Is there such a thing as original music?

Is there such a thing as original music?

when did fantano grow so much hair?

No, retard. Didn't you read your own fucking quote? Youz trippin dawg.

According to the last sentence of that quote, yes in a technical sense. If by original you mean "constructed without a single shred of influence," then no.

What about if you had a thought by yourself without any influence at all, as in it spawned randomly in your mind?

Did you hear it in the form of words? Then you're influenced by the languages you've learned. You can't know words if you've never learned a language in your life.
Did you hear it in the form of a sound? Then you're influenced by the sounds you've heard. You can't think of sounds if you've never heard a sound in your life.
Did you see it in the form of an image? Then you're influenced by all the images you've already seen. You can't visualize images if you've never seen anything in your life.

That's not how cognition works. Things don't just randomly appear in your head for no reason. It's a subtle influence that you just don't recognize. This user explains it pretty well.

This quote is literally babby's first philosophy and doesn't even deserve to be said. Using aggressive wording like "stolen" and "nobody is original" only makes it clearer that it was made by and for simple people.

Originality in art does not mean "created from nothing". No human being is able to create from nothing, it's a ridiculous notion. Saying your job as an artist is to "take from others and mold it into what you like" is simply insulting. Who the fuck thinks of themselves as "molding their influences" when they're creating? Everything you experience makes you what you are. When you create, you're taking from within yourself and to the outside where it can possibly be experienced by others. It's not a matter of adding A+B+C and turning it upside down so it sounds looks feels tastes smells different.

And "mould that into something that you like"? Is that what artists should create? Things they like? I can't even get to the end of my point cause the more I read this shit the madder I get. Who the fuck is this clown?

This person does not make music.

The quote is not exclusively about music, though.

You're mad by the words he used and the way he says it, and I feel the same. But the concept is spot on. You stated it yourself with "No human being is able to create from nothing". His quote is just watered-down obvious idea to help retards think of originality in a more realistic way.

That quote has nothing to do with philosophy, and you're being autistically angry over nothing. You said nothing different from what he did, you just said in different words that I guess don't make you sperg like a dipshit retard.

not tru btw take some dmt bruv

The sentiment he expressed and those who agree with him are simply wrong. Any great artist is original and creative. Just because an artist might draw on some traditions doesn't change that fact. Only a brainlet thinks that everything is so derivative and deterministic. And I am not surprised to hear that aspie "dude i grew my whole channel off my shitty vapor wave video lmao" youtuber say something so daft. He is the epitome of a music school kid-- not an artist. No wonder that he would attack the fundamental notion of originality and creativity

>Just because an artist might draw on some traditions doesn't change that fact
But if someone does draw on earlier traditions, they are by definition not being original unless your standard for the term original is "anything that's not a direct cover/imitation" which it's obviously not in neither your nor Adam's context.

Again, if you are reducing a work of art to a deterministic object and tracing its lineage through a tradition and blah blah blah, you are already making a (specious) metaphysical argument like a true aspie academic. Even if we were to discuss it in metaphysical terms, there are still many objections, for example some appeal to emergence or bundle theory. But ultimately the point he is making is spoken like somebody who is completely devoid of originality and who therefore is attempting a theoretical takedown of originality itself.

Also, if you examine his statement closely, he is basically saying that "the more successfully derivative you are, the more original you are". No.

You still haven't really made a point against originality.
>Again, if you are reducing a work of art to a deterministic object and tracing its lineage through a tradition and blah blah blah, you are already making a (specious) metaphysical argument like a true aspie academic.
Here you say he's wrong.
>Even if we were to discuss it in metaphysical terms, there are still many objections, for example some appeal to emergence or bundle theory.
Here you bring up appeal to emergence or appeal to bundle theory which I don't get what's inherently wrong with either. This should be the crux of your argument but you don't really go into it at all.
>But ultimately the point he is making is spoken like somebody who is completely devoid of originality and who therefore is attempting a theoretical takedown of originality itself.
Here you're just shit talking the guy.

