a given language or notation): reads Chinese; reads music.
To examine and grasp the meaning of (language in a form other than written or printed characters, words, or sentences): reading Braille; reading sign language.
To examine and grasp the meaning of (a graphic representation): reading a map.
Suit #1: I mean, have you got any insight as to why a bright boy like this would jeopardize the lives of millions?
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.

Post Reply