What do you prefer in music, originality or tradition?

[Lionelsax]

Please play it for us.

Only for my wife, family and close friends. Sometimes we jam on it and believe me, we feel better after that.

[MarkRhodes]

I say tradition because spent years as a record reviewer hearing very "original" bands who were awful.

(By 'tradition' here I mean good at some style or other, such as swing or rockabilly.)

Originality is the last refuge of the untalented.

[Vihar]

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...

Apparently, something like that, though this study already went a bit more specific than that: The genetic basis of music ability

"Some promising and converging findings have emerged, with several loci on chromosome 4 implicated in singing and music perception, and certain loci on chromosome 8q implicated in absolute pitch and music perception. The gene AVPR1A on chromosome 12q has also been implicated in music perception, music memory, and music listening, whereas SLC6A4 on chromosome 17q has been associated with music memory and choir participation."

Here's another interesting article, apparently music is an independent form of intelligence: Musical Abilities in Individuals with Williams Syndrome

...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.

Product of culture, society? That's too broad and vague, it even implies that individuals, isolated people are not capable of creating music, which is a privilege of (extraverted) groups. Music is the expression of individuals; even if it's a choir or a band, music is the product of each one of them, not some vague umbrella term called "culture".

[Vihar]

While we are indulging non falsifiable speculations regarding ancient man’s musical proclivities. my hunch is that music has always been social

Social music has always been social, asocial music has always been asocial.

[Vihar]

Originality is the last refuge of the untalented.

Have you never heard any original musician that you thought was talented? It sounds like talent can only reside in safe mediocrity.

He was one of the greats. Singularly brilliant---no one else played or sounded quite like him. Glad I got to see him live (-WIRED tour, back when I was in high school). But he stayed active. I was watching some live footage of him recently. (I mean recent footage.) He still had it. RIP, Jeff.

You wrote this about Jeff Beck. Do you think he was an unoriginal traditionalist?

[fep]

I like to hear original tunes. Like Metheny, like Chick Corea ...

[Christian Miller]

Social music has always been social, asocial music has always been asocial.

What is asocial music? I mean before the internet?

[Litterick]

Here is a study that shows liking jazz is 46% genetic. I think it should be viewed with scepticism, like all such studies, until such results are repeated many times in many tests.

The possession of absolute pitch might be genetic, but musical ability seems to me a product of circumstances.

Perhaps scientists might discover a genetic test that determines why some people who like jazz – an innovative musical form that changed markedly during the twentieth century – should prefer tradition over originality.

[Christian Miller]

Here's another interesting article, apparently music is an independent form of intelligence:

Flipping heck mate, I don't need an academic paper to tell me that lol.

Product of culture, society? That's too broad and vague, it even implies that individuals, isolated people are not capable of creating music, which is a privilege of (extraverted) groups.

Genetic factors in music is a huge and complicated area, that I've done basically zero research into. I'll share my anecdotal experience based on teaching everyone from the children of rock stars to those with no music in the family whatsoever, plus my own kids Fwiw.

The most musical student I have ever taught - and one with zero knowledge of theory - is a Senegalese student whose brother is a noted Hollywood composer who has worked with Peter Gabriel etc. The level of natural tone, feel and groove even with simple things was off the scale. I didn't ask if he was from a Griot family but it wouldn't surprise me.

I have a kid starting now who just 'gets' guitar - the technique just falls into place on lesson one, just breezing through the book.

Others just seem to be fundamentally out of sympathy with the instrument, or music. It's always an uphill struggle; that's what I get paid for, in my opinion, and where my skills are really tested. The aim here is help them make progress. They may never become great players, but that doesn't mean the experience isn't extremely valuable.

Most people fall in the middle. So I would say, yes some people naturally have musical talent kind of built in, and it often seems to be at least familial (saying genetic without more understanding of the literature is a bit pretentious) and it feels that for them it is very much 'in their blood'. Furthermore there are many examples all over the world of famous musical dynasties stretching back many generations - of which the Griots are one example. It's a thing.

It's difficult to disentangle things - family environment is obviously important too. Those who have musicians in their family are better placed to understand how to practice an instrument, and how to build a career; which is an important aspect of the expression of the musical phenotype, let's put it that way. Thos who play other instruments obviously do better than those who don't (although they may also lack time to practice.)