I think you guys are taking way too seriously someone saying that new ideas aren't all of a sudden born in a vacuum.

They don't randomly appear for no reason but original ideas can be created. If not, how was the first language created? Culture didn't just come into existence the moment humans evolved the ability to form languages, people had to, and still are, creating new and original ideas.

There's a reason he's known as a youtuber and not an artist.

>That quote has nothing to do with philosophy

it's a paraphrase of Stravinsky's quote

This isn't a determinism vs free will argument. It's one based on musical ideas and when they existed.

>It's one based on musical ideas and when they existed.
So literal philosophy?

>You still haven't really made a point against originality.

I'm not making a point against the notion of originality.

>I think you guys are taking way too seriously someone saying that new ideas aren't all of a sudden born in a vacuum.

Again, Mr. Neely, only a total brainlet conceptualizes creativity in such a way. I only mentioned those terms as things you can google to see how some cavalier academics have argued against the trite claims you're making. Here's some more food for thought: Ancient Greeks viewed creativity as a kind of divine inspiration, which a couple of thousand years later is still a better explanation than "durr da artists, dey jus steal da stuff dey heard and put it in da art", which completely fails to account for any other aspect of the art or the artist, even if you're just discussing this in autistic metaphysical terms.

And, even still, I'm not telling you that new ideas are born in a vacuum. You're the one saying that they aren't original because they aren't born in a vacuum, which is something that an undergrad would raise their hand and say in class in an attempt to feel intelligent.

I'm not here to hand you a theory of originality and creativity, I'm just here to tell you that your theory is vapid bullshit that completely falls short of describing art. Moreover, it is the pet theory of somebody who can only make completely derivative art.

Nope, if anything it enters the mainly historical with some math/science elements for the sake of quantification. Sure, there's some aspect to philosophy to this topic, but it's the same amount of philosophy that can be given to literally every topic in existence. Like, nobody's debating the reality of musical ideas here except you guys who randomly chose to push muh metaphysics.

I could be wrong, but I think he’s more upset at the fact that the OP quote talks about originality in very black and white terms. Of course all music and art as a whole has some prior knowledge or foundation it’s based off of, but originality isn’t the ability to create something from
nothing. We’re not Greek gods for fuck’s sake. My idea of originality is the ability to take this prior knowledge and experience and organize and manipulate it in ways that haven’t been done before but still maintain some relevance or relatability to some degree.

>I only mentioned those terms as things you can google to see how some cavalier academics have argued against the trite claims you're making.
How are appeals to either emergence and bundle theory arguments against what Adam's saying?
>Again, Mr. Neely, only a total brainlet conceptualizes creativity in such a way.
>You're the one saying that they aren't original because they aren't born in a vacuum, which is something that an undergrad would raise their hand and say in class in an attempt to feel intelligent.
>I'm just here to tell you that your theory is vapid bullshit that completely falls short of describing art. Moreover, it is the pet theory of somebody who can only make completely derivative art.
Meaningless ad hominem bullshit, stop wasting your time writing out larger posts than you actually need to and post only damn substance.
>Here's some more food for thought: Ancient Greeks viewed creativity as a kind of divine inspiration
Not sure why you would use a people's view that we have far surpassed today.
>which a couple of thousand years later is still a better explanation than "durr da artists, dey jus steal da stuff dey heard and put it in da art", which completely fails to account for any other aspect of the art or the artist, even if you're just discussing this in autistic metaphysical terms.
Again, wtf does this even mean? What aspect of the artist or art isn't being accounted for?

>Like, nobody's debating the reality of musical ideas here except you guys who randomly chose to push muh metaphysics.
just because you state something it doesn't make it true

Except well, has anyone besides muh metaphysics guys itt been arguing philosophy? It's certainly not Adam or me or any other poster here.

It's a metaphysical question whether you like it or not. As said, only someone who can only make derivative art could think in those terms and think he's correct.

