originators or imitaters?

osk · Post by **osk** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:31 pm

Sand Leaper wrote:
Slothrop wrote:I tend to think of it in terms of just not seeing the boundaries or not limiting yourself with them rather than breaking them for their own sake. It's not about (for instance) writing in 7/8 time just because everyone else is writing in 4/4 time. It is about not feeling your options are limited to halfstep / 4x4, wobble / riff and seeing a blank slate not a template.
Doesn't writing in 7/8 time automatically mean acknowledging that your options aren't limited to halfstep etc. though? Isn't innovation a good thing in itself, regardless of what the intentions behind it are?

I don't think it's fair to automatically assume that the end result of someone's creative process will be shit if the intentions behind it are "wrong". Look at Aphex Twin, he staunchly claims that the only reason he releases music is to make money, yet the general consensus is that he's made some of the most brilliant electronic music this world has to offer.

Good points.

But the only reason Aphex RELEASES music is to make money. But he probably MAKES music 'cos he loves it. Wouldn'tbe that good if he didn't.

slothrop · Post by **slothrop** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:56 pm

Sand Leaper wrote: Doesn't writing in 7/8 time automatically mean acknowledging that your options aren't limited to halfstep etc. though? Isn't innovation a good thing in itself, regardless of what the intentions behind it are?

There's a difference between knowing that 7/8 time is an option that you could use if you wanted and refusing to write in 4/4 just because lots of other people do, though. I actually know people who think that writing music with any sort of bar structure / rhythmic grid is unneccesarily restricting yourself and therefore automatically boring. Which is fine, but I'd be surprised if they've produced anything as good as boring, overly restricted music like a Beethoven symphony or a Bartok string quartet, or anything as danceable as RIP or Strings of Life or whatever...

I don't think it's fair to automatically assume that the end result of someone's creative process will be shit if the intentions behind it are "wrong". Look at Aphex Twin, he staunchly claims that the only reason he releases music is to make money, yet the general consensus is that he's made some of the most brilliant electronic music this world has to offer.

Motown and Studio 1 were both pretty unashamed of commercialism too. But that's wandering OT.

sand leaper · Post by **sand leaper** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:42 pm

Slothrop wrote: There's a difference between knowing that 7/8 time is an option that you could use if you wanted and refusing to write in 4/4 just because lots of other people do, though. I actually know people who think that writing music with any sort of bar structure / rhythmic grid is unneccesarily restricting yourself and therefore automatically boring.

While this is true, I'm not so sure if it necessarily will have a negative impact on the end result of the creative process. But I think this debate is approaching a pretty subjective and/or moot point, as what one person considers innovative and groundbreaking might be considered as pretentious and faux-avant garde rubbish by another.

Osk wrote:
But the only reason Aphex RELEASES music is to make money. But he probably MAKES music 'cos he loves it. Wouldn'tbe that good if he didn't.

(might be wandering OT here)

True. However, when Aphex Twin made Drukqs, he said the only reason he made it was to get out of his release contract with Warp (he owed them one more album). Since he has said that he only releases music to make money, would this mean that he only made the music for that album for money?

blizzardmusic · Post by **blizzardmusic** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:06 pm

BEEZY wrote: this particular 1 is 1 of the biggest names in the scene with plenty djs supporting his music.

i'm touched by your feelings.

guerillaeye · Post by **guerillaeye** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:10 pm

im not bothered by originators or imitators.

its them damn innovators that need to go.

innovating.. sheesh. whatever.

wil blaze · Post by **wil blaze** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:40 pm

ozols man wrote:oh yeh one more thing, daint anyone hear the expression : "being urself is for those with no imagination "

whoever said that originally is a wasteman... lol

as for the other comments about my previous posts... i don't think i've een fully understood... and i don't know how to better explain myself... and i'm bored of this so i'm just gonna leave it...

peace

slim · Post by **slim** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:45 pm

Nice too see beezy round these parts. No one is really gonna say just imitators really are they? But i think you would be a bit of a wanker if you only listened to music that was constantly trying to be original. Part of the fun of music is showing your influences and making new ideas and styles out of old ones.

