I must admit I was slightly confused by this forum. Perhaps that was due to my own interpretation of originality. I am always open to new concepts and thinkings, but the lecture did seem rather “black and white” to me. Although we are meant to reflect on the lecture content and express our understanding of it, since after a week I’m still confused by it, I think I’ll talk about my interpretation of originality.
To me originality is something completely new or something old that has been put into a completely new context. I hear you say “What is new?” In the first interpretation then nothing is new. That would mean nothing in history ever has been original. Not even the Biblical character Eve is original as she was apparently made, or cloned if you will, from Adam’s rib but if we go with my second interpretation of originality then that rib has been used in a new context and she has become the original woman. So 'new' could be considered something that hasn't been around very long and is unfamiliar.
The merging of old ideas with new approaches of thinking in my opinion creates the evolvement of new ideas, hence ‘originality’ is born. Outside influences are often introduced into so called original thinkings thus creating originality. Perhaps it’s not a stretch to think that imitative counterpoint and chordal function being introduced to Renaissance music spurred the creation of a new musical style that happened to become Baroque music.
Pink Floyd’s 1973 album The Dark Side of the Moon is considered by many as the benchmark of what depth in a mix is all about. The music may or may not have been original, but the mix was since it is the first album considered the bench mark by so many people. The separate elements in music and it’s production should perhaps be considered and identified as new before it can be labelled as original.
After saying all this though, I found the discussion on Eric Satie interesting. I was inspired by the fact that he had no prior formal knowledge on composition and was not only recognised for his music, but created a new style that has been emulated over the years.
To me originality is something completely new or something old that has been put into a completely new context. I hear you say “What is new?” In the first interpretation then nothing is new. That would mean nothing in history ever has been original. Not even the Biblical character Eve is original as she was apparently made, or cloned if you will, from Adam’s rib but if we go with my second interpretation of originality then that rib has been used in a new context and she has become the original woman. So 'new' could be considered something that hasn't been around very long and is unfamiliar.
The merging of old ideas with new approaches of thinking in my opinion creates the evolvement of new ideas, hence ‘originality’ is born. Outside influences are often introduced into so called original thinkings thus creating originality. Perhaps it’s not a stretch to think that imitative counterpoint and chordal function being introduced to Renaissance music spurred the creation of a new musical style that happened to become Baroque music.
Pink Floyd’s 1973 album The Dark Side of the Moon is considered by many as the benchmark of what depth in a mix is all about. The music may or may not have been original, but the mix was since it is the first album considered the bench mark by so many people. The separate elements in music and it’s production should perhaps be considered and identified as new before it can be labelled as original.
After saying all this though, I found the discussion on Eric Satie interesting. I was inspired by the fact that he had no prior formal knowledge on composition and was not only recognised for his music, but created a new style that has been emulated over the years.
Hopefully after writing this blog I won’t end up like the poor soul that failed his exam for fourty years straight, but as I said I was a little confused by the forum and to be quite honest, I still am.
1 comment:
You have a way with word, Freddy. Taking the biblical reference one step back, Adam was supposedly the son of god, so how original was he? And where does that leave Eve?
Post a Comment