original vs. good/bad

[Happymeal]

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?

[sheep21]

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.

[pearljammer13]

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.

[Defago]

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.

[thejoj96]

[SquishypuffDave]

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.

[Jasonconfused]

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.

[sheep21]

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

[Necharsian]

[Happymeal]