Burial is regarded as a serious originator, but without his love for El-B's drums etc he wouldn't have that style.

Horsepower are originators, but their stuff owes a lot to earlier forms of electronic music.

Granted, by the heap of "HOW DO I MAKE THA WOBLE BASE" threads in the production section i would guess that some of those were just people wanting to rip off Coki / Skream / whoever, but one way to learn is to imitate.

I have no time for people who claim to be "original" but are actually denying their influences

dubwise_gamgee · Post by **dubwise_gamgee** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:53 pm

there's a saying, often attributed to jazz trumpet player clark terry, which in my opinion sums it all up:

"imitate, assimilate, innovate".

freqone · Post by **freqone** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:52 pm

since when is expression a competition. ? this topic just incients negative reactions, makeing a great playing feild for he said she said material. This topic is bullshit, appreciate the sounds cause dubstep seems to welcome all interpretations. It's been made clear to artist they can speak their mind, create their own sound freely, and not be ridiculed. All (constructive) critism is tooken as advice and suggestions as it should be when a creative process is involved. Originators open a door and should be proud what their one idea inspired. Music is strong in numbers, as long as we're all on the same side.
I am outraged at this topic. Real artist are not bored with their work and dont need beef to fill the void to please dont even try to ruin this great culture we're creating. Dont add politics to passion please.

ether · Post by **ether** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:58 pm

brilliant this blately gonna be one of those 'chicken or egg' threads that goes on for 50 pages and eventually gets shut down down by the mods as it descends into a slagging match...

coki's crap by the way

footnote:

miles davis said

''listen to ther peoples music then forget it''

eventualdecline · Post by **eventualdecline** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:01 pm

You could say that the originators of wobble in dubstep are imitators of wobble in drum n bass.

shonky · Post by **shonky** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:24 pm

eventualdecline wrote:You could say that the originators of wobble in dubstep are imitators of wobble in drum n bass.

Who did the wobble before that?

Answer -

Innovator

umkhontowesizwe · Post by **umkhontowesizwe** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:45 pm

the man just doesn't get the respect he deserves.

ether · Post by **ether** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:32 am

pure innovation...

nesslei · Post by **nesslei** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:55 am

dem2ruff wrote:Just Wanna Say NOTHING Is Original any More Its borrowed And Remixed
from Every Where Every thing we hear
It Works because Its familiar - IE It reminds u of something
Is There a Totally Original Sound ?

this thread is awfully postmodern.

baudrillard, foucault and althusser would be proud.

it's an interesting and timeless conundrum - how do you define the 'real' from the 'simulation'? "simulation and simulacra" - one of the deepest essays i've ever read. we are living in an age where the replica of the original can be so convincing that it sometimes becomes impossible and arguably meaningless to distinguish the real from the fake. (of course there will always be the blatantly cheap ripoffs too, but who wants to wear that shit.)

this is possibly what is happening today in musik and has been happening for a long time.

people's individual tastes will always define what they respect and find compelling about certain music and which artists they enjoy listening to. it will also define producers as either originators or imitators.

you might like the original outfit, or you could prefer the cover group. choice is yours.

poax · Post by **poax** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:42 pm

my left bollock dropped first but the right one sounds better. End of the day though there both bollocks.

poax · Post by **poax** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:55 pm

BEEZY wrote: im close pals with a lot of dubstep producers in this scene now ive had a conversation with 1 2day. not naming names. (just yet) . now he has had a discussion with some1 2day basicly telling him he is shit (without using that word) and doesnt do enuff in his tracks. now this PRICK guy who had the nerve went on to name other producers (not naming who, just yet) "

i think nows the time - dont you beez?

BEEZY wrote:originators or imitaters? ........if you got the balls to share an opinion!

shonky · Post by **shonky** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:14 pm

poax wrote: i think nows the time - dont you beez?

BEEZY wrote:originators or imitaters? ........if you got the balls to share an opinion!

Controversialists. Don't keep us hangin Saddam style

originators or imitaters?

Re: originators or imitaters?

Re: originators or imitaters?

Who is online