Half-penny Thoughts — 18aug26

At risk of sounding like I am a broken record myself, I am still pondering the idea of what makes a form of artistic expression (music, writing, etc.) “unique” as opposed to “derivative”.

I make it no secret that I employ AI for exploring ideas, philosophy and personal education (i.e., “How do I construct a coldwave synth pad on my Hydrasynth? What wave types on my three oscillators, envelope and LFO settings would help me get that sweeping ‘icy’ sound?” or “Explain to me the Sámi cosmologic worldview as currently understood and correcting for Christian bias in the written records. Point out the suspect areas and provide scholarly references for further review. Do not rely on information gathered from unsupported or unreferenced statements.”

Things like that. AI is really good at collecting information quickly and doing a darned fine job of filtering it when you give the right instructions. Plus, no ads.

Anyway, Claude really likes to humble me (I’ve trained it to not spare my feelings during more serious discussions and explorations). I, of course, did not hesitate to ask my queries to explore what the current theories were on the matter.

From a discussion with Claude. Emphasis is mine:

Which is why […] aiming at novelty is self-defeating. “What hasn’t been done” is a question about other people’s map; navigating by it guarantees you stay on it. The people who made the disruptive things were mostly trying to make a specific thing they couldn’t stop thinking about, with insufficient means, and the newness was a byproduct of the mismatch. Obsession plus constraint plus not knowing what you’re not allowed to do.

I think that the italicized portion gets at the guts of the matter. Disruption comes from trying to do something that isn’t necessarily different, but is approached differently due to some kind of constraint. Lack of proper or available tools, lack of education, lack of skill…

I always said that what made punk and post-punk music what it was is that some kids wanted to make music, often with crappy instruments and no idea what was allowed or disallowed, and just banged stuff out until it sounded the way they thought it should sound (regardless of what the rest of the world thought). Skills and good instruments followed, but nearly every band from that era started with nearly zero and decided to get a band together because, well if those guys can get away with it, why not us?

Just some more grist for the mill.

Beat me up.


17 responses to “Half-penny Thoughts — 18aug26”

  1. Chico’s Mom Avatar

    Why would an obsession have a constraint? The whole point of an obsession is ignoring those constraints. Obtaining that thing or person you’re obsessed about?

    1. michael raven Avatar

      Obsessing about making a kind of music, for instance, (let’s say synthwave) but not having the expensive equipment (that $5000 synth with an easy mode and having to settle for a $90 desktop model) or knowledge (what notes am I making on this keyboard, and how do they relate to music theory?). People who innovate tend to be missing one or many elements and they find work-arounds. They couldn’t stop thinking about making a certain sound, so they improvised and “did it wrong”.

      I think the same can be said about writing and other arts. “I can’t get what I want with what I have, so I’ll kind of make it up until it looks/sounds/reads good enough for what my vision is.”

      1. Chico’s Mom Avatar

        Okay, I follow that. We have all been there.

          1. Chico’s Mom Avatar

            A mild obsession.

          2. michael raven Avatar

            I am prone to such things.

  2. chrisnelson61 Avatar

    Yes, and, regarding Punk, once skills were learned I think lots of bands then fell into the trap of structuring work into what they thought was new when it actually followed the patterns brought on by what they had learned (clumsy sentence, but you get my drift).
    Same with other forms of art and, yes, I would broadly agree – if one sets out to create something new the traps are all too easy to fall into, whilst if one is only pursuing an idea/obsession…
    Oh, and I’d love to read the answer to your ‘Sámi’ question 🤣

    1. michael raven Avatar

      I have the Sámi answer someplace. It was actually a very fascinating read, with lots of references that I could check that really confirmed a lot of what I suspected, but had yet to find evidence of online (there are far too many self-proclaimed experts who have most things wrong). Hmm. I could see how personal my chat was and share it as long as I didn’t delve into my personal stuff. Gimme a chance to review. I’m afraid that, like most of my stuff, it meanders incoherently (to someone not me) from subject to subject.

      I agree with you. Once someone saw success with punk (Pistols, Clash, Ramones, Stooges, etc.), it became more formalized except for those not trying to be the successes and just wanting to do it because — why not? And many of the original punk era bands refused to experiment, thereby becoming a parody of themselves.

      1. chrisnelson61 Avatar

        Ha, and I thought you might be exaggerating with that question! Indeed, everyone who has ever read a headline (or, indeed, a byline) is now an expert!

        1. michael raven Avatar

          It’s near impossible to get valid information about any of those kinds of things. Most of it is pure fantasy writing cloaked as fact. Nonsense oftentimes with just enough truth to be plausible.

          1. chrisnelson61 Avatar

            Ain’t that the truth.

  3. lyndhurstlaura Avatar

    Interesting take, Michael. The Blues–a favourite musical form for me–got going with people ‘playing’ all sorts of things to make music, as I understand. As I’m a little hazy on the subject – and the worse for wine at present – I googled it, and here’s what it told me:

    ‘Yes, people definitely played jugs and other strange, improvised instruments for the blues. Originating in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in Southern US cities like Memphis and Louisville, “jug bands” grew out of a DIY tradition where musicians used whatever household or farm items were available to make rhythm and bass.

    Common Improvised Instruments: The Jug: Typically a heavy stone or glass whiskey jug. Players did not just blow across the top like a whistle; they buzzed their lips an inch away from the opening to produce a deep, resonant bass note similar to a tuba or trombone. The Washboard: Scratched with thimbles or metal spoons to replicate the snappy rhythm of a snare drum. The Washtub Bass: Made from a metal tub, a piece of rope or a broomstick, and an inverted washbasin to create a low thumping string-bass sound. Novelty Noisemakers: Kazoos made from combs and tissue paper, animal bones, spoons, and jaw harps.’

    So the punk movement was by no means the first to use whatever ‘crappy instruments’ came to hand.

    Sorry. 🙂

    1. michael raven Avatar

      Never said it was the first. I used punk as an example of this principle.

      Folk music is all about innovation based upon uncontrolled restraint. That’s where it is interesting.

      Or did I miss the point you intended to make?

      1. lyndhurstlaura Avatar

        Not trying to make a point, apart from going with your own use of AI to filter out information. I guess all music started out with some guy in a cave making sounds by banging bones on rocks. And instruments, whoever came up with putting holes in wooden tubes, or strings across wooden boxes, and why? I guess it’s all down to someone having an idea that worked out. Not trying to make points, just tossing ideas around.

Leave a comment. Markdown permitted.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.