that Madcon track..and a generally good question !

[EdRyan]

Just wondered what everyone else thinks about this track.

I'm split. It is solidly produced, but the original track that they've lifted from is just about identical.

The other thing about this song, is that the style reminds me a lot of Black Eyed Peas. I can't help think that this was a deliberate thing..

So on one hand, I like it. But on the other, It's a blatent copy and an attempt to sound like someone else.

So here is the Madcon track



and an edit of the original



and probably the closest Peas track. Has an almost identical drum track



It's an interesting one. I dare say that the BEP's were influenced by the same people, and are probably as guilty of lifting and changing someone else's idea. This isn't the only example, but it's the most recent, blatent and probably successful cover/sampler.

Is this what popular music is all about ? I was having a chat with some mates and they say that no music is honestly original, because you are influenced by others as you grow up. Therefore, you are bound to work to what you like, and that there are only a certain amount of notes you can use. But then I thought, if we all agreed to this idea...then what's the point of copyright and intellectual ownership, if something isn't completely unique?

Same with lyrics. Just how far can you go to protect your song. Or how much of it can you claim to be 'unique' in the first place?

It really has got me thinking, and I've realised how many songs I've heard lately that are remixed re-releases, covers, sample heavily or seem to resemble older tracks.. but they either get permission or get away with it..

Can we be really original, or are we always going to end up sounding like a new version of yesterday's news ?

[modz1]

Hey Ed
Covered this release back in early July..
remix-culture-frankie-vali ...
But, nonetheless, I'd encourage other members to respond to your last few paragraphs as there is a valid debate there for sure...

Oh, and PS, Check This Out for an easy way to 'embed' YouTube videos into your posts if you'd prefer to..?

[EdRyan]

Ah, that was what I was trying to do. I've edited the post so that all 3 show up for easy viewing/listening.

It's actually quite a touchy subject with musicians and producers. I did a piece of coursework awhile back on the pitfalls of sample and to a lesser extent, preset based music production. So it's not the first time I've pondered this question, but this track has brought it back into my mind. I may go find my essay and post it for people to base a discussion around..

[sphelan]

Originally Posted by EdRyan

Can we be really original, or are we always going to end up sounding like a new version of yesterday's news ?

Originality? What's that?

The Cambridge Dictionaries Online (Cambridge Dictionaries Online - Cambridge University Press) defines it as "not the same as anything or anyone else and therefore special and interesting",

and the Oxford (AskOxford: Free online dictionary resources from Oxford University Press) as "1. the ability to think independently or creatively, or 2. the quality of being new or unusual."

What a can of worms you have opened EdRyan!

But I don't see what the problem is here. Modcon have done a version of the original song. It's not that they have ripped off parts of the song or used samples without permission. I presume everything is above board.

And doing a version of a song is as old as singing itself. There were/are composers and there were/are performers. A performer chooses a song, either theirs or someone elses, and they sing it. Oftentimes they make it their own by changing something but essentially it is the same song.

I remember reading something about composing a tune. It basically said that composing it with such few ingredients - key, 7 tones, dynamics etc - eventhough restrictive, is the easy part. The difficult part is finding out if someone else has already composed the same tune as you.

I think it is very difficult to produce something that has no reference to time - to the time it was composed in and to all that has come before it. We are products of culture. We produce from what we know. To break with that is difficult and possibly even risky. If what we produce strays too far from the "norm" then it can easily be rejected. Yet if it is too like what we know, it can also be rejected!

There is no easy answer. Creativity is being imaginative and I would say that this includes not only new ideas but new ways to use existing ideas. And therein lies the progression of music. Look at the development of popular music over the past hundred years even and what is being produced today doesn't sound like what was played in Tin Pan Alley, for example. There is a common set of musical components but how they are combined is different.

Isn't this originality?

[mrfracas]

Originally Posted by sphelan

Originality? What's that?

The Cambridge Dictionaries Online (Cambridge Dictionaries Online - Cambridge University Press) defines it as "not the same as anything or anyone else and therefore special and interesting",

and the Oxford (AskOxford: Free online dictionary resources from Oxford University Press) as "1. the ability to think independently or creatively, or 2. the quality of being new or unusual."