Although I'm not from a musical family, my parents are huge fans of music, and I learned about all sorts of music as a kid - everything from soul, to rock, to German Romantic composers. So I attribute that as being important, but I definitely feel at a deficit in terms of raw talent as a musician. But then the traits needed for a musician are multi dimensional. For example, I do feel I have raw ability as a player - technique comes easily to me, for instance, even if I would say I'm alarmingly musically stupid at times. I've had to work on the latter. I would also say I've generally lacked the 'habitus' and 'capital' that help people get ahead with their careers and so on. I'm kind of glad I didn't go to music school because I think I would have found that very difficult even if I'd had the chops at that age.

As for my kids; my youngest seems more naturally interested in music than my eldest, and has very good pitch for a two year old. My eldest is more a performer. We'll see how it goes. Their mother is at least an excellent musician.

As far as being a teacher goes - to be quite honest, if you can get kids to practice, that's the main thing. I worry that my obviously talented students hit a wall at some point - there's always a difficulty spike, for any one - and then give up because it's no longer fun. So you still have to teach, manage and smooth out those difficulty spikes. The most important resource is always the student's interest and enthusiasm.

In terms of jazz v classical music; I've always found the latter more interested in immutable characteristics - more classical musicians seem to have pitch, for example. If you haven't started at an early age and have it all in place by music school, they aren't interested. OTOH jazzers can be like this sometimes, but I find them more culturally interested in a musician's unique qualities beyond their ability to play the Repetoire in the approved way to the highest possible level, and celebrate the growth mindset a bit more. I've also met a lot of thick classical musicians, but jazzers are usually intelligent even where they are not always 'book smart.'

Music is the expression of individuals; even if it's a choir or a band, music is the product of each one of them, not some vague umbrella term called "culture".

Most of the terms in the arts are vague. You kind of have to suck it up to talk about anything outside a lab tbh. Welcome to my world of pain haha...

I disagree with the position that 'music is primarily (let alone solely) an expression of the individual' if that's what you mean - even within Western Music. I've done a lot of different types of music making - opera, choral stuff, tiny bit of theatre and orchestral work, jazz, session work etc. There are many times when you have to subdue your individuality for the requirements of the group. That's just a fact. (I'm quite bad at this being something of an idealist.) There are many musicians whose skills are based around ensemble playing or singing and who are constantly working because of this. Think of the noble art of rhythm guitar, for example.

The history of jazz is often written from the perspective of individuals, but it's clear that this misses so much of the story. They were all hanging out. Jim Hall used to live in the same apartment block as Miles, etc; in the 50s and 60s all the guys from Detroit lived on one block, all the Philly guys in another, with jazz clubs at the end of the street. These things - community, city layout - make a huge difference.

If I had to sum it up - I would say one thing I've always enjoyed about jazz is the facilitation of the individual voices within the community. Ask any real jazz musician and they'll tell you the importance of the community as well as the individual voice. Why do you think serious jazzers try to spend some time in New York? Everyone's there....

I enjoy that compared the the top down authoritarian structures of classical music where you are told what to do in no uncertain terms; at most the soloist or conductor may get to be an individual within extremely tight parameters. It's a pretty stark contrast.

Miles called jazz 'social music' in any case. I always liked that.

[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.

I'd argue that being "born to be a musical person" involves absorbing music from your cultural environment and use it as an inspiration.

What is asocial music? I mean before the internet?

Glenn Gould?

[CliffR]

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

Not the best of references: it's an advertorial for a DNA tracing site. Looks like it also rips off the academic article Litterick posted.

Sara Cassidyi Phd: "You don't need to be a member of the Jackson Five or the von Trapp Family Singers to recognize that musical ability tends to run in families. This could suggest that musicality is inherited, but it could also suggest that early exposure to music (as would happen in a musical family) drives increased aptitude."

Esther: "Families have been making music together since long before the von Trapps and the Jackson 5. It’s not uncommon for an accomplished musician to have one or more family members who are also talented with music — and this is no coincidence."

The metric of musical talent in the genetic study seems to be possession of perfect pitch, yet there are many great musicians without it.

