originators or imitaters?

[gravious]

As for the Innovators vs imitators - essentially music being an open medium, neither really exist. Now if you are talking rip-off merchants, then thats something else.........

Yup.

Most people that write music are influenced by other people, who were influenced by other people, etc.

Each person just adds their own ideas to the mix, or maybe mixes up existing 'sounds' into something new, or into something they like the sound of. So in a sense everyone writing music in this way is both imitator and originator.

It's when you go further than that, and say that someone is actually copying a style that is already embodied by someone elses work, that you get contentious. And from the sound of things, thats what's being said here.

And that's a can of worms that i don't really care to open. Partly because it probably won't help anyone shouting about it on t'internet, and partly because I don't particularly care.

[obiwan]

There's nothing new under the sun, we're all imatators!

[Tombones]

There's nothing new under the sun, we're all imatators!

its not what you do, since everythin has been done. its how you do it.

[kion]

Originators and Imitators have a symbotic relationship. If it wasn't for the imitators holding the table steady and re-arranging the cuttlery, the originators would run away with the tablecloth tucked into their shoes and nobody would get to eat.

The Originators obviously shop at Sainsbury's (try something different), whereas the imitators download their food off Limewire.

[autonomic]

There's nothing new under the sun, we're all imatators!

no, benny's original

[darkside]

originators are for life..not just for christmas

[Jubz]

originators are for life..not just for christmas

I went on holiday for a week and my mum forgot to water mine and it died .

[pdomino]

Got to have one with the other.
A way of knowing something works and like with sampling, a sort of compliment.

J.O.S.E

[ashley]

There's nothing new under the sun, we're all imatators!

no, benny's original

Benny Ill used to come in the shop. Back in the early garage days he was trying to make garage but he was putting the snare on the wrong beat, on the three beat. It made it more like … he loves dub reggae.. he was making dub reggae garage. We were like ‘this is weird’ but Hatcha loved it but Hatcha called it dubstep. It was Benny Ill that started it, without a doubt. He used to bring the tracks into us. We were so used to the garage sound and he’d come in with this record with the beats on the wrong beat and Hatcha used to play them on then radio. It was very dubby and it wasn’t 2 step.

Original Originator

[slothrop]

Innovators and Elevators too.

:techno:

[elemental]

Striving for originality and individuality is always a thoroughly worthwhile task.

True originators are blessed with the riches of the soul.

[pure]

just move your head to the music and

[metalboxproducts]

Let the market dicide.





















Seems to be a lot of imitaters selling records atm.

[masstronaut]

It's great if you can come with your own style but there's also nothing wrong working with influences, especially if it's done well. We need both.

If you invented the universe and sound waves and people and ears then you can really call yourself an originator, otherwise get a bit of perspective. I'm sure nobody in dubstep actually thinks they invented music

[*grand*]

i give it 6months.... then im gonna comment.......

[pdomino]

[thomas]

Im more concerned with why people do things than if, when and how they do them.

Musics in a situation where it would be so easy to accidentily become an "imitater", or even accidently be classed an "originator" by somebody. Even if its not accidential, its easy to misunderstand the reasons for it.

And thats no even in Dubstep, just in general IMO. Everyone who puts out a Dubstep record is taking a risk, and i'd ike like to think people arn't just taking that risk for financial gain or fame, but because they believe in the product as somthing which adds to music/Dubstep.

[wil blaze]

This thread reminds me of something i saw on TV the other night...

there was some crazy electro punk mash up what the fuck band who looked well mental... and they kept banging on about how it shouldn't matter how talented you are... just how original you are...

to me this is complete bollox... i look at it a whole nother way...

fogetting dubstep, and just looking at music as a whole, there are tons of great songs/tunes/beats out there that aren't that original. To me it shouldn't matter if you're the first to do it, or the last, or if a million people have done it before you... what should matter is that you're doing YOUR thing and being YOURSELF in your music, weather that be heavily influenced by similar artists or something completely different and of the wall... what should matter about a piece of music at the end of the day is weather or notit's any good... does it make you feel something? it could be the most original track in the world but sound like a pile of shit and be completely contrived and that would be bollox... or you could write a song in 4/4 time in the key of C Major with a completely standard verse/chorus structure and completely normal instrumentation... but it could just be a fucking amazing song... simple as that... and that should be credited in it's own right!

I'm not saying that there's nothing to be said for originality. One of the things i like most about dubstep is the fack that there are so many producers pushing different and original angles... but at the end of the day a good tune is a good tune... full stop... and if it gets you moving or makes you feel something then it don't really matter how innovative it is to me!

hope that makes sense i only just woke up

out all music makers that are simply being themselves... that's what it's all about!

[stanton]

Deleuze says that Originality is the sole criterion of a work and that the new cannot be separated from what you show, say or articulate, the new is always unexpected. It is in this way that the new carves out a foreign language within language.

He goes on to say (in reference to cinema but I feel the same concepts are valid here) that a work is always the creation of a new space-time, not that work is situated in a determined space and time (rhythms, melodies etc) but that the space-time must themselves become real characters. A work brings out problems and questions, it opens new lines of flight, avenues of thought or possibilities for assemblages of sound. It's creation of a new syntax is more important than its diction (I suppose it is in this way that it is Univocal?).

In contrast, he says of commercial work (imitators) that it is not creation, it is the discovery of criteria and the erasing of the distinction between the creative and the commercial.

Personally I feel that there may be rather a lot of similar stuff being released, but it is insignificant to the amount of original stuff being produced and released. The problem is that not enough of it is being played out, or that we're all going to too many raves and listening to too many shows that we know every track inside out within two weeks.....


(Deleuze mainly ripped from interviews in Two Regimes of Madness)

[corpsey]

Agree with Will Blaze I think. I think music is always going to be slightly original in that every person has a different personality, set of influences, set of objectives etc. But if your objective is to make a tune like Coki, say, you're never going to be able to make a tune as good as Coki can make a tune by Coki, so it might come off as a half-arsed rip off.

Innovation can definitely be consciously strived for and is probably worth striving for, but perhaps not as an end in of itself, or by itself...