What a can of worms you have opened EdRyan!

But I don't see what the problem is here. Modcon have done a version of the original song. It's not that they have ripped off parts of the song or used samples without permission. I presume everything is above board.

And doing a version of a song is as old as singing itself. There were/are composers and there were/are performers. A performer chooses a song, either theirs or someone elses, and they sing it. Oftentimes they make it their own by changing something but essentially it is the same song.

I remember reading something about composing a tune. It basically said that composing it with such few ingredients - key, 7 tones, dynamics etc - eventhough restrictive, is the easy part. The difficult part is finding out if someone else has already composed the same tune as you.

I think it is very difficult to produce something that has no reference to time - to the time it was composed in and to all that has come before it. We are products of culture. We produce from what we know. To break with that is difficult and possibly even risky. If what we produce strays too far from the "norm" then it can easily be rejected. Yet if it is too like what we know, it can also be rejected!

There is no easy answer. Creativity is being imaginative and I would say that this includes not only new ideas but new ways to use existing ideas. And therein lies the progression of music. Look at the development of popular music over the past hundred years even and what is being produced today doesn't sound like what was played in Tin Pan Alley, for example. There is a common set of musical components but how they are combined is different.

Isn't this originality?

+1 Sphelan!

I believe that, in creative terms, 'originality' means something along the lines of, 'the ability to compose a work uniquely and inventively from a combination of imagination and influence'.

I can't see how we can create without innovators before us! We carry the torch of a great history of music and art, and pick and choose, at our discretion, the elements that we love the most. Often these influences are subliminal, and some artists may not notice them; but they are there. Not just in music, but in everything that is emotive in our lives.

We say, for example, there are only a certain number of notes in the tempered scale, and it is somewhat limited; and that even someone half way across the world could be working with the same melodic structure as you. But, what about taking in to account what made you feel like writing that melody? How about the feeling you get, or that you bring to other people when you play the track based on that melody. So what if it sounds like someone else's piece of music? Does it make you feel good? If it does, then I believe that's the job done!

I write music for myself; I am proud of my music, and I'm always anxiously excited when I know it's good. That may sound egotistical, but I don't care. There would be something wrong if I didn't like it; and the music wouldn't be all that I'm capable of.

I don't know if popular music is written with the same kind of soul; but it doesn't bother me one bit! If somebody wants to sample a huge chunk of a tune and give it a 'dancefloor' makeover, then that's their choice. Whether or not it's original is a debate I am unmoved by, because there are plenty of 'original' artists out there; and they are making some damn fine music!

[mrfracas]

Sorry... went a bit off track there.

[EdRyan]

Well this is the thing. You can't really be original these days..

I suppose the question can really boil down to how original do you think you need to be different, or actually... how different you need to be to be original ?

I have much kudos for people like Mark Ronson and his covers album. Whilst I don't think it's really original, he really did do a second take on everything and made it sound like how he wanted.

But covers aside, it's still a murky subject. I think if you manage to write something very similar or identical to someone else, you can get away with it. If you can prove it was an accident, and it is your own work. Clearly, if you have managed to create an identical sound, you have (in theory) at least the same skills. You then just have prove the differences between the two works.. The thing about copyright, is that it is only valid on works that enter the public domain. Otherwise, anyone could try to claim any idea as their own without proof... again people argue over this. But it's no good having an idea, if you don't put in the time, effort and money to realise them. It's like looking at the lottery numbers, then telling everyone after the draw that those were the numbers you were going to pick, if you'd bought a ticket..

The reason I ask this question is kinda strange. I'm not questioning those that are creative with what they do, rather questioning how uncreative we have become in general. More importantly, how ignorant (or actually receptive) people are to the copying going on constantly. It seems that people don't care how original a song is, but more about how good they think it is. This is where other things like PR,placement etc come into play. Probably the prime example of this is the Gene Kelly/Mint Royale "Singing In The Rain" track. Despite being used a lot by VW, it didn't do that well on release. Que a kid dancing to it on Saturday Night tv...and they got a numbe r1 out of it.

