On Being Derivative and Commercial

[Martha Washington]

well, I used Al to show that I think WHY artists do what they do and WHO gets the money are two different jobs. yes, Al does a good job at this,

maybe I need an even stupider metaphor!

 

[newdawnfades]

Kath, I totally agree that everything's derivative. People who are under the impression that what they do is 100% unique are delusional at best and egocentric nimrods at worst.

Just to play devil's advocate, isn't IT 100% unique? There's nothing like it anywhere else in the world, the finished product that is.

 

[algernon]

Just to play devil's advocate, isn't IT 100% unique? There's nothing like it anywhere else in the world, the finished product that is.

"There's nothing new under the sun", NDF. When you drag that Old Testament into your pad, check out the book of Ecclesiastes.

 

[newdawnfades]

Everything is derived from something, BUT a new creation in it's current guise is 'new' and 'unique'. That is the difference between an influence and a carbon copy. If there truly was nothing new then you wouldn't bother listening to today's music.

Why listen to Sufjan Stevens, he's not new or unique. Or is he? Leave the light on.

 

[Spike]

BUT, if I steal someone's christmas lights and put them on MY christmas tree...
is my tree still pretty?
is it less pretty?

It's in the eye -- or ear -- of the beholder because it depends on how much it matters to you. As I said to Kath: "you say 'these things are important but don't really matter if I enjoy the music.' I say 'these things matter enough to me that I don't really enjoy the music.'"

Spike

 

[newdawnfades]

"There's nothing new under the sun", NDF. When you drag that Old Testament into your pad, check out the book of Ecclesiastes.

I'm bringing the Dead Sea Scrolls, somehow I can't envision seeing a piece of parchment entitled Book Of Ecclesiastes on it.

 

[algernon]

Everything is derived from something, BUT a new creation in it's current guise is 'new' and 'unique'. That is the difference between an influence and a carbon copy. If there truly was nothing new then you wouldn't bother listening to today's music.

Why listen to Sufjan Stevens, he's not new or unique. Or is he? Leave the light on.

Strictly speaking? No, he's not new nor unique. All music is built on that which came before it even if it's not instantly recognizable. Great example is Brian Wilson's "California Girls." He was playing a loping western progression from a Roy Roger's movie.

 

[newdawnfades]

I disagree, strictly speaking. Regardless of where something was derived, if the finished product has unique qualities when put together it IS unique.

MW and I were talking about the song Set Adrift On Memory Bliss, which samples the Spandau Ballet song 'True' as it's backbeat. It is still unique because the mesh of lyrics with rhythm creates an entirely different effect and feel.

Even though Zeppelin used blues songs on their inaugural effort, what they did with those songs makes it something unique. It's clearly not the same.

Many ideas are not necessarily unique, but when you put it all together the product IS different. Even Elvis covering a song is different because Elvis is singing it.

 

[algernon]

Different? Yes...unique? No. Wonder how Webster's defines "unique?" Might be interesting to take a look.

 

[algernon]

RE: Kath--yes..not only one of my fav posters, but fav WRITERS!