Orgins/Orginality Discussion

[phee]

OK so,

The other day I was picking up sushi and listening to Neubauten, and I got to thinking....

I was thinking about the different kinds of music and how there various levels of originallity work. We have been discussing and debating in the Polls forum about the "Bestest" forms bands within a genere, which in each and every case has started a debate about who is actually in the genre, and what the genre actually means... I have a theory, and it is a very painfully obvious theory about orgins and music in general... and well art in general basically I guess, but I am going to keep it to the scope of music for the time being.

Just so you know the examples that I am going to give STRICTLY MY OPINION... so please instead of "correcting" me or telling me how wrong I am... please state your own point of view because I/we would like to hear it!!! (I just want to avoid the "Is not, is too" portion of the discussion).

Anywho... my idea is that any given band/musical artest when it comes to originallity, falls into some basic catagories which can determine how they are recieved, how popular they get etc...

So here it goes:

1.) Something Totally New!!!

OK so we all know (or at least think we know) that it is virtually impossible to 100% create a new kind of music.... but some people have come very close. This is exceedingly rare, maybe only a few times a century. IE:

-The first human that started drumming on a log and keeping a beat.

-Pope Gregor, being the first person (that I know of) to wrtie music down...

-Robert Moog invented the programmable synthasizor.

-etc...

(there are many more examples that I would love to hear from you about)

2.) Something that uses previously existing tools and basic concepts and uses them in a fundamentally new way (A genre is born!!!) IE:

-Einstruzende Neubauten (powertools and punk)

-Kraftwerk

-Tangerine Dream

-Blues Music (I know a bit general)

-Black Sabbeth

-Merzbow

3.) An Artest that takes an existing genre and sets a new standard with new originallity, giving the genre a "rebirth" if you will (these bands are sometimes credited for creating the genre, but they are more like recreating it) IE:

-Skinny Puppy

-Tori Amos

-Steve Roach

-Bauhaus (kind of modified art rock and made Goth)

-Grand Master Flash

-Phillip Glass (Successfully combined electronics and classical)

-Vangelis

-ICP

4.) An Artest that may not be inserting too much originallity per say, but exists within the genres confines and is just simply so pleasing to the audiences of their genre that they continue on. (This is where most genre related music is that you would hear in subculture clubs, in your friends car etc...)

-Depeche Mode, Apoptygma Berzerk, VNV Nation.

-Metallica, Cradle of Filth, Slayer

-The Cure, New Order, Sisters of Mercy

(There are so many bands that fall into this catacory that it would be difficult to name more than a fraction)

5.) An artist that reuses an existing genres ideas to a new audiences (Phee's Bias kicks in here, please don't kill him). This is where MTV thrives, and Pop music exists. People who work in this industry don't have to be original, but either have to have corperate backing, or be awsome business person. This by no means indicates that there music is "bad", but people often give this artist credit for invention where there was none. (Phee's pet peeve).

-Greenday (Punk???)

-Eminem (Nothing new or bad about it persay... but he is white after all)

-Elvis (Using Blues and other "African American" music to make a living

-Marilyn Manson (He is one of the smartest people I have heard speak in the music industry, he seems to have a good message and strong presense, he is also almost indestinguishable from Alice Cooper in his demenor, nothing new here, but let's face it... people who are young are impressionable and may not have heard of "Shock Rock")

This is where arguments can happen.

6.) The "But is it art?" projects. People who are trying to do something different, but may not be quite there yet. These are people who may have a clever gimic or idea that will make them different, but they simply do not have a pleasing end product that will make them stand out (for very long anyway). These artists have a lot of potential perhaps, and may move onto great things, but often are shortlived and stay at a local level.

- Fem 2 Fem (Lesbian rave band with lots of nudety on stage! Cool eh? but only lasted one album... because as cool as it sounds, there wasn't much music involved, just the gimic.)

-This one deathmetal band I saw that had 3 drummers (neat idea...cool to look at, but there music wasn't very good, they just happened to have 3 drummers)

-Alienare (my own project, 'nuff said)

What can make a great band come out of something like this is not so much the gimic (Lets start an industrial band that only uses military equipment and kangeroo parts!!!!) But actually the genius to make it work (Einstruzende Neubauten wasn't good because they combined powertools and industrial machinery with conventional rock elements, they are amazing because they made the set up powerful and worth listening too!). It takes no genious to simply think of something new, but to think of something new that's good as well!!! that is the genious.

7.) People who combine genres and make hybrid genres. These people can easily fit into the previous catagories, especially if they are good enough to create there own genre.

-Snog (Country, Industrial, Lenord Cohen)

-Falcon Crest (Techno, Blue Grass)

-Nick Cave (Folk, Goth, Rock)

-Psychobilly music

- Juno Reactor

-Mr. Bungle

8.) Nothing New Here... Move on. Bands that are either cover bands (nothing wrong with that) Or bands that are so simular to existing acts, without adding anything new, they might as well be coverbands. Almost always local bands, and I won't bother to give examples.

Wow you read my intillectual, BS, opinionated, rant!!! Congradulatuions!!! I am seriously wanting some discussion about this, and I appreciate you for letting me help get my ideas into a form other than bouncing around my head.

-Phee

[Paper Hearts]

Howdy.

I'm not going to debate any of your classifications for bands but along those lines, I'd like to discuss the difference between influence and type because somewhere along way we've lost a bit of identity and become this big mushy post-punk stew. For example: why is goth rock always lumped into the same group as industrial or synth-pop? It's very confusing, because there are different styles of goth and different styles of industrial and they all relate to different influences and so the effect is that bands become incorrectly labeled goth bands (for whatever reason "goth" has become the blanket term). It's gotten to the point where any rock group who wears black is thought of as goth.