[modz1]

An eloquent debate Ed & mrfracas... How true that we are all inspired by what comes before us. And how true also that if a track 'moves' us, we feel it and appreciate it, then it's job is done..

I find so much music today is either plagiarized, sampled, copied or heavily influenced at least.. and then, very rarely, something comes along that is so totally awe inspiring, full of elements whether in production, 'sound', energy, musicality or performance, that it seems like a breath of fresh air. It may stand above other tracks for the loose term of originality (to your ears at that point), but place your bets that the catalyst for that track was based on something (a recording) that YOU weren't aware of.. or, the artists subconscious musical inspirations...?

I'd +1 Ed's final quote:

This is where other things like PR,placement etc come into play. Probably the prime example of this is the Gene Kelly/Mint Royale "Singing In The Rain" track. Despite being used a lot by VW, it didn't do that well on release. Que a kid dancing to it on Saturday Night tv...and they got a numbe r1 out of it.

Which really makes the point, hitting home a message that the mass UK record (or should i now just say, music) buying public are inherently lazy, in that they make little effort to seek out and discover new (or even recent) music, but instead have a particular track thrust into the limelight that instantly creates a water cooler moment.. then, they'll invest

Back on the subject of 'originality Vs.non-originality'..I would offer up that ultimately, it's all really a matter more of an individual's unique perspective than a general analysis of trends...

[mrfracas]

My point is, there literally is no such thing as originality in music. There are 'revolutions' in music; but it must be damn near impossible to be able to totally invent something that has never, ever been done before.

Generally consumer's are ignorant because they hear things they like; it doesn't matter if it's been copied from elsewhere; regardless of how much of a 'classic' the original might be. Another way of putting it (and this could cause something of a debate), is the general consumer is 'dictated' what they should and shouldn't like. They rely on key elements within their everyday lives (TV, the charts, etc.)... it's a quick fix before the next 'trick' gets over-used and then disposed of.

The sad fact is, that in a lot of cases, those who wish to capitalise often dictate what reaches the masses; and that's why you've got to really search hard to find something that's as original as you can get it.

Originality will never be popular, because it'd be so alien. It's like the difference between Western and Eastern music a long time ago; it wasn't until 20th Century composers wanted to experiment with foreign instruments, that we were introduced to other scales and sounds. At first, Westerners were baffled and made uneasy by Eastern instruments and their scales; but gradually, they've managed to work their way into Western music; and now, it is recognised throughout the diversity of modern music, and has influenced a great deal of the genres we know today; not just the avant garde.

What do you think contributes to being totally original? Is there anything you would class as completely original? I'm not just talking in contemporary music, but throughout the history of recorded music.

[modz1]

Originally Posted by mrfracas

The sad fact is, that in a lot of cases, those who wish to capitalise often dictate what reaches the masses; and that's why you've got to really search hard to find something that's as original as you can get it.

... and +1 on that too...

[modz1]

I'd add that originality usually comes with a moment in time.. a coming together of 2 or more creative forces, unified under certain circumstances..with influences of the mind, temperament, politics or passion.. That is when great artists are born and then recognised, true deserved carriers of the words 'musical icon(s)' -think Jim Morrison (WITH the Doors), Ian Curtis (WITH Joy Division), Morrisey (WITH The Smiths) - yes I know there's hundreds more examples, but it's when these 'moments' happen, generations are passionately influenced!

[sphelan]

Originally Posted by mrfracas

The sad fact is, that in a lot of cases, those who wish to capitalise often dictate what reaches the masses; and that's why you've got to really search hard to find something that's as original as you can get it.

So at the end of the day, it all comes down to money, doesn't it? The consumer gets what is available. What is available is what is put on the shelves when you go into a record store or turn on the radio. If all that is stocked is Top 40 stuff then it can be hard to find something different. So yes, I believe the majority of the public are accepting being told what they should like and buy or download.

