This week's forum was based around the idea of originality. Steven Whittington held the presentation and explored the many areas involved in the concept of originality. The basic definition of the original was generally accepted to be something that has never been done before. Questions were raised and attempts were made to answer them, but in the end these decisions can only be made by the individual. Where does originality spring from, what is the value of originality, and can originality be created from the synthesis of already formed elements were questions asked during the session.
Where does originality spring from? Well, according to Steven, from one of two places; innocence or experience. The way I saw it, innocent originality was through no idea or preconception of what music is supposed to be like. Innocent of all the rules associated with music. This makes sense to me in one way, because to the composer, it would all be original. But the music may not be original to outsiders who have heard other music. If the composer is just making music that sounds good to them, and they haven't heard many other styles, then who's to say that what sounds good to them didn't sound good to a composer years before? To put it more simply, two people could have much the same idea completely separate to each other. Is that still a form of originality?
On completely the opposite side of the page, originality could also spring from experience. A person experienced in the rules and standards of music could use that knowledge to create something new and different. Knowing those rules means the composer can break out of those boundaries and create something that he knows is different. However, maybe he would be conditioned to use those rules, and could even use them without knowing. If so, is the product still original? Even if some elements are old rules?
This brings us to the question: What is the true value of originality? Why do we place so much store behind original music? Is it the search for the unknown? Or an attempt to explain yet more using music? Maybe it's just an un-ending search to further push the boundaries of music. As much as I try to think of an explanation, I can't. I think that maybe we just like to hear new things, and to create new things. It makes us feel special.
But how original do you need to be to have your work claimed as original? Does every element have to be completely new? Or can an original work simply be a new way of putting together old ideas? The latter was the impression given by Steven in the forum; that an original work could be anything from a piece of music composed without form or rules, to a mesh of already composed songs in a different format. I like this interpretation best, because it allows for a flow of ideas, without a boundary. Considering the definition of originality, I think something that's never been done before can include a new way of putting old ideas together.
The topic of originality is an interesting one. Although a lot of the questions it brings up just leads to more questions. I think I'll be considering this one for a fair while.
Over and out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
If a composer copied a Beethoven Symphony but put it in a new key, would it be considered original? What if the composer wrote a composition in the spirit of Beethoven, would that be original? I would assume the answers would be no and yes respectively, which shows there is some moral boundary between the two. But where is the line drawn?
It sounds like you could write an essay on this, if it interests you so.
Post a Comment