[pauln]

Let's please understand that the infatuation with "perfect pitch" needs to be eliminated from music and studies about musicians.

Definition
A few minutes of reflection should be sufficient to realize the very definition of "perfect pitch" is problematic to the point of nonsense. Next time you think about perfect pitch, please ask yourself if one has perfect pitch, what is their concert pitch reference standard frequency (since A@440Hz was only standardized about 90 years ago)? Also ask yourself what temperament is their perfect pitch (since equal temperament is a recent one)? In other words, did people hundreds of years ago have the same perfect pitch (same concert reference, same temperament)? There have been over twenty-five temperaments, about a half dozen popular ones, and the concert pitch reference has varied over more than a half octave. Think about it...

Measurement
You might also imagine the problems with an experimental measurement. If the test were to identify the note name of the pitch, the current popular equal temperament gives each note almost 100 cents of "correct name width" around the note's pitch within which you could be almost 50 cents high or low and still be marked for naming the right note. Think about that...

[Francesco M]

To be honest, discovering & creating new sounds is one of the best way to enjoy music.

Still a passion to interprete some timeless sounds to enjoy my day too.

[StuartF]

Here’s an example: Miles’s “So What” on the one hand, vs Ronny Jordan’s “So What!” on the other.

Jordan and other Acid Jazz types were considered “original” in the early 90’s. Looked at with the benefit of 30 years’ hindsight, he looks derivative. He took a classic slow swing, played it really fast, and added a standard rock drum sequence. I’m no expert, but the question was “what do YOU think?” I don’t even find the Jordan version interesting.

Miles, OTOH, was original at the time, and never derivative.

And, of course, deriding someone as derivative isn’t exactly original!

[Vihar]

Here’s an example: Miles’s “So What” on the one hand, vs Ronny Jordan’s “So What!” on the other.

Jordan and other Acid Jazz types were considered “original” in the early 90’s. Looked at with the benefit of 30 years’ hindsight, he looks derivative. He took a classic slow swing, played it really fast, and added a standard rock drum sequence. I’m no expert, but the question was “what do YOU think?” I don’t even find the Jordan version interesting.

Miles, OTOH, was original at the time, and never derivative.

And, of course, deriding someone as derivative isn’t exactly original!

I remember that one.

Another hyped up act that didn't last.

Here's another single from that album, it's his composition:

Other than way too much machine hi-hats and ride at once, I don't mind it. I mean, it's smooth jazz, but so what. He's got the George Benson tone down, too. RIP Ronny Jordan.

[Christian Miller]

Haven’t listened to that for a while. He had a great tone…. Enjoying the peak 90s ness of the drum loop, that was on everything back then. The trap hihat of its day haha

[WesParker]

Originality and tradition is a sides of one coin. There is no originality without tradition. And the question sounds like: - do you prefer music or silence, Summer or Winter?

We all grew up from the tradition and originality shines on the silver plate of tradition.

Personally, I found myself in the digging originality , because I keep falling asleep in the Heroes museum. I like the new, new ideas, sounds, motives, stories and... mistakes, which give opportunity to move.

[StuartF]

[O]riginality shines on the silver plate of tradition.

Nicely said.

[fep]

Covers (like the great American songbook) are fine if they're part of your set. But I don't like the tradition of jazz musicians mostly playing covers. I go to see musicians/groups that play original music.

[RLetson]

Devising actual, fully original compositions is a gift and a skill that is less widely distributed than the ability to make existing repertory (the classical-music term for "covers") interesting. And while playing a satisfying solo or variation is indeed a kind of composing, it's not quite the same thing as writing, say, "Stella by Starlight" or "All Blues." Then there's the matter of the contrafact, which depends on an existing armature. The relationship between "the same" and "only different" is at the heart of any art that arises from a tradition or a set of conventions.

Monk wrote a lot of compelling new tunes--and also took a lot of standards and turned them inside out and made me listen to them in new, only-different ways.

[JazzPadd]

Perhaps, as others have suggested, the two can be intertwined. In some music cultures, I’m thinking African, West and South Asian musics, originality is within a tradition. Being original is more about tweaking the tradition in new ways, as opposed to abandoning or replacing it.