I had this discussion last week with you and you asserted that you had always gathered that the link between these styles of rock came from their common exploitation of sci-fi. I think this is a fairly perceptive idea-I can see where Bauhaus used Dracula (or another band might use Frankenstein) and groups like Kraftwerk might likewise reference 'A Brave New World' on an album cover, in order to make a social comment about man's place in nature (at the end of the 20th century), or alienation from nature (more correctly) and It was something I'd thought about before but had never voiced...but here is this very obvious connection.

Going beyond simply citing nihilism or existentialism to establish a manifesto for either genre, or a certain type of fashion, mentioning the use of objects of popular fantasy, as symbols, in either style of music, helps to make clearer why these styles have all been placed on the same mantle (and very frequently, lately, under the same category, goth) and that's an important note because sometimes the differences in musical movements (and especially in rock) go beyond the sound of the music, itself. -People confuse the Stranglers, for instance for punk, because their music sounds like punk rock, but if you explore the beginnings of goth, you find that there was a certain contingent of punk rockers known as "goth punks", and that the Stranglers were one of the bands who were labeled that. Investigating this band more thoroughly will show you why they fit into this sub-genre. The themes of their songs were quite different from the sort of "hooligans" response to Thatcherism that the music of the Sex Pistols was. With industrial and goth rock, the difference is much more audible, however, but the misunderstanding is just as real. -At the time when the Stranglers were a new band, all goth rock sounded like punk rock; within a few years although, goth had established it's own identity (musically) and from that point, a band had to do more than just have goth themes, they also had to write goth music. Depeche Mode is an example of a synth-pop band who had goth influences-despite them being swayed by goth rock, it's improper to call them a goth band because they appeared after goth rock had become it's own recognized form, and sounded very different. Depeche Mode's music followed (more appropriately) the traditions of the synth-pop movement.

Goth became fairly popular, it inspired many bands of many backgrounds to write songs-and it wasn't something someone always did consciously, either, it is just that goth had become very normal. composing goth-esque songs was just the way it was done for a while. Same thing for early goth groups who made punk sounding tunes. Can we really call every rock band post Siouxsie And The Banshees who wrote goth style lyrics a goth band? -Absolutely not. That's like calling every gore film after Texas Chainsaw Massacre a slasher flick.

It's vital to make these distinctions and it is insensitive to link bands of different genus' together on more superficial levels because it has to do with understanding one's own identity, beyond understanding the music.

A real sweet-natured ferret,

Paul

[Msterbeau]

A quick response... something that came to mind as I read the first couple paragraphs of Phee's post. I have a book (Somewhere in my archives) that is like a family tree for a bunch of bands. It's pretty enteresting to see how these bands often shared key people... and their influence. I'll try to dig it up.

[phee]

I think that the conection between gothic and industrial can be explained by a simaler dark core. They seem to both be commenting on a modern world with unhappiness. Goth uses antiquated imagry and feel as its metaphor, while Industrial uses futuristic images for it's metaphor... but I think that a lot of it comes from the same place within.

Punk relates to them in this way.... Metal slightly, but Metal seems to have more focus on flashiness (at least mainstream metal like Slipknot, Motely Crew, System of a Down) Death/Black/Doom metal has a much higher cross over rate to goth/industrial I find.

[Paper Hearts]

Transcending the subjects goth or industrail bands may use, they both reguritate already existing objects of popular and modern media and use them to characterize something new. They're expressing their predicament through familiar objects. Regardless of what the symbol itself is, or what it says, there are similarities in just that.

In an era where an artist can achieve instant global exposure, and anyone can name more companies than colors, it's perfectly sensible that music takes on this kind of medium. These two styles share more than comparable imagry-but it's still essential that we distinguish between them, as I'd stated, in my earlier post.

[phee]

I am not disagreeing (cuz I agree) but to clarify.... Essential for whom?

[Paper Hearts]

Well, it's "essential" to anyone with any amount of self respect, who doesn't want to be seen as dull-witted, because to know and not differentiate is just that. And to not notice at all is pretty bad, too.

[phee]

Well, it's "essential" to anyone with any amount of self respect, who doesn't want to be seen as dull-witted, because to know and not differentiate is just that. And to not notice at all is pretty bad, too.

Perhaps another way of saying it, would be: "It is essential to those who claim that they care/have knowledge about the genres"?

Because my Dad (for example) has a lot of self respect, does not appear to be dull-witted, but might not know the difference...

[Paper Hearts]

Well, it is a bit insulting to people, when they are incorrectly catergorized, yes.

But I'm sure that Dad doesn't really concern himself with "goth" too much, either. If someone does, on the other hand, it's important that they know the difference. No, no one is born knowing anyhting but the importance of learning rather than just stumbling along says a lot.

[phee]

Why do you hate my dad?

[Paper Hearts]

I know of his evil plot to over-throw Robert Smith and turn the Cure into an industrial band, that's why!!!

[phee]

Oh... OK

[Paper Hearts]

Just watch what I do to Skinny Puppy-

[phee]

I was also thinking,

What makes music "good" to a person?

[Paper Hearts]

It has to do with a couple things. What they've been mostly exposed to and what seems to speak for them. It's a learned behavior, but it's also an art form.

[Brenda Starrr]

I was also thinking,

What makes music "good" to a person?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I like it, it's good to me. I can't get into the politics of what makes music fall into whatever genre. I just like what I like and don't get into battle over it.

[phee]

If I like it, it's good to me. I can't get into the politics of what makes music fall into whatever genre. I just like what I like and don't get into battle over it.

That is not good enough Brenda... I am sorry but you will have to do better.