Should we try to be 'original'?

Subject: RE: Should we try to be 'original'?
From: melodeonboy
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 08:36 AM

Yes, McGrath, your last paragraph is spot on; too much jumping through hoops to satisfy the latest fad instead of just concentrating on the music.

I believe myself to be a half-decent singer and musician but a poor songwriter. Most of my material is therefore written by other people. My approach to singing and playing other people's material is basically to do what I think sounds best, irrespective of whether it is very close to or very far from the version(s) that I have heard others perform or record.

For me, the important thing is to focus on the song itself as much as, if not more than, any particular version, which is really just a starting point, and to think about what I can do with it.

I know this is just a matter of taste, but I do not enjoy listening to performers who slavishly "reproduce" someone else's version of a song note for note, nuance for nuance, grunt for grunt.

Subject: RE: Should we try to be 'original'?
From: GUEST,thurg
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 02:06 PM

A point which I don't think has been mentioned yet: in the traditions with which I am most familiar, "songwriters" did/do not seem to think of themselves as composers of melodies but rather as compsers of lyrics, which they set to pre-existing tunes. It is not unusual for the lyrics themselves to be closely modelled on those of other songs, to the point of the borrowing of entire lines, or, in the extreme, simple substitution of a few local names and details for those in the earlier songs. The assumption in such situations is that the audience is not particularly concerned with originality; the audience simply wants a song that "speaks" to them in some way, or merely entertains them. This kind of understanding seems to work fine as long as no one is making money from the songs.

Another matter that I'd like to address is the work of critics. Critics are not typical audience members - a typical audience member may not hear a great deal of the type of music you present, whereas a critic may be listening to this kind of music all the time. So if you are a fiddler, for instance, many members of your audience may demand you play Orange Blossom Special, and may be very disappointed if you do not put it on your CD; the critic, on the other hand, will be so sick of hearing OBS that he may well castigate you for recording such "tired" material, unless you give it some kind of extremely unusual ("original") treatment. You find yourself having to decide who you are aiming your music at - your "general audience" or the critcs and cognoscenti. Some musicians/singers/songwriters seem to have no trouble pleasing both, of course, but many must choose - consciously or unconsciously - to try to please one or the other. A perceptive critic will at least recognize who your music is aimed at, whether or not she approves.

Subject: RE: Should we try to be 'original'?
From: alanabit
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 02:31 PM

Interesting point Thurg. One critic, who reviewed my first album, described my songs as "hopelessly old fashioned". As I am not expecting to nab a lot of Justin Timberlake's or Coldplay's audience, this did not come over as a particularly hurtful or damaging. If you write within a tradition, you hardly expect your stuff to be more hip than whatever this year's thing is!

Subject: RE: Should we try to be 'original'?
From: GUEST,thurg
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 06:59 PM

"Hopelessly Old-Fashioned" - that might be a good name for your (or my!) next album ... Definitely a compliment!

Subject: RE: Should we try to be 'original'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 07:23 PM

Sounds like it'd make a great start for a song.

Sometimes critics and similar completely miss the point of what is going on. I'm reminded of a newspaper article about book reading circles a few months back. The writer went along to one and wrote it up - her main complaint being that on the day she went these people all wanted to talk about the same book (which is of course the thing that book clubs exist to do).

Subject: RE: Should we try to be 'original'?
From: GUEST,jim
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 04:24 PM

Woody said,"Being seen to be original is to be seen to write one's own song(s). Copying another's tune, not a trad tune, and copying the same writer's structure etc., show quite a cheek and arrogance."

I hope you're not discouraging covering other people's songs. Some of my favourite artists are "cover artists". People like Pete Seeger, Billie Holiday, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, John Hammond, Janis Joplin..., although they may have written some songs, are known for their interpretations of other people's songs. I'd      to be restricted to singing/playing only my own stuff. There are so many great songs/tunes out there. I also love it when somebody else does one of my tunes. It's very flattering.

I'm sure that Kris loved Janis's version of "Bobby McGee".

I like to listen to a tune a couple of times to get the general idea in my head, then play it. It often comes out much more individual that way. When I've listened too many times, I find it hard to develop my own version.