I remember, when I did a masters in Ethnomusicology in the mid-90s, that I was blown away by the styles of music around the world. I am talking about ethnic musics.

Ok, so you say that world music is well represented in the area of CDs etc. But what is available in the world music section is a selection of material taken from musics around the world. And not only that but it is music that has been repackaged to fit with what the public will accept. So you can go and buy a CD of digeridoo for example, but would you buy a CD of aborigines sitting around a campfire, high as kites, and chanting what to Western ears might sound like total gibberish? I personally prefer the real thing not that which will sell CDs.

Where am I going with this? Well along comes the likes of Peter Gabriel, David Byrne and Sting (to name but three) with the idea of incorporating "world music" elements into their music. Original? Representative of the culture? I don't think so. But it sells because it is packaged in a way that will be digestable by the general public. Think of the huge hit by "ye ke ye ke" by Mory Kante.

Original? Or acceptable?

If I want my music to reach the masses, can I risk being totally different to everything else, or do I have to conform to the unwritten rules of what the record companies will allow me record and what the public will consume? I think I can be original to a point. It depends on what I want to do with my music. If it is for me, as Matt has said, then I can be as wacky as I like. But if I want to fill Wembley and sell a platinum record, then I have to play by those rules.

Can I think of anything completely original? What about Schoenberg and the twelve-tone series? Arnold Schoenberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many people prefer Mozart or Beethoven to Schoenberg? I would say quite a lot!

[sphelan]

Originally Posted by modz1

I'd add that originality usually comes with a moment in time.. a coming together of 2 or more creative forces, unified under certain circumstances..with influences of the mind, temperament, politics or passion.. That is when great artists are born and then recognised, true deserved carriers of the words 'musical icon(s)' -think Jim Morrison (WITH the Doors), Ian Curtis (WITH Joy Division), Morrisey (WITH The Smiths) - yes I know there's hundreds more examples, but it's when these 'moments' happen, generations are passionately influenced!

I'd agree with that. I think Radiohead were original for awhile! Listening to In Rainbows though, I am not so sure any more!

[mrfracas]

On looking back over this fantastic thread, I believe that the further back in time you look, the less likely it is that composers are influenced by other music. But they were still influenced by something; and I'd say, it was more like passion and emotion, and personal events.

You just have to listen to pieces like Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto no. 2: Second Movement (Ashkenazy and London Symphony Orchestra, c. 1970, is what I believe to be the definitive version), and Beethoven's 7th Symphony to realise that these are passionate and heartwrenched personal moments in time.

Today, however, there is so much music around us, that it's difficult to exist as a composer without subjugating yourself to a particular class of music, or without hearing something that's going to subconciously influence you positively or negatively. And you'll find that a lot of 'popular music' composers tend to pick up on trends in modern music, because they know it's already made people listen to, and like another track. If they didn't have instant communication with the rest of the world, they'd probably start being influenced a little closer to home.

[sphelan]

Originally Posted by mrfracas

And you'll find that a lot of 'popular music' composers tend to pick up on trends in modern music, because they know it's already made people listen to, and like another track. If they didn't have instant communication with the rest of the world, they'd probably start being influenced a little closer to home.

I agree. Music is a cultural asset. It unites (and divides) people. It differentiates between cultures and subcultures. It makes flamenco culture different to rave culture and hence flamenco is different to rave...the chicken and the egg!!

We are all part of a culture and we can change and move to a different one or simply dip in and out of others. The music in a particular culture is identifiable by its characteristics and its rules - scales, intervals, instruments etc etc. Something that doesn't fit that scheme is seen as different and even threatening at times - for example external or "foreign" musical elements incorporated into Irish Traditional music. Similarly a dance floor track has to fit the format. The composer can be influenced by many things but the ultimate product, while reflecting this, has to sit well with the audience.

I know that I don't consciously sit down and "make" a track that sounds like someone else...although I am sure there are people sending songs to the likes of Kylie Minogue that are exactly in the style of her biggest hits! I agree that influences are subconscioius. And like it has been said, why would I make music I don't like to listen to? And what I like to listen to is influenced by what I do listen to. Does that make sense?