Defining Original Compositions

I partly agree with you…but mostly Disagree…

using Presets and Sample won’t decrease the creativity in compositions…If you go by your theory…Nobody can play Keyboard as almost all sounds on Keyboard are taken from Original instruments…

For Ex.. If you play saxophone on Keyboard then its not a Original melody as You should play Saxophone on Saxophone…

If we go to Preset and Loop taken from somewhere…I agree with you about Big part stolen…But disagre about not using Presets…this just saves time…and add more accuracy in music…

You see No machine can create Creations as beautiful as Man can do…So until we have to think of creating songs, writing lyrics….I am OK with using Presets and Loops…as I need not to put my head in that….its as simple as it is…

Man, Loop and Presets can not create Great creations in itself…You have to put something on top of it…and ‘that’ is your creation…

And that something is what I’m (and probably most of us, may be djs are exceptions..) all after. And when it comes to such “hardcore” instruments, well you either need to be a maestro or have a master with you in order not to use the presets. So I agree on that part. What inspired me to put forward was especially the two case.. 1) deadmau5, an artist based in canada/US has developed a musical loop, fantastic enough to be stolen and reused.. and it so was. If you have seen musafir, there’s a music playing in the club in somewhat middle part. Totally copy pasted. 2) There was another music in the fruityloops software earlier, titled RainDrops by Toby Emerson, which was used in a desi pop album, and got good response as well.

Both the tracks were actually part of the software and were usable in such manner. My point is, to what extent such use can be termed fair? Isn’t it close to cheating? May be there’s a line that segregates both, but its thin enough to crossed as per convenience.

Subjective views. :)

I think looping and presets are acceptable as creativity, so long as they are in fact “created”. And to be able to call that person an “Artist”, the first priority is that it IS CREATED , two, we as critics should be able to interpret what the “artist” tried to convey through that in the first place.

Also, looping and presets are widely used in commercial music, which I believe is not in any way “ART”.

As for the examples you have stated, Ronak, I believe that thats not “creation”, and definitely not “original”.

Creative Commons Licences bring a lot of fairness into sharing creative works. I think attribution .. giving credits to the creator is key. Its like acknowledging wat has been “lifted” so ppl are able to judge ur part of the work. Any self-respecting musician would have put in enough creative work that can b acknowledged by ppl listening to it, provided you do it by fair means. As long as the original creator’s rights and interests are safeguarded, it is okay to use the same. And like creative commons puts it, by fairly sharing ur creative works, you are encouraging collaboration across the world, without hindering ur rights.

its like shoppin thru gift vouchers that a shop has authorised. its not shop-lifting. u can get fruits n a juice maker and sell fresh fruit juices. the amount of sugar and the discretion to select “fresh” fruits is ur contribution. lame example .. i know. :D

The creative effort involved in photography is a prime example. Its not that you painted the picture. But u had the vision to get the right frame.

That would not always imply that a good photographer makes a good “painter”. Similarly, it would not imply that a good DJ is a good composer. The reverse also applies, i guess.

No.. its perfect answer, Vikram. I totally agree and am a big fan of CC. So, level of creativity would be ultimate judging element. True.