Maybe my words are not so clear.
There are two kinds of originality :
Related to past musical experiences ( Beethoven's Great Fugue ).
Not related to past musical experiences ( John Cage's 4`33 ).
Knowing "everything", the composer w o u l d be able to create something new based on past musical experiences.
To create something not related to past musical experiences obviously doesn't d e p e n d on musical experience, otherwise it would be a paradox.
It is easier to judge if a piece of music is truly original, by knowing all the music that has been composed. Fortunately, it's also possible to recognize truly original music without knowing all the music. ( Villa-Lobos, Wagner, Palestrina )
I also don't like taking creativity and inspiration in a Romantic sense.
For me, they only exist a posteriori, and are a direct product of what we live, not only what we hear. But, if you're using creativity in a term of extensive brain working, I would prefer the term technique.
You mentioned the composer who has "little knowledge and much creativity and ends up creating something that's already been used". Don't you think that, if he spent time with knowledge, the learning process would be faster?
You said also about well-stabilished rules in music.
Are you mentioning about the rules directly related to our hearing limitations? If not, I don't believe music has rules, but it has empiric paradigms.
I'm looking forward reading ideas from all of you.
Best regards,
Rafael Valle.
P.S.: Sorry If I was rude anywhere in my message.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by etLux
Bookmarks