It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Music: to create or to copy ?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Do you think that Music came to a DEAD END ? Do you think that the new era music can create something new (at least as best as their predecesors) or that thei can only copy and not INVENT (something like the classics) in all stiles of music? Why do you think that creativity almost dissapeared in these days?

Personally, I believe that in music, like in many domains, in these days very little is created, and very much is PLAGIARISM .

I wait for your opinions at this questions...




posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
There has been no true originality in music for quite some time now and I seriously doubt that there will be until a new instrument is created.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Have no fear!!!!!! I'm gonna be the savior to music once more!! yeah right

I experiment with new techniques on the guitar and sound combinations all the time. So the next time you turn on the radio, and hear some weird noises that you never heard before, but like, it's me.


Seriously though, I dont care for the way a lot of the new guitarists "use" their instruments....guitar is an artform, and Im a psycho.


just wait and see

[edit on 14-3-2005 by malmsteen]



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
You could argue that all fiction has been written because it only uses the same words and sentences as other books.

Music is alive and kicking. Just because you don't hear innovative stuff on the radio doesn't mean it's not out there. All music is gonna be derivative in some way because there are only so many notes and tunes, but the manner/style/medium in which it is presented can make all the difference.

I'm always discovering stuff that is 'different'. You just gotta dig for it.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Good question. I think that music has to evolve, taking in and borrowing elements of previous musical trends, and combining them with genuine innovation and creativity to make the 'next thing'. I don't think it would work any other way, for many reasons, but briefly sumised by the following: -

- Musicians who are making music are also listening to music, gew up listening to music, and are probably ardent fans of other musicians. It's innevitable that some of this becomes ingrained in their minds, and the influence shows to varying extents in their music.

- Music has to be aurally 'pallatable' to its audience. Something that is completely original and ground-breaking in every respect might herald an artistic breakthrough, but our appreciation and perception of music is - on a psycological level - partly due to recognisable patterns and sounds. Therefore something that is completely avant-garde will not garner an afinity or appreciation amongst many people.

- The experimental nature of musical creativity is one of trial and error; it advances in small parts. The bits that work are carried forward, and what doesn't work is cast asside, much like organic evolution. This is a natural process, and I don't think it's feasible for music as a whole to take a quantum leap forward. You can make small leaps when significant innovation is made (such as newly invented instruments etc), but I don't think a completely revolutionary advancement is likely, especially cwhen combined with the other factors like pallatability.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join