View Poll Results: What do you prefer in music, originality or tradition?
- Voters
- 34. You may not vote on this poll
-
Do these copyists of Keith Jarrett also imitate the singing?
-
01-17-2023 06:14 AM
-
I think a lot of us wanna say both, as in - "I'm borrowing from Tradition, but with my own unique and original spin"...
But whether we're kidding ourselves or not, that may be for others to judge
...
-
No. Because singing is not part of the solo piano tradition.
Originally Posted by Litterick
One question: Seriously?
-
I hear ya! lol It's okay to fail miserably, I do it on a daily basis. It's about the intent: do you want to reproduce the kind of music you like, or do you use the influences as building blocks to create something that is new, at least in your head? Originally Posted by princeplanet
I think a lot of us wanna say both, as in - "I'm borrowing from Tradition, but with my own unique and original spin"...
But whether we're kidding ourselves or not, that may be for others to judge ...
-
He even got the playing position down sometimes. Originally Posted by Jimmy blue note
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy blue note
-
I don’t prefer either one. It’s not a comparison that ever occurs to me and strikes me as dead-end now that I’m asked to make it. Originally Posted by Vihar
You cannot choose both, and your explanations of how you have/want both are not accepted. It's a tough world.
Even the most settled and old fashioned music was once brand new, and is always brand new to the person who is hearing it for the first time. And originality is only original in reference to something else, so it’s impossible to appreciate it without having at least engaged the traditional. So to even ask the question the way you do is to make all sorts of assumptions and beg all sorts of questions, in my mind not a worthwhile endeavor.
What I do prefer is music that has a distinct personality that speaks to me as though direct from the heart and mind of the performer. So I love Wes, or Django, or Metheny, or Trane, or Ellington for reasons I ultimately don’t really understand myself. Tradition or originality are just words I stick onto them in a failed attempt to convey something that isn’t really verbal in the first place.
-
Without tradition there is no originality.
So what is tradition ? A norm ? What is normal ? Something that is like you ? What is different ? Another norm that's not yours ?
-
They are like chickens and eggs.
Originality becomes a tradition, which leads to new and different originality which becomes a tradition ...
-
The inventor never becomes a traditionalist just because their music is copied by all the copycats. Originally Posted by orri
-
A person who has never heard any music will still be able to create music if he was born to be a musical person. Besides all the "musical genes", he must have inherited tradition as well, going by what you're claiming. Originally Posted by Lionelsax
-
People are not tabula rasa. In that sense, previously acquired knowledge is given too much credit for, while inherited qualities are given too little.
The Music in Your Genes
-
Had Bach never heard music in his life and didn't have the centuries of musical ideas to build upon, could he have created as rich, sophisticated and elevated music? How about Django if he didn't have the Gypsy tradition and American jazz to build upon? Would Picasso been able crystalize the abstract essense of painting had he not absorbed the techniques and sensibilities of generations of painters across many cultures? Originally Posted by Vihar
You can always tell when someone is trying to be original but is not organized or disciplined enough to internalize what generations of geniuses have already accumulated. They either sound too simplistic or too incoherent.
-
I can answer this with as much certainty as if you asked it about a prehistoric, musical man, with barely any acquaintances. My answer is: yes, I strongly suspect. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Music (or any art form for that matter) is not something to be discovered in the nature like a new element or a new planet in the galaxy. Artistic creativity is the very process of transforming what already exists. It's about playing around with the expectations and boundaries that are established with the existing art by bringing the right amount of twists while maintaining a coherent relationship with the contemporary context. Without constraints, there would be no art. Originally Posted by Vihar
Last edited by Tal_175; 01-17-2023 at 04:28 PM.
-
That's an absurd statement. Can you name one person who never heard any music and then all of a sudden started making it because his/her musical genes kicked in? Originally Posted by Vihar
-
Aerophagia ? Originally Posted by John A.
-
Just for fun--and because ChatGPT is a hot topic among educators (of which I was once one and to one I'm married)--I used the original post as a chat prompt. This is what the chapbot produced:
As a language model, I don't have preferences. However, I can tell you that originality and tradition are both important in music. Originality allows for the creation of new and unique sounds and styles, keeping the genre fresh and exciting. Tradition provides a foundation of knowledge and techniques to draw from, and allows for the continuation and evolution of established styles. Both elements are necessary for the growth and development of any genre.
Note the pseudo-self-aware disclaimer, followed by a bland and interestingly non-specific stock response.
I also tried a variation on the topic: 50 word post on tradition versus innovation in jazz
In jazz, tradition and innovation are often intertwined. While some musicians draw heavily from the past, incorporating traditional styles and techniques, others push the boundaries and incorporate new sounds and ideas. Both approaches are important in keeping the genre fresh and exciting.
Exactly the kind of writing one gets from a student who isn't illiterate (though I did find a comma splice in one test response) but also hasn't really engaged the subject beyond some safe generalities.
-
I love that band, but that singer dude looks like a lady. Originally Posted by Lionelsax
-
Nature provides plenty of such stimuli, without even having to hear someone's records, a radio or someone singing next door. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
I like realizing absurdity in everyday life. I haven't yet made a search on whether a modern example of it existed, maybe it does. We'll see. The musical genes usually kick in at birth though. It's a form of giftedness. Originally Posted by John A.
I would find it absurd if a baby wouldn't be able to vocalize melodies without hearing someone doing it in his/her presence first. All one learns from their peers is the local, peculiar lifestyle, for example feral children learn the "language" and habits of the surrounding animals.
-
I love their song called "Love Is In The Air" ! Originally Posted by John A.
-
Please play it for us. Originally Posted by Lionelsax
-
“Music, the great communicator
with two sticks we do it in the nature…”
While we are indulging non falsifiable speculations regarding ancient man’s musical proclivities. my hunch is that music has always been social
-
Too many double negatives there for me to be sure of what you're trying to say, so this may be an irrelevant response ... I'm skeptical there are literally music genes. There are genes for the anatomy that allows us to speak and sing, and there are probably genes for the perception of time, pattern, and repetition, but music itself is a product of culture. So even if there is a set of genes for making repeating patterns of sounds, it still takes society and culture for it to express itself in the form of music. Baby's are born with the ability (and compulsion) to imitate, and have anatomy that allows singing, so they imitate the songs they hear. But it doesn't follow from that there are genes for singing. Originally Posted by Vihar
Last edited by John A.; 01-17-2023 at 06:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
1957 Höfner Club 50 renovation
Today, 03:30 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos