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

HD1 · Post by **HD1** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:48 pm

noisetonepause wrote:
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.

hehe, that quote came before this quote "i give up" .... I dont want to be the asshole here raining on anyone's parade, of course better or worse (music) doesnt come into anything I said, was only concerned with preserving the meaning of 100% original .... of course it can be said that you could take a loop from a song and do something 'original' with it, like re-inventing it....but this makes the meaning of the word original more flexible, which as far as oxford are concerned it isnt.....especially, in my opinion, when its pre-fixed with 100% ....so anyways to summarise 100% original can mean what you want it to, we can just replace the original meaning of that phrase with...for example, ABSOLUTELY 100% ORIGINAL , a kind of comprimise. So we still have a way of preserving, or communicating when something is 100% original....oh wait, i mean...absolutely 100% original

anyways I give up again!

anti-banausic · Post by **anti-banausic** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:02 pm

machinesworking, I was just trying to say that doing something just to be "original" isn't the way to go. If you are following your instinct, your musical ear, or whatever and it leads you to a place where other's haven't gone, that is one thing.

But, to wake up and say.....I'm going to be original today, I believe, is not a surefire way to be good.

ikeaboy · Post by **ikeaboy** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:21 pm

Well put arguments all around i reckon

LOFA wrote:
(Music is) a colony of organisms whose parameters are confined to manners with which each and everyone of us responds to each other and nature.

Anything we have that is poignant, and conducsive to challenging our environment should be locked with a key or shared, depending on the size of your wallets or your philosophy. Right now I am big on Locke.

Any chance you could rephrase this for the rest of the class LOFA? (please

)

As for the rest of the argument I reckon Musicians in general have a different definition of "100% original" (and many other things) than Lawyers and Dictionaries and this definition isn't nessecarily correct. I also agree with the physics style statement that nothing is 100% original except maybe the universe.

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:49 pm

RopeyPunter wrote:
noisetonepause wrote:
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.
hehe, that quote came before this quote "i give up" .... I dont want to be the asshole here raining on anyone's parade, of course better or worse (music) doesnt come into anything I said, was only concerned with preserving the meaning of 100% original .... of course it can be said that you could take a loop from a song and do something 'original' with it, like re-inventing it....but this makes the meaning of the word original more flexible, which as far as oxford are concerned it isnt.....especially, in my opinion, when its pre-fixed with 100% ....so anyways to summarise 100% original can mean what you want it to, we can just replace the original meaning of that phrase with...for example, ABSOLUTELY 100% ORIGINAL , a kind of comprimise. So we still have a way of preserving, or communicating when something is 100% original....oh wait, i mean...absolutely 100% original

anyways I give up again!

What I am saying is that this "100% original" you insist on going on about it is invalid. It does not exist except as a construct or an ideological ideal (ie., a bending of the truth). A bit like 'free trade' or 'proper language'. I do not view an audio recording as something intrinsically different to a composotion written on a sheet. One is a medium for storing timbres, the other for storing representations of melodies and rhythms. Same difference. Both are containers for something that is to be turned into soundwaves and listened to. The piece of music isn't a piece of music until it is listened to and called 'music' by someone. I'm not sure what discipline that statement belongs to, but it's pretty damn basic as well.
I reiterate. Your idea of 'originality' cannot be applied to art (and I'm not sure it holds water anywhere else) as art always comes from somewhere. It may be shaped, changed, and recontextualised (which is where we can begin to discuss artistic merit'), but it always comes from somewhere. I can't see how anyone can argue with this.

HD1 · Post by **HD1** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:57 pm

if you say so. quite a few scholars working with oxford do indeed believe art can be, truely, original....didnt you read that definition I posted of the word ? It specifically references art

when you quoted me, you omitted that part....I dont know why

what you are saying seems existential to me, which is well and good, but it has its place....

to reiterate, you have your understanding, I have mine.

edit: how the tides have turned, now you're pushing your definition on me,

100% original art can, of course, exist....unless you want to get into molecular physics, which just seems like wanton obfuscation to me
we could easily end up going in circles here...so again I give up

Nikolaus · Post by **Nikolaus** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:06 pm

liarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarslliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsiarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarslialiarsliarsliarsliarsliarsrsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliarsliars

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:15 pm

RopeyPunter wrote:if you say so. quite a few scholars working with oxford do indeed believe art can be, truely, original....didnt you read that definition I posted of the word ? It specifically references art

Yes, but I think that definition of the word is, in my opnion, nonsense.. It is obviously used to mean that in a lot of English language texts and as such has to be included in the Oxford English Dictionary, but that's does not mean I have to subscribe to the ideas about art that are implicit in that definition.

And I'm not saying you're not allowed to have your opinion, I'm just saying it doesn't look airtight to me.

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:19 pm

I use a combination of samples and live instrumentation in my compositions yet I firmly believe my final concoctions to be "original". The genie is out of the bottle, no going back for me.
Yet, even back in the Stone Age, (i.e.- the Beatles and the Stones) nothing was truly 100% unique. These artists have gone on record admitting that they snatched riffs and chord progressions from early blues and rock & roll artists, and even from each other! (The Beatles snatched a little diddy from John Sebastian)
Still, their interpretation made for some very refreshing and "original" music at the time. Same goes for using (legal)samples- it's just the modern way of doing it.

elemental · Post by **elemental** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:28 pm

I also use samples and loops, but very rarely will I use something as I found it, unless it happens to fit perfectly. Most of my beats and sounds are created from scratch. I see my compositions as original. Yet they still owe themselves to my musical history and influences, the samples on my hard drive, and the presets currently on my synths (usually tweaked to taste..)

I think its a bit pointless nit-picking about what is 100% original anyway .. good music is good music, end of.

HD1 · Post by **HD1** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:45 pm

noisetonepause wrote:
RopeyPunter wrote:if you say so. quite a few scholars working with oxford do indeed believe art can be, truely, original....didnt you read that definition I posted of the word ? It specifically references art
Yes, but I think that definition of the word is, in my opnion, nonsense.. It is obviously used to mean that in a lot of English language texts and as such has to be included in the Oxford English Dictionary, but that's does not mean I have to subscribe to the ideas about art that are implicit in that definition.

And I'm not saying you're not allowed to have your opinion, I'm just saying it doesn't look airtight to me.

5 entries found for original.

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 piano and piano-samples come to mind, did you use a commercially available sample or did you record it yourself? (lets not get into who made the piano please).
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.

I highlighted the parts directly relating to art, according to those kooky scholars in oxford at least, those crazy cats - will they ever learn ?

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:15 pm

The comments about the copy of containers are obviously valid but not what I'm talking about and you knows it; I still don't agree with the the 'preceding in time' and 'not derived from something else'... and thus, I GIVE UP

smutek · Post by **smutek** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:21 pm

RopeyPunter wrote:meh...art installations and music are two different ponies.

Yes, but they are both ponies.

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:30 pm

Amen, Smoo

smutek · Post by **smutek** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:41 pm

RopeyPunter wrote:
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. \

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 ?

No, he is 100% right. There is nothing original in art at all. "you use a sample that you or your partner didnt record, your piece of art is not 100% original."

You use an idea that is not 100% your own your piece is not original.

You make a piece that has influence from something that has come before it your piece is not original.

Even though the content, approach, or media may be different every idea or concept you have is inspired by something that you have experienced in your life. Even if you decide you are going to reject everything you know, the idea is influenced by everything you want to reject.

So there is no such thing as 100% original.

ikeaboy · Post by **ikeaboy** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:51 pm

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?

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

I do 100% original mater only