It's not ad hominem, it's ad rem because you are a fucking dilettante trying to take down something much bigger than you.

>How are appeals to either emergence and bundle theory arguments against what Adam's saying?

Gee, read the first sentence of, say, the wikipedia article about emergence and get back to me.

Fuck off Adam

It's only metaphysical if you're failing to actually analyze the physical music itself to see where this concept of no true originality comes from thus why you sperg about it.

>It's not ad hominem
Literally shit talking with nothing added to your point. The definition of ad hom.
>Gee, read the first sentence of, say, the wikipedia article about emergence and get back to me.
Yes, now what does that have to do this quote and what it's trying to say? If you can't even explain this, then that means you truly have no grasp over the concepts you're spouting itt. Since you seem to have done philosophy to some extent, then even if you only did entry level you should know how premises/conclusions or their proofs equivalents work. You got your variables, but you refuse to put them together into anything cohesive.

wtf I think originality doesn't exist now

what about early electronic music?

Imagine taking in the nasally voice nitpicking shit on this board day after day and actually being a successful artist with a mind raped by autism

Not that user but "toward the person" is what ad hominem literally means.

Heh um well that is derivative too because it didn't come from a vacuum. Wait, why are you guys calling me a retard? I think you're taking my point too seriously...

Check out the little history section on Ishkur's Guide To Electronic Music
Yes, and that's exactly why the user keeps wasting time attacking me or Adam rather than actually hitting the points made by the quote.

this doesn't seem to account for things like actually writing a composition or lyrics that are expressive or at least unique. Hell,even something like mixing an album is a kind of series of artistic choices,or skill,that you don't really steal, I'd think.
I don't make music though.

>The more successful you are at blending elements stolen from your influences into a unified whole, the more original you are.

I'm the user who called you, Adam Neely, an idiot for this claim. You are now asking me to disprove your idiotic claim (which was baseless and asserted without proof in the first place). Not only have I pointed out that you are discussing the topic in a limited, metaphysical, academic sense, but I have gone on to provide counterexamples within that same sense. You attempted to shift the burden of proof to me, when I am not even interested in discussing the topic in that sense. I have emphasized time and time again that somebody outside of academic circles would choose to conceptualize the notion of originality in different terms. Since you are an academic, I pointed out that you wouldn't be willing to leave your limited intellectual framework, nor would you be able to identify originality if it were sitting in front of you in plain sight. You called this ad hominem and tried to draw me back into your terms. That's pretty much where we're at as far as I see it. I don't know where you're trying to go with this or what you expected to happen when you started this thread. I guess my only advice is that you shouldn't attach your name to such bold claims and not expect some form of backlash.

>but I have gone on to provide counterexamples within that same sense
No you didn't. You name dropped phrases without saying how they relate.
>You attempted to shift the burden of proof to me
Because, well, you're the one who posted itt to shit on it, and I just asked why/how
>when I am not even interested in discussing the topic in that sense
Your overly long posts and even posting itt say otherwise
>I have emphasized time and time again that somebody outside of academic circles would choose to conceptualize the notion of originality in different terms
Only this idea, not really anything more specific. Sure, everybody goes "zomgs b-but how can there be no originality?!?!?" and have their own personal subjective interpretation, but I thought that's not what we are after.
>Since you are an academic, I pointed out that you wouldn't be willing to leave your limited intellectual framework, nor would you be able to identify originality if it were sitting in front of you in plain sight.
This would be 100% true if I haven't been the only person itt actively asking for explanations so that I can see the other viewpoint being presented to me as something more than just surface level opinion.
>I don't know where you're trying to go with this or what you expected to happen when you started this thread
I didn't start this thread. My first post is where I wanted to know why you think it's brainlet thinking/wrong thinking.

I am not Adam, just someone who's procrastinating studying for an exam. That being said, I do in general agree with Adam although at which point that kind of "originality" wouldn't really matter to me so it's not really a point i would make otherwise.

nothing is original because free will doesn't exist

>there are people who care about the existence of free will
Lame