Best Ever Albums

Re: original vs. good/bad

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:05:44 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 11/23/2012 14:05

Whilst originality is secondary to how the music feels to the listener, it certainly helps.

Re: original vs. good/bad

pearljammer13 — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:18:09 GMT

Author: pearljammer13

Posted: 11/23/2012 13:18

bluesrockdude21 wrote:

I don't know whether this is sarcasm as I predict or you actually being serious

Safe bet that prediction is correct.

Re: original vs. good/bad

sheep21 — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 03:00:08 GMT

Author: sheep21

Posted: 11/23/2012 08:00

Necharsian wrote:

What are you talking about? They're crazy original. Have you even heard "Are You Gonna Be My Girl"?

I don't know whether this is sarcasm as I predict or you actually being serious

Re: original vs. good/bad

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:47:37 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 11/23/2012 07:47

Jasonconfused wrote:

It has to be looked at in a case by case basis. The musician can still be good and be unoriginal. They might lack the creativity but still be talented in terms of performance, technical ability, etc.
On the other hand, they can be original but be terrible musicians. I can't necessarily come up with examples of this since I guess pretty much anyone could do this since it wouldn't require much talent, just a creative mind.

Ever heard of the song "Hoogie Boogie Land". if not, go listen to it.

Re: original vs. good/bad

Necharsian — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:34 GMT

Author: Necharsian

Posted: 11/23/2012 07:34

bluesrockdude21 wrote:

A band who isn't original but is still good is Jet.

What are you talking about? They're crazy original. Have you even heard "Are You Gonna Be My Girl"?

Re: original vs. good/bad

sheep21 — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 01:54:43 GMT

Author: sheep21

Posted: 11/23/2012 06:54

A band who isn't original but is still good is Jet.

Re: original vs. good/bad

Jasonconfused — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 01:17:07 GMT

Author: Jasonconfused

Posted: 11/23/2012 06:17

It has to be looked at in a case by case basis. The musician can still be good and be unoriginal. They might lack the creativity but still be talented in terms of performance, technical ability, etc.
On the other hand, they can be original but be terrible musicians. I can't necessarily come up with examples of this since I guess pretty much anyone could do this since it wouldn't require much talent, just a creative mind.

Re: original vs. good/bad

SquishypuffDave — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 00:33:28 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 11/23/2012 05:33

Good music has humanity. If it has humanity, it will be inspired and specific to the artist, and therefore you'd expect it to be unique. If a musician isn't original, I don't think they've dug deep enough.

Also, music without an exploratory spirit is dead.

Re: original vs. good/bad

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:53:50 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 11/22/2012 15:53

Happymeal wrote:

is a musician bad because they aren't original?

Happymeal wrote:

Also, is a musician good just because they are original? If something is different, does that make it automatically good?

Re: original vs. good/bad

Defago — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:20:21 GMT

Author: Defago

Posted: 11/22/2012 15:20

For me, there are three parts in defining a musician as great. There's the practical part - the technical ability with the instrument, speed, clarity, etc. The ability to make sounds exactly as you want to make them. Then you have the theoretical part - knowledge of chords, scales and rhythms and how to use them correctly in each situation. And finally, the compositive ability - how well you can create your own music and improvise. All three are important, but in my opinion the latter is the most important and the former the least.

To not be original affects the compositive ability. To not be able of making original tunes makes you, IMO, a worse composer and, therefore, a worse musician in general, just as not knowing your scales or being a klutz with the rhythms does.

The thing is, you can be a great musician without ability, and without the theory - untrained musicians. But if you don't have the creativity to make great music, you'll end up playing covers eternally.

Re: original vs. good/bad

pearljammer13 — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:16:57 GMT

Author: pearljammer13

Posted: 11/22/2012 15:16

A band can be entirely unoriginal and still good, or at least enjoyable. A band can also be completely original and different, and suck goat balls.

Typically however, bands certainly gain respect and are generally better when they have a degree of originality and develop their own sound. Doing something a bit different to stand out always helps. But at one point, bands are always retreading old ideas at least to a degree.

I guess what I'm trying to say is originality is definitely a good thing, and in my opinion there is some sort of correlation between originality and how a good a band is. But it's a weak correlation with plenty of outliers.

Re: original vs. good/bad

sheep21 — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:26:32 GMT

Author: sheep21

Posted: 11/22/2012 11:26

It's kinda hard for musicians to come up with original ideas when so many great ideas are already taken. But if all their songs sound very similar to other tunes, you would be worried about their composing ability.

original vs. good/bad

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 04:09:58 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 11/22/2012 09:09

Whenever I get into a conversation with someone about music, it seems people think that a musician is bad because they aren't original. I really want to address this situation and ask, is a musician bad because they aren't original? I personally don't think so, but what do you guys think? Also, is a musician good just because they are original? If something is different, does that make it automatically good?