That’s how I see playing standards. As an amateur musician who plays for fun, mostly in jam sessions, I find it a joy to play traditional tunes that everyone knows, creating new pathways through them while at the same time watching the next generation keep the tradition alive.

I had a professor in college who taught music history, and he suggested that there is a self-destructive tendency in Western European based musics to innovate in the name of being creative but to the point of undermining the tradition, eventually reaching a dead end.

Not sure if I fully agree with his viewpoint, but it is notable from my rather limited point of view on the topic that there is sometimes an air of iconoclasm toward tradition associated with being creative. Attempting creativity can also be wrapped up with a market impact.

Perhaps it’s one of those questions that is not meant to be answered definitively with finality. In some sense, that would mean the end of what has so far been an ongoing and a rather interesting conversation. From where I’m sitting, I’d like to see the question remain.

[Christian Miller]

Perhaps, as others have suggested, the two can be intertwined. In some music cultures, I’m thinking African, West and South Asian musics, originality is within a tradition. Being original is more about tweaking the tradition in new ways, as opposed to abandoning or replacing it.

That’s how I see playing standards. As an amateur musician who plays for fun, mostly in jam sessions, I find it a joy to play traditional tunes that everyone knows, creating new pathways through them while at the same time watching the next generation keep the tradition alive.

I had a professor in college who taught music history, and he suggested that there is a self-destructive tendency in Western European based musics to innovate in the name of being creative but to the point of undermining the tradition, eventually reaching a dead end.

Not sure if I fully agree with his viewpoint, but it is notable from my rather limited point of view on the topic that there is sometimes an air of iconoclasm toward tradition associated with being creative. Attempting creativity can also be wrapped up with a market impact.

Perhaps it’s one of those questions that is not meant to be answered definitively with finality. In some sense, that would mean the end of what has so far been an ongoing and a rather interesting conversation. From where I’m sitting, I’d like to see the question remain.

Yeah, this idea of progressive musical development is something that’s more associated with the 19th-20th century. the ‘classical’ music from the 18th century and easier was commissioned by the church or the aristocracy to follow the fashions and norms of the time and serve a specific function. Masses were sung, minuets were danced, lengthy operas in Italian were talked through.

the musicians we tend to venerate from that era - Bach, Mozart and Beethoven tend to fit in with the later Romantic (and often German) narratives of music history. Bach for instance was considered out of synch with the fashion of the time, and something of an oddity despite his obvious artistry. Mozart attempted a clear break from the status quo as a freelancer (that didn’t go great.) Beethoven was off on his own revolutionary planet, a model that later romantics like Wagner self consciously emulated.

That sort of evolved into the modernist thing after the war, shedding its nationalist and spiritual overtones, and music became viewed by figures like Boulez as a sort of area of objective research like science - and this is a world view you do in fact see in jazz…

It’s interesting how many classic Blue Note recordings were passed over by contemporary critics in favour of now forgotten ‘advanced’ recordings.

On the other hand every generation was its Neo classicists seeking solace in the certainties and order of the past, those like Boulanger who longed for a return to the old social hierarchy or Hindemith who saw music as a sort of social fabric. Or your prof by the sound of it.

I find Stravinsky interesting- he was both!

So I don’t see innovation as self destructive. It’s much more complex than that. I think self conscious innovation often leads to contrivance, but there’s enough music out there which is both self consciously innovative and really good. As well as stylistically conservative music which is also really good. It’s almost like there’s no hard and fast rules….

But I do think there’s some truth to the dead end created by too much self conscious innovation; and sometimes the language of innovation actually cloaks a new type of uniformity and conservatism. Serialism springs to mind. I can only think your prof hailed from the era of high modernism and saw what an ideological bottleneck that music was (as much as I love Boulez). Jazz and pop/rock filled the social void. There’s always something waiting in the wings; organic culture always wins out.

[darkwaters]

[ruger9]

Both.

I agree the question is a false dichotomy. Can't have one without the other. Silly, really.

Carry on.

[whiskey02]

Even the most original music has been birthed by the natural progression from the seed of tradition. Without Dixieland, bebop could not have happened. Without emancipated slaves creating blues there's no RnR, Clapton, Stones. Everything is connected whether it's immediately obvious or not.
Personally, I like all